home

How's A Unity Ticket Sound Now?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:01:14 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg This!! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Since I was one of the first proponents of a Unity Ticket and I was hooted off the stage by both Obama and Clinton supporters for even suggesting it I have to ask; anyone change their mind and agree with me yet? February 8 post calling for a Unity Ticket:

By Big Tent Democrat

Before I believed Clinton would definitely choose Obama as her running mate because he can help her keep the excitement he has engendered, provide some of the Media Darling status he holds, emphasize the historic nature of the Democratic ticket and energize the Obama parts of the Democratic coalition. But I did not believe Obama need choose Clinton. I now believe that Obama will need Clinton as well. Most, including me, have completely misunderstood how Hillary Clinton has energized her part of the Democratic coalition, especially women.

. . . The Demographics.

. . . To me the big questions for Obama are (1) will women turn out in big numbers for him? Will he run up the score on McCain with women? I think the answer for Clinton is yes on both. By the same token, Clinton is likely to NOT do as well with men as Obama will. The same for African Americans. Similarly, I think Clinton will do better with Latinos against McCain than will Obama.

Obama has been a wine track candidate with overwhelming African American support, a potent electoral cocktail. But he has not done well with women, Latinos and working class whites. Clinton has done well with all 3.

To have the big "realigning" election that every Dem wants, we need both. Which means we need BOTH Clinton and Obama in November.

I do not care if they like each other or not - the Democratic Party needs both of them. Both need to be on the ticket. Let the voters decide in the next few months, but the decision for November seems clear to me now - Obama and Clinton, Clinton and Obama, we need both in November.

I think that my February 8 post holds up quite well.

< Um, You Think They Didn't Know? | Republican Attack Ads on Obama >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    How's A Unity Ticket Sound Now? | 243 comments (243 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Feels like... (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Thanin on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:06:33 PM EST
    thats one of the only things thats going to reunite the party at this point.  People have to remember that the real enemy is McCain, not democrats.

    BO does not want the VP slot (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Prabhata on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:06:45 PM EST
    He has made that clear, and mocked the idea.  It's a dead horse.

    Many VPs... (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Thanin on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:09:06 PM EST
    said 'no' at first.  That doesnt really mean anything.

    [ Parent ]
    If BO says yes to the VP (none / 0) (#65)
    by Prabhata on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:32:18 PM EST

    It will be like Gore and Lieberman.
    Nooooooooo!

    [ Parent ]
    I doubt it... (none / 0) (#78)
    by Thanin on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:39:31 PM EST
    since most dems learned the lessons of voting for a Nader from 2000.

    [ Parent ]
    Wha??? (none / 0) (#110)
    by coigue on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:00:00 PM EST
    How so?

    I don't see ANY resemblance between the pairs.

    [ Parent ]

    No Obama (none / 0) (#156)
    by gaf on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:34:56 PM EST
    I don't think Clinton may chose BO as her VP. I have a feeling Clinton knows about some major BO scandal which will be broken by the Republican party after the convention.

    If I had to guess, I would say it would be something related Rezko or some other Chicago scandal.

    Evelyn Pringle has a good series of articles on this, but I guess there is something more which hasn't broken yet.

    1. Barack Obama - The Wizard of Oz
    2. Barack Obama - Operation Board Games For Slumlords
    3. Barack Obama - Subplots of Operation Board Games - Part I

    She opines
    If Obama becomes the nominee, the Republicans will unleash a non-stop expose of Obama in the mainstream media that will make the swift boat attacks against John Kerry seem trivial. Only this time, they won't have to make lies because the truth will be on their side.


    [ Parent ]
    agree with Gaf (none / 0) (#182)
    by karen for Clinton on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:25:55 PM EST
    I've been reading Rezko Watch for months and the amount of "one degree of separation" pieces to the obama puzzle is vast and his connections are way too much baggage for a VP let alone Prez.

    He is lucky if he keeps his senate seat.

    Nobama.  Too risky.

    The republicans might have some swiftboating in mind for Clinton, but they have real dirt on O.

    Too soon to tell how this will go down but the wise bet is "something is bound to happen" - when there is smoke there is fire.

    He's got way too much smoke and his arrogance won't cover it up when it starts to blaze.


    [ Parent ]

    He made clear only that he was running for Prez (none / 0) (#236)
    by andrys on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:56:31 AM EST
    Obama was careful in his wording.  He made clear that he was running for President and that was it.

      That's normal.  

      But re the question from BTD, I think the unity ticket is no longer a good idea for reasons I gave in other notes here.

    - Andrys


    [ Parent ]

    I've been for it since the beginning... (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by reynwrap582 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:07:39 PM EST
    Assuming Clinton's on top.  I don't think it works any other way.

    I think most people against it are going to cite "They've been too mean to each other to join up now!"  Anyone who really believes that is either dishonest or is new to politics.  Most rational voters understand the nature of political races.  The fact is the race is half and half.  Either way, half of the voters in the Dem primary are going to be pissed off, because it is anything but a legitimate race.  There is no metric by which the will of the people can be accurately gauged.  A unity ticket is, honestly, the only way to pretty come close to guaranteeing a November election.

    Also, am I the only one who has noticed that all of the network and cable "delegate math" whizzes have been completely ignoring Puerto Rico?

    They have not been too mean to each other (none / 0) (#28)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:15:37 PM EST
    The supporters have been too mean. I don't think they have crossed the line of no return yet, as long as she is on top. In 8 years, she would be approaching McCain's age. And by then people would want change and hope again just when things had been fixed.

    [ Parent ]
    I agree that they could do it (5.00 / 5) (#38)
    by Kathy on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:19:56 PM EST
    politics making strange bedfellow and all, but I don't think it would help her.  Someone downthread said it best:  Clinton/Clark.

    [ Parent ]
    Stop playing with my dreams! (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by reynwrap582 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:24:34 PM EST
    I checked the Clark Community Network every day waiting for him to announce his candidacy...  I preordered his autobio and figured he might announce around the time it came out.  It came via UPS early one morning and I opened the box and looked at the front cover and saw the blurb from Bill Clinton...  Well, I let out a string of expletives because I knew at that point an endorsement would be coming down the pike.

    [ Parent ]
    Agreed... (none / 0) (#34)
    by reynwrap582 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:18:38 PM EST
    Amongst the campaigns, this has been an extremely tame campaign.  I think it would actually be rougher, but Hillary has the disadvantage of being slimed as a horrible wretched loudmouth b*itch every time she isn't baking cookies for Obama.  And Obama's a kitten who has never had to fight a rough campaign.

    [ Parent ]
    Still lousy! (5.00 / 8) (#6)
    by Molly Pitcher on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:08:38 PM EST
    1. Obama cannot be trusted to follow thru on Clinton's programs.

    2. Obama cannot be trusted.


    So funny since the Right thinks he is a commie (1.00 / 1) (#104)
    by lilybart on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:56:03 PM EST
    and you lefties for Hillary think he is too conservative.

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah, hilarious (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:00:03 PM EST
    It's like you don't realize that's been the paradigm for Hillary for YEARS.

    [ Parent ]
    8 years to learn (none / 0) (#15)
    by jmacWA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:12:21 PM EST
    You would hope that after 8 years of OJT, Obama would follow through on any "in flight" HRC initiatives, and see the benefit of continuing to govern in a similar manner.

    [ Parent ]
    Also... (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by Thanin on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:33:05 PM EST
    if half of our base sits out this election due to feelings of disenfranchisement, it wont matter who the VP is.  So while this kind of compromise may not be ideal, and there may still be some who'd refuse to vote, I think this could mend enough fences to allow a democrat in the white house this election.

    [ Parent ]
    None of them can be trusted (none / 0) (#120)
    by coigue on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:04:41 PM EST
    they are politicians.

    No matter who wins the WH, be prepared to hold their feet to the fire.

    Don't kid yourself.

    [ Parent ]

    No argument here (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Kensdad on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:09:28 PM EST
    both candidates would benefit from a unity ticket, but the only way it makes sense is if Hillary is at the top of the ticket.  obama needs more seasoning and there are just too many questions about him right now.  eight years as Hillary's V.P. would set him up nicely for eight years of his own.  there has never been any doubt that Hillary is the more qualified candidate, so if everyone would just relax, then maybe we could actually do something reasonable (a big request for democrats.)  i'm sure that the left wing nutjobs will have their madam butterfly moment when they realize that Obama isn't going to be president in jan '09, but better that he be v.p. than to see him go down in flames to mccain which would surely be the case if he were the nominee.

    I agree... (3.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Thanin on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:13:15 PM EST
    having Obama as VP for (hopefully) 8 years would be a nice lead into his own presidency.  Hes young enough to pull this off, where as Hillary isnt necessarily ancient, but isnt a spring chicken either.

    [ Parent ]
    BO should stay in the senate (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by Prabhata on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:39:15 PM EST
    to gain experience and humility.

    [ Parent ]
    I also concur (none / 0) (#151)
    by kimsaw on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:33:15 PM EST
    If Obama was a smart man he'd jump at the chance, but his problem is ego and a "know it all attitude". He could potentially govern for 16 years. Maybe it isn't about governing, unity, or public service perhaps this is about what Obama gets in return. It hard to know where his passion lies, substance isn't one of them. If it's the rhetoric, which I suspect, he's may be too lazy to be president. Words are easier then decision making and finite points of detail.

    [ Parent ]
    We have been talking demographics (none / 0) (#161)
    by Leisa on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:42:00 PM EST
    for primary wins.  There is a decisive divide with voters.  I think that this ticket should bring them together.  But, I think  that Obama has to concede and be VP. Will he do that?  If he becomes the nominee, will he ask Hill to be VP?  Either way, he looses face because of the virulent Clinton bashing...  

    I think that the best route, as a Democrat, in order to try to season Obama and ensure that we have a POTUS for a possible 16 years would be to have Obama as a VP.  

    I think that ticket could be strong by bringing the demographics together.  Obama needs to rally his troops and do this is he wants to save the image he wants to portray with voters as the uniter.

    [ Parent ]

    I also (none / 0) (#142)
    by ROK on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:26:58 PM EST
    am thinking that Hillary at the top might be better, but would Obama's core come out with such enthusiasm?

    A Unity Ticket is the only way the Dems win imo.

    [ Parent ]

    Count me out (5.00 / 10) (#9)
    by Regency on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:09:38 PM EST
    No thanks. BO is toxic to Hillary's already admittedly handicapped odds. His negatives + hers are just asking for a trouncing.

    Hillary and anybody sane, alive, and liberal.

    Exactly (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by Davidson on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:29:33 PM EST
    Obama as nominee would be slaughtered so much so it would affect the Democratic party as a whole.  When you have a blank canvas candidacy that is rooted not in substance but in personality (e.g., "judgment") and that candidate has the worst possible associations--Rezco, Chicago machine politics, Wright, Ayers--it just sets us up for a trouncing.  Obama, the unqualified neophyte that he is, will have nothing to stand on as he will be portrayed as corrupt, dismissive of the common man, anti-American, and a terrorist sympathizer!  Again, we're up against John McCain here.  John.  McCain.

    The man struggles with policy matters and legitimate criticism.  Clinton needs someone who the public can see as their president amidst the tremendous crises we face.  Obama is not it.  Why make it all but impossible for Clinton, who already has a steep uphill to climb against St. McCain, to win the presidency with Obama as VP?  What she needs is someone who can help her win a GE battleground state (e.g., OH, PA, FL, etc.).

    For those who are worried about the black vote: talk of a mass sit out if Obama is the nominee seems greatly exaggerated and all that needs to be done to nix any problem is for Obama to campaign on her behalf.  This works for the magical youth vote as well (which has been becoming increasingly smaller and smaller as the race drags on).

    [ Parent ]

    Edit (none / 0) (#67)
    by Davidson on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:32:47 PM EST
    For those who are worried about the black vote: talk of a mass sit out if Obama isn't the nominee seems greatly exaggerated and all that needs to be done to nix any problem is for Obama to campaign on her behalf.

    [ Parent ]
    Threats don't cut it. (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by felizarte on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:48:08 PM EST
    People usually vote for their self-interest.  People whose homes are under threat of foreclosure; people who have lost their jobs; can't sent their children to college; don't have health insurance; have sons and daughters in Iraq; will vote for the candidate whom they trust to get it done for them.  Most of the Obama supporters are not pouters like Obama.  The super delegates will vote for what is good for the party; whether it is for Obama or Clinton.

    [ Parent ]
    If people vote for their self-interest (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by coigue on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:06:22 PM EST
    explain to me Republican presidents.

    [ Parent ]
    I really only think it works with Clinton on top (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by davnee on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:12:43 PM EST
    Don't put the more qualified and seasoned person on the bottom.  That would be stupidly insulting.  Let Obama be the Vice-Cheerleader and roll for a few years on the training wheels.  Besides, I think preventing Clinton defections, given the demographics and the McCain appeal, is a more serious matter than Obama defections.  I still think he's toxic in a GE in either slot, but he may be a necessary burden she has to bear to get the Dems into the White House.

    Correction (none / 0) (#31)
    by davnee on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:17:11 PM EST
    What I really should have said was to get the Dems out of Denver in one piece and into the White House.  The unity ticket is about making nice in Denver not really about the GE.  

    [ Parent ]
    Someone always has to lose (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Seth90212 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:25:57 PM EST
    the winner picks his/her own VP. Most of the loser's supporters will get over it. The fringe will not, but they never do. Their small numbers won't impact the outcome.

    [ Parent ]
    And the Ticket Needs To Be about the GE (none / 0) (#58)
    by BDB on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:28:51 PM EST
    Whoever isn't the nominee has to suck it up and bring as many of their supporters around as they can.

    Whoever is the nominee has to admit that they still have to woo some parts of the democratic base and not act like it isn't their problem that some parts of the base might be unhappy with them - it is their problem, whether they caused it or not.

    [ Parent ]

    Less Interested by the Day (5.00 / 10) (#20)
    by BDB on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:13:22 PM EST
    Not because Obama's smeared the Clintons as racists or they can't get along or whatever, I don't care about that.  And I used to think it wasn't a bad idea for party unity.  But now, I'm coming to the conclusion that what sounds like an easy remedy is really a disaster in waiting.

    I've been less and less impressed with Obama as this campaign has worn on and I'm no longer convinced that his baggage - because it is still fresh and he's still a blank slate - won't hurt the electability of the ticket more than help it.  Put it another way, Clinton still has plenty of ties to the African American community and I think can mend that relationship enough without Obama, at least if he campaigns for the ticket.  What she can't do is get crushed with the white male vote and with Obama on the ticket, that becomes a much more real possibility.   She needs a white guy like Wes Clark.

    So does he, btw.  Clinton wouldn't make his ticket stronger, she'd weaken it.  

    Better they both simply campaign for the other.

    I agree on campaigning (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by davnee on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:22:48 PM EST
    If Obama would commit to vigorously support her in the AA community she'll roll to the White House.  The latte drinkers will vote for her, and the youth will though they may not come out in quite the force.  But heck they never come out in quite the force hoped for.  Get the AA's on board and Clinton's problems are solved.  McCain offers AA's nothing.  He offers a lot to lunch bucket Dems.  That in a nutshell is why it has to be Clinton.  And frankly why Obama isn't needed on the ticket if he'll just agree to be a good cheerleader and try again next cycle.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama Won't Campaign Vigorously for Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by NOBAMA08 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:02:15 PM EST
    He's too selfish. He'll be resentful and will be happy to see Clinton lose to McCain so he and his followers can blame her. Clinton would vigorously campaign for him and beg her supporters to vote for him because she's solidly behind the Democratic Party whoever the nominee is.

    I also agree with the argument that Clinton as VP doesn't necessarily strengthen the ticket for Obama. They will still lose a lot of the white men to McCain and Reagan Democrats in general who won't accept Obama as president. I agree that both Clinton and Obama would be stronger in many ways with a white man as VP. But this would still piss off parts of their support - the women or the African Americans. I said this before but I would like Clinton to pick an African American other than Obama - someone who doesn't go to Rev. Wright's church would be a start. I like Harold Ford, Jr.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes he would... (5.00 / 1) (#240)
    by tsteels2 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:40:37 PM EST
    Obama would campaign for Senator Clinton daily.  Those superdelegates that endorse him will pull him aside and he'll play ball.  Watch and see...  (if Clinton gets the nomination).

    [ Parent ]
    Do you really think the (none / 0) (#168)
    by Leisa on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:53:45 PM EST
    white male voters would do this?  I know so many that would not vote for Hillary in the primary here in TX...   If my memory serves me correctly, this was an early demographic that helped him.  Am I amiss here in TX?

    I am not a pollster, but I thought that many of his wins early on (is not WY one example??) were from white men...

    [ Parent ]

    I would prefer Wes Clark though... (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by Leisa on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:55:23 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    She seems to be carrying or very close (none / 0) (#207)
    by RalphB on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:51:08 PM EST
    with white male voters now.  If memory serves, TX wasn't that different.  Most of my white male friends, the democrats at least, voted for her in TX.  Since the Wright issue broke, I would love to rerun the TX primary now.  

    [ Parent ]
    Political Expedience is an issue (5.00 / 6) (#22)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:14:04 PM EST
    What's best for the country?  Clinton/Clark '08.
    Yes!! (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by jen on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:23:12 PM EST
    THAT'S a winning ticket!

    [ Parent ]
    Definitely... (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by reynwrap582 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:28:20 PM EST
    And I think it's a balanced ticket as well.  I've seen a few people pushing an Obama/Clark ticket, but it would be completely out of balance.  Clark would be a giant next to Obama, but somehow next to Hillary, they both stand equal on their own legs, they're both rational, realistic, and completely wonkish.

    Clark/Obama '08 maybe!

    [ Parent ]

    Clark is not a good campaigner. (2.00 / 1) (#115)
    by lilybart on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:00:48 PM EST
    Maybe he got better, but he lacks energy.

    And he is my favorite military person in the world, after Romeo Delairre

    [ Parent ]

    He's gotten better... (none / 0) (#177)
    by reynwrap582 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:22:13 PM EST
    Not that he's been campaigning, but what I've seen out of him since 2004 is a lot more solid and I think he's become pretty aware of how to campaign,  He was a newbie back then and got into the game far too late.  When you look at when he got in and the challenges he faced just getting started (money/resources/staff/good advice), he actually did quite well.  If he'd gotten into it several months earlier and campaigned hard in Iowa, I think he would have had a much better chance at the nomination.  I guess we'll never know.  But against McCain he doesn't need to be a great campaigner (McCain isn't all that great either, imo), but he's one of few high-level dems that can meet McCain on military background and foreign policy, and trounces him on economics.

    [ Parent ]
    As much as I respect your analysis (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by angie on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:14:07 PM EST
    I'm still not sold -- I think the damage they both do to the other outweighs any advantages. Have you seen the ads running in NC? I'm sure there are just as bad ones about Clinton waiting in the wings.  The two of them together is just too much to fight off from the GOP at the same time especially against the media's real darling, McCain. Nope, the only choice is for the Dem party to suck it up and rally around the eventual nominee and that nominee needs to pick up a really strong and "baggage free" (or at least "less baggage" -- this is pols we're talking about) VP to fend off the GOP machine.  
    Additionally, and personally, Clinton as VP is actually insulting -- more experienced woman teaching her boss his job. She would have more power as a NY senator. She'd be stupid to give that up for anything but the top spot -- and love her or hate her, stupid she ain't.

    Hmm (none / 0) (#94)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:51:13 PM EST
    I really can't think of historical examples of attack ads being run against the VP candidate.

    [ Parent ]
    We have never had one before with (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by FlaDemFem on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:09:43 PM EST
    this kind of baggage. I mean, Rev. Wright, Rezko, his lack of record in the state senate, the claims of foreign policy experience based on childhood and teen travel, it goes on and on. And then there is the SF gaffe which will get major air play to prove he isn't for the working man. Obama has too much toxic baggage for the GOP to resist going after him. And they can do while being "nice" to Hillary and debating policy with her. No, Obama would be an albatross for Hillary as VP.

    [ Parent ]
    Quayle? (none / 0) (#134)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:15:08 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Maybe not (none / 0) (#135)
    by Nadai on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:15:49 PM EST
    but there's no reason it can't happen this time.  I suspect that if they ran as a team - either Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton - they'd be seen as almost co-candidates for President instead of the usual President/VP.  If so, that would raise the status of the nominal VP candidate high enough to make him/her worth attacking.

    [ Parent ]
    She will not (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by DaytonDem on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:15:18 PM EST
    and should not. With her experience and heft she should top the ticket. Besides she would be 70 when the pretend Obama, two term or one term and defeated,  presidency ends and her run starts. Not happening.

    You'll get over it if (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by pie on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:19:25 PM EST
    the ticket is Clinton/Obama.

    I don't hate Obama.  I don't know enough about him to have an formed opinion, except to say I don't know enough about him, which is telling when voting for a president.

    I don't hold the campaign crap against him.

    His supporters are another story.

    I'm afraid not. (none / 0) (#55)
    by felizarte on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:27:56 PM EST
    Hillary has so man y other qualified people to choose from.  

    [ Parent ]
    Agreed (none / 0) (#205)
    by vigkat on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:48:42 PM EST
    There is no good reason and no apparent advantage. I don't totally buy the idea that the only way to unity is through a double ticket.  I can imagine a number of ways in which it could make it worse.

    [ Parent ]
    No. (5.00 / 6) (#37)
    by jen on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:19:39 PM EST
    The dirt the Repubs have on Obama will bring down the whole ticket. Most definitely NO.
    I agreed with you at the time, but now I feel (5.00 / 4) (#41)
    by derridog on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:20:57 PM EST
    Clinton would be better off with someone else. If she wins, it will be because Barack loses - that is, some more of the shine will be off his act.  BTW, at the time you said the above, I wasn't so convinced it was an act, but now I am.

    I am now very strongly against Obama and I can't help but  feel that he's heading towards being tainted goods, if not now, then certainly before the GE and, please, not because Hillary is causing this, but because he is basically a fraud.  He sounds so utterly convincing when he speaks, but he sounded convincing in 2003 when he was FOR one-payer universal health care, just as he sounds convincing now when he's against it. He sounds really convincing when he is copying the exact words, timing, pauses and inflection of Deval Patrick or when he is stealing Hillary's policy positions or blaming her for all the negative campaigning. He sounds convincing when he is copying the southern religious cadence of Martin Luther King or when he is "signifying" to his black audience in  urban hip hop speak.

    So, bottom line,  he is a gifted mimic, but I no longer believe his "convincing" lines -especially the ones that require he actually know and believe in and have studied up on some issue of great importance in bringing actual progressive change to this country, which so sorely needs it after eight years of George Bush. He seems pretty  weak on that part.

    Because of this, I believe that the longer people see him, the more they will perceive his weaknesses.  In this, I'm totally with the Obama blogs, who want to shield him from this dreadful fate by making Clinton drop out of the race so she doesn't expose him further and destroy their carefully constructed cognitive dissonance.

    So, I say, Ed Rendell for Hillary's VP. For Barack's VP, it doesn't matter as I won't vote for him no matter who he picks.

    ditto for derridog as she said what I feel too (none / 0) (#74)
    by athyrio on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:36:49 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Hi Athyrio. (none / 0) (#86)
    by derridog on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:46:08 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    hiya derridog how does NC look today?? (none / 0) (#88)
    by athyrio on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:47:45 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I don't know. I live in a college town and we had (none / 0) (#129)
    by derridog on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:11:03 PM EST
    a poll at the Dem county convention, which Obama won 79-43.  It was really depressing. Obama has an office in town and students are out doing canvassing daily.  I read Clinton's letter to  the Convention and if I hadn't,  nobody else would have stood up and spoken for her.  There is no office, no staff anywhere for Clinton and we don't even have signs (although, to be fair, neither do the Obama people evidently, as I haven't seen them).  

    I think the Clinton campaign was so strapped for money that they have written us off up here in the mountains (little town, college kids, usually votes Republican in the GE).  Anyway, I called Raleigh to try to get signs and was told someone would call me back and no one did.

    If Clinton wants to do well here in the primary, she needs to put more effort into it.  There are people here who are for her and we have poor people who probably remember the 90s as a good time.  It's the Appalachians  and I know from past canvassing that people can be swayed if you  speak to them.  I can't do it. It's the last two weeks of school. But even if I could,  they are starting too late.  Voting has started already.

    In spite of that depressing analysis, however, maybe PA will have an effect.  And who knows what will happen if those Rethug ads run. I haven't seen them but we have satellite TV, as that's all we can get.

    [ Parent ]

    She will, don't worry. [nt] (none / 0) (#175)
    by ahazydelirium on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:13:21 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Yes, Obama's negatives are now too high (none / 0) (#231)
    by andrys on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:27:57 AM EST
    Combine them with Clinton's negatives and it's no longer a good match.  I've always thought neither one could win and that only a Clinton/Obama ticket would work, bringing in their combined support, which is two to three times that for McCain during the primaries.

      It's not Clinton who is hurting Obama, it's Obama who's doing it.  Time and Republican focus (and deceit he can't fight effectively) will show it just worsening.

      I don't know much about Evan Bayh, but his explanations for Hillary's "obliteration" remarks are better than her's.

    - Andrys


    [ Parent ]

    Unity ticket (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by stillife on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:24:06 PM EST
    seems like a pipe dream to me.  It reminds me of people who think that Gore is going to swoop in at the eleventh hour and agree to run.  There's not going to be a simple solution to the division in the Democratic party.

    BTD is an BO supporter and likes the idea (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Prabhata on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:46:38 PM EST
    HRC supporters hate the idea for the most part because we see BO sabotaging her campaign, like Lieberman did with Gore.

    [ Parent ]
    Considering the ads (5.00 / 5) (#53)
    by Kathy on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:27:11 PM EST
    the repubs are starting up, especially targeting down-ticket dems who have come out for Obama by linking them to Wright, I think there are going to be some super d's up for re-election come fall who are going to start worrying that "change" means their voters see pics of their faces intercut with Wright's speeches d*mning America--and their political futures.

    Looking at the ad on Taylor Marsh made my blood go cold.  Obama  would supplant McGovern as the biggest dem loser of all time.

    which ad (none / 0) (#92)
    by boredmpa on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:49:11 PM EST
    I saw her video with morning joe on taylormarsh and she knocked that one out...great energy and warmth.

    [ Parent ]
    This ad in NC now.. (none / 0) (#141)
    by FlaDemFem on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:26:33 PM EST
    And you know it will go national if he gets the nom. Here it the link.

    Imagine weeks of that, and more when the Rezko trial ends and the information on his relationship with Obama can be made public. Add in the domestic terrorists, Ayers and his wife, and the association through Rezko with an Iraqi billionaire.. it just goes on and on and on.

    [ Parent ]

    Enough Videos On Wright To Tailor (none / 0) (#153)
    by MO Blue on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:34:15 PM EST
    the ads based on demographics also. His comments regarding 9/11 and Jews vs Palestinians will be a big hit in NY.

    [ Parent ]
    Call me after (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by Manuel on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:32:03 PM EST
    all the primaries are done and FL and MI are resolved.  After that we'll have a clearer picture of what will be needed.  I must say that I trust Hillary more than Barack to do what's best for the party.

    Another point to consider is that Kerry/Edwards did not work as well as it should have in 04.

    I think it's our last, best, choice (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:33:32 PM EST
    Clinton and Obama will have to sell it to their respective cultists.

    Clinton/Obama (none / 0) (#112)
    by Burned on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:00:23 PM EST
    Put two Democratic centrists in the White House and fill the congress with as many liberals as possible to make the White House duo seem almost like moderate Republicans (to people who aren't watching too closely) and I think we can stay in for 16 years. Clinton stops the bleeding and gets us back on solid ground and Obama tops it off with the goodies.

    That's my remodeled dream.

     

    [ Parent ]

    They don't have to be (none / 0) (#187)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:32:58 PM EST
    on each other's ticket to sell it.  Hillary as VP gains nobody anything except her negatives.  If Obama is the nominee with another VP, she will work her butt off for him, as will Bill and her organization.  That would do just as much good in getting her supporters to go along as putting her on the ticket as VP, actually probably even more.  I would HATE to see her have to play 2nd fiddle to him, maybe even more than I hate to have her lose.

    On the other side, I don't trust Obama one bit, either as a VP or VP candidate or as someone who would genuinely support her as nominee off the ticket.  And I think Obama supporters would feel the same way I do about having their candidate be 2nd fiddle.

    I can't see how a "unity ticket" solves anything, and I really think it makes the problem worse in many respects.


    [ Parent ]

    What has he done to deserve it? (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by goldberry on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:34:50 PM EST
    What does he have to offer her?  He has deliberately pursued certain demographic groups at the expense of the others.  He's smart but has no area of expertise that she doesn't already possess.  There are significant differences in their political philosophies even if those differences are not as great as that between them and McCain.  

    In her administration, he'd be window dressing.  A pretty nothing with not much to do,'cos he hasn't shown he can do much.  And forget the concept of her working for him.  Women know that game all too well and we would rather she preserve her dignity and stay in the senate in that case.  

    Oh, sure, someone will probably try to force them together but the power brokers know that in this case, the whole would not be greater than the sum of the parts.  They might win but no one benefits from it.  It's not like he's an LBJ to JFK and knows how to twist arms in the Senate.  He's too junior.  And let's face it, she's not going to take orders from HIM.  

    It's just a really stupid idea.  About as stupid as having a relative neophyte run for president and backed by a bunch of party stalwarts who want to live out their presidential fantasies vicariously through him.  I still can't believe there is still a competition.  He will always be the token male they made her run with.

    He has a huge base of support (none / 0) (#83)
    by Democratic Cat on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:44:29 PM EST
    That's what he brings. It's not about his qualifications at that point, it's about getting his voters to vote for the Democratic ticket in November. His voters are his qualification, even if you think he brings nothing else.

    I was more in favor of a unity ticket two weeks ago than I am now. Sen. Obama's remarks in SF and his performance in the second half of the last debate disturbed me. I know he's smart, but his "analysis" of PA voters and his inability to articulate policy positions when speaking off the cuff left me wondering. To me, his thinking appears shallow in many areas. It's the same problem I have with the unity pony. It's a simplistic answer to a problem that he has misdiagnosed.

    All said, it's still more likely that he'll be the nominee than Sen. Clinton. I think she would take VP -- are you kidding? First woman in the VP spot? She'd do it. And she's very clever and explains things very well, so she could go around WORMing for Obama when he needed it. (And he will need it.)

    But, I'd rather have her as the nominee.

    [ Parent ]

    No VP for Clinton (5.00 / 5) (#113)
    by goldberry on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:00:38 PM EST
    If she took it, I'd have no respect for her.  And NO, it is not a suitable consolation prize for the more qualified candidate.  It is a repudiation of a=everything we everything we have believed about merit.  Women aren't that desperate.  Let him find someone deserving of a VP spot.  
    As for his voters, well, I've met some of them while canvassing in PA and their support for him is shallow.  It's like the aura wears off after time and distance and they start to come around.  They were softer than marshmallows at a campfire.  It was incredibly easy to flip them.  Obama's biggest danger is overexposure.  If voters see him over and over again and don't hear him evolve into more substantive issues, they will get tired of him.  He'll be like a new toy that only does one thing and then quickly gets boring.  But if he DOES start to evolve, then the danger is even greater.  He'll start taking on a definite shape and you'll begin to see what kind of Democrat he is.  And when that happens, his coalition will start to fall apart.  Yep, time is the enemy with Barack.  That's why his handlers want to rap this up and keep him away from the press and debates.  The more you know about him, the less you like.  As long as he was the new kid in town and was all shiny and new, he was a winner.  But does he wear well?  From my conversations with his prospective voters I think the answer is no.

    [ Parent ]
    I really disagree (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by Democratic Cat on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:25:42 PM EST
    First, I'm a huge fan of Clinton. I want her to win the nomination because I think she would be the kind of president we need right now. I think she's fabulous.

    But I really don't think VP is a consolation prize. It can be a very substantive position -- it was for Gore and for Cheney. (The country would be better off if Cheney had been just window dressing, but if wishes were fishes...) If Obama wins fair and square, then even if you and I and a whole lot of people on this blog and across America think she's more qualified, it doesn't matter. If he offers it to her, then she has to decide whether she can best contribute towards a win in November and good policy afterwards from the VP office or the Senate. I think she'll move on down Pennsylvania Avenue.

    I know a fair number of Obama supporters. I don't find them naive or malleable.

    [ Parent ]

    For HER it is unacceptable (none / 0) (#167)
    by goldberry on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:52:28 PM EST
    I don't know how I can clarify this for you.  It is not acceptable for the more knowledgeable, experienced, qualified, stronger candidate to play second fiddle to an empty suit especially when the person being asked to make the sacrifice is a woman.  Besides taking gender stereotypes to new heights, she would have much greater power as a senator from her own state.  
    And as for Obama supporters, I didn't say they were naive.  I'm saying their soft and persuadable.  They want substance or else they wouldn't have asked so many questions about Hillary.  Even the strongest supporters left a crack open for discourse.  His bloom is wearing off.  The sooner he wraps it up, the better it is for him.  I just don't think it's going to hold for much longer.  If you can't win PA after outpending your opponent 3:1, voters will start asking questions.  

    [ Parent ]
    Oh, you were clear (none / 0) (#181)
    by Democratic Cat on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:25:44 PM EST
    I just happen to think you are wrong.

    Lot's of more qualified people finish second to less qualified people.  It happens all the time. Would it be better if that didn't happen? Well, yes, but that's not the world we live in.

    If Obama gets the nomination, and if he offers the VP slot to her, then I think she is the one who gets to decide whether it is acceptable to her or not. I think she'll make the decision based on where she can best help the Dems win and where she would be most effective in moving forward her policy issues. If she thinks she can be an effective VP and will be given real responsibilities, I'd be shocked if she turned it down. Yes, the ticket would be upside down as far as you and I are concerned. But that doesn't mean that she couldn't do great things as VP.

    I agree that Obama has serious problems going forward after PA. We'll see if he can solve them.

    [ Parent ]

    If you think Obama would let (none / 0) (#189)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:36:29 PM EST
    Vice President Hillary have any kind of substantive role in his administration, I want some of what you're smoking.

    [ Parent ]
    why not (none / 0) (#226)
    by kimsaw on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:57:33 AM EST
    She will be his encyclopedia. He's a lazy rhetorician. She can make him successful in building and enacting an agenda that benefits America. Mr. Unity will be his own down fall if he doesn't start using his brain instead of his ego.

    [ Parent ]
    So many new demoncrats registered (none / 0) (#102)
    by lilybart on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:54:04 PM EST
    because they were inspired by Obama.

    I know you all here just hate him to pieces, but HE is the reason for the record turnouts. He has made people interested in politics again.

    I would say that is A LOT he has done, just by running.

    [ Parent ]

    Well (5.00 / 3) (#121)
    by sas on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:05:26 PM EST
    I'm sure he has brought new voters to the party, as has she.

    She has brought alot of single women, and moderate Republican women into the party.

    Rendell estimated inPA new voters were 60 % Barack, 40% Clinton.

     

    [ Parent ]

    So is that why he won all the primaries? (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by lookoverthere on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:10:36 PM EST
    Oh, wait. He didn't.

    Record turnouts for both candidates.

    Amazing and wonderful. And a good reason for this to go to the last vote is counted.

    [ Parent ]

    Demoncrats? (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by echinopsia on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:11:38 PM EST
    Seriously, demoncrats?

    Aside from that, no, he is not THE reason for the record turnouts, or he would have won by now. She's just as much if not more of a draw than he is.

    [ Parent ]

    I typed fast (none / 0) (#145)
    by lilybart on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:28:43 PM EST
    SO ABSOLUTELY F-ING SORRY!

    [ Parent ]
    "n" is nowhere near (none / 0) (#178)
    by echinopsia on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:23:37 PM EST
    Any of the other letters.

    Perhaps I'm paranoid, but doesn't the orange place have some crackpot theory about Rovian operatives stirring up Democratic rivalries?

    Operatives for whom typing "demoncrat" would be second nature?

    Hmmmm.

    [ Parent ]

    You really are crazy. (none / 0) (#229)
    by lilybart on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:15:11 AM EST
    I am a genetically born Democrat, only voted for one Republican in my entire life, Mayor Bloomberg.

    [ Parent ]
    Yep he's responsible for a lof of new Dems alright (5.00 / 3) (#131)
    by goldberry on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:12:18 PM EST
    Like the thousands of moderate suburban Republican women who were so grateful back in March that they still had a chance to change parties to vote for her.  Like my sister and her friends.  They can see the writing on the wall if McCain gets in and they knew that Obama doesn't have a prayer against him.  And there goes the supreme court if he appoints another federalist.  So, they switched parties and gave Hillary the win.  
    The youth vote doesn't vote downticket but these new  moderate Democratic women may.  They aren't voting for a personality.  They are voting for a way of life.  And as for the latte swilling DINKS, like I said before, they are softies.  Not one of them I met said they wouldn't vote for Hillary in the fall and they seemed genuinely intrigued by her.  Especially the women.  They're Obama supporters for about as long as the afterglow lasts.

    [ Parent ]
    No, they are democrats who (none / 0) (#139)
    by lilybart on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:25:18 PM EST
    will support whomever is the nominee.

    What is not good are the people on this blog who say they will vote McCain instead of Obama. There is a level of pathology here to think that their lives would be worse with Obama than McCain.

    [ Parent ]

    It is not helpful (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by Democratic Cat on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:30:31 PM EST
    to call people pathological because you don't agree with their choice of candidate. How do you know whether my life would be better under McCain than under Obama? I'm not going to vote for McCain, but I'm probably not voting for Obama either unless he starts showing the ability to grasp complex policy issues and stops trashing the best administration of my lifetime.

    [ Parent ]
    Starbucks does a HUGE business (none / 0) (#143)
    by lilybart on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:27:57 PM EST
    by the way, in case you hadn't noticed the latte-swillers on every corner in every town, burg and city. I know some Hillary supporters who actually like a latte from time to time and Starbucks doesn't pay its bills on only Obama supporters. LOL.

    [ Parent ]
    But, ... (none / 0) (#109)
    by cymro on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:59:10 PM EST
    In her administration, he'd be window dressing.  A pretty nothing with not much to do,'cos he hasn't shown he can do much.

    When has this ever been a a factor in the selection of a VP candidate?

    It's not like he's an LBJ to JFK and knows how to twist arms in the Senate.

    You're correct, but your analogy applies quite well if Clinton were the VP.

    It's just a really stupid idea.  ...  I still can't believe there is still a competition.

    This kind of reaction is the mirror image of  Obama supporters saying they can't understand why Hillary hasn't quit because she can't win. While I understand how you feel, comments like this do not actually address the practical realities of the situation we're in.

    [ Parent ]

    My point... (none / 0) (#186)
    by goldberry on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:31:56 PM EST
    ... is that he brings NOTHING to the WH.  And while she is no LBJ, her knowledge base, grasp of policy and understanding of the mechanisms of government are much greater than his.  She gains nothing by having him as her VP.  He's not even a visionary like Al Gore.  

    As for the token male, no, I don't understand why there is still a competition.  I thought Democrats were supposed to be smarter than this.  When they debate, he looks and sounds like a complete novice.  Her poise, confidence and command of all of the subjects just make him look like he accidentally stumbled into the master's instead of the beginner's class.  And she has learned to roll with media's punches.  AND she's got more energy than two four year olds.  She never gives up.  Tell me, why is it that so many people were sucked in by the whole "hope" and "Change!" thing after what they can clearly see  before their own eyes?  There shouldn't be a competition.  She wins the most presidential title.  He is not ready for this job.  And I talked to a lot of Pennsylvanians who felt the same way.  It was like, "I have nothing against him and I like him but, what is he doing up there with her?!  He's so out of his depth."
    But there you have it.  The Big Boyz will scream about the RULZ and slit our throats.  No it is not the same as their silly arguments for why she should quit.  

    [ Parent ]

    Your point's are all valid, but irrelevant ... (none / 0) (#208)
    by cymro on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:54:58 PM EST
    ... to the issues of (a) party unity and (b) winning the GE.

    The reason for Obama to be Clinton's VP would be to promote party unity and keep his supporters in the fold.

    The reason for Clinton to be Obama's VP would be to actually win the election, instead of losing it to McCain.

    Everything you said is true, but none of it has much bearing on those two arguments, imo. That's because we have to be driven by the political realities of voters' opinions, and the views of the two candidates' supporters, not just your opinion and my opinion of the two candidates.

    [ Parent ]

    Oops -- points, not point's (nt) (none / 0) (#209)
    by cymro on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:57:44 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    she gains his supporters and that about sums it up (none / 0) (#227)
    by kimsaw on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:01:11 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    There was a time when I thought it would (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by Anne on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:41:39 PM EST
    work, but now I am convinced that it would be a terrible idea, and the problem as I see it is Obama, whether he is at the top of the ticket, or as VP.

    Why?  I don't see him as electable at the top of the ticket, and I don't think the GOP is going to go after him with any less enthusiasm if he is on the ticket in the VP spot.  I think the argument is that he is one heartbeat away from the presidency, and that is what they will focus on.

    I just hate the idea.

    I really think a unity ticket benefits (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by athyrio on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:52:35 PM EST
    Obama far more than Clinton at this point...

    Obama (5.00 / 5) (#132)
    by sas on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:12:20 PM EST
    can have all the Super D's he wants.

    The Democratic party nominates him at their preil.

    The guy is totally unelectable.

    Check it out on SUSA's electoral college.

    The guy is barely leading McCain in Massachusetts .

    Big Tent Ticket (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by pluege on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:29:08 PM EST
    BTD, you're way out front and right on - I was on board right way.

    Unity ticket (can we change the name...I know, Big Tent Ticket) is the wound healer and sav that will be needed to overcome the biases and bruised egos of whichever side loses the nomination.

    I remain a firm believer that the configuration that makes real perfect sense for this year and that will ensure the next 16 years of a Democrat as POTUS is HRC in the top spot. The other way has no inherent advantage that I can see.

    I love the idea (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by eRobin on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:30:01 PM EST
    It's also what most of the moderate-info voters (the largest voting bloc there is) I talk to want to see.  They don't understand why it's not a no-brainer to everyone watching the primaries. We love fairy tale endings. That's what this would be.

    Smart Obama move (5.00 / 1) (#158)