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.

1. Obama cannot be trusted to follow thru on Clinton's programs.

2. Obama cannot be trusted.

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.  

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.

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.

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.  

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.

The Democratic party nominates him at their preil.

The guy is totally unelectable.

Check it out on SUSA's electoral college.

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.

Obama should make his 'for the good of the party and the country' move prior to the wrenching problem of SD's picking the nomination or a forced solution to the FL and MI problem - both real dem-detracting problems.

I do think Obama can stave off needing Clinton as VP if he wins Indiana and overperforms for the remainder. But should he come short there it will be a test. Not of Obama. But of Hillary. Can Hillary humble herself for the good of the party by agreeing to take the VP slot?

For all the Clinton fan fiction floating around wherein the superdelegates switch over because of the "big states" or the manipulated, plus MI/sans caucuses, popular vote count, that's not going to happen. Obama will be the nominee. That people are still fooling themselves about that without getting a paycheck or a promise of future political favors from Clinton is mindboggling to me. However, should  Obama lose IN, he needs Clinton to shore up the Irish/Italian/Appalachian bloc. And if Clinton refuses to take the VP slot I have to wonder about her dedication to victory in November.

I was influenced by the following article I found via salon.com: http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/04/21/mcgovern_hart/index.html  

He brings intelligence, youth, charisma, and the chance for a 16-year democratic hold on the White House, if they both play their cards right.

You think that's what she wants to do?

No matter who is on top, the other one's voters will be peeved.

BO in a can't lose situation.
either he be the nominee or vp candidate.

The two camps hate each other.  They would have to tear down and rebuild a team for the GE.  Jesse Jackson Jr on teevee again.  Q: if Obama has the dels and Clinton has the popular vote, how should the superdeez decide?  JJJ answer:  it's a legitimate argument but you can't include MI and FL in the debate.

Clinton/Obama: This ticket is motivated primarily by the need for party unity. It may deter the more extreme Obama supporters from going ballistic in their frustration at losing the primary, switching to Nader, starting a new party, etc. etc. By far the more preferable of the two pairings, imo.

And that goes for both voting adults in my household.

anyone change their mind and agree with me yet?

NO!

One of his ads playing in North Carolina is a really slow paced one about special interests.  It strikes me as really ineffective.  He's in a classroom talking to people about the guy from Medicare, blah blah blah, then he went on to work for a pharmaceutical company.  I included the blah blah blahs because it is so slow, and he doesn't really cut to the chase.  I don't think people care about the special interest purity thing as much as he thinks (and maybe lunchbucket dems in particular don't - after all they ARE a special interest group, so he said in late 2007 re: unions).  I really don't care because it's the most vague attack in his arsenal.  While right on principle it means nothing to me in terms of practice.  

Obama will not discuss it until he wins/loses. Accepting the meme weakens him because a majority of people support Clinton/Obama as a ticket.

a more competent and less arrogant African American as her running mate.

It goes beyond "winning" in November. I don't want him a heartbeat from the Presidency.

Maybe I'm just cranky - long day at work - before dinner. But I see it has disaster written all over it.

Not now.  Why?

Let's take Obama/Clinton first.  A non-starter. She's been there, sort of, done that.  And, quite frankly, any Pres. candidate would be a fool to have as the spouse of his VP Bill Clinton.  Even with all of Obama's polish, two such electric men in that position? No.

Clinton/Obama
My first take: she has the goods, the experience.  He needs seasoning and would get it.  And, he is one of the few VP candidates who could hold his own in the shadow of Bill. (Clinton's VP will have to be a real mensch.)

Now: no way.  The more I've learned about him, the less I like him. Among many other things, as near as I can tell, he is bored by the nitty gritty of governing so Hillary wouldn't be able to rely on his "unity" skills.  He'd be all show.  

I get the attraction, of course, to this idea - we want both bases to be happy, excited, and energetic about the dem ticket.

He can't be her VP. Not only will he win the delegate race, but she's called him unqualified. If she picked him, it'd smack of dishonesty. After all, he'd be a heartbeat away from being president.

That said, I think Obama has become too much of a liability now, anywhere on the ticket, and I've always felt he was potentially a liability to down-ticket Dems as Pres candidate (as the NC Repub ads might suggest for example). Some are in seats with slim majorities, and his supporters have not yet demonstrated a strong pattern of voting for Dems in other races.

Secondly, Clinton should have her own choice, as is traditional. If she chooses Obama with no pressure, then so be it, its her call to make - but I think she should take a little time to look at the several possibilities of better value(personally I still have a soft spot for Edwards <grin>)

Unfortunately, the Republicans did end up choosing very well - almost anyone else, and Obama might not matter, but McCain it is. A lot could also depend on McCain's VP choice.

I like a Clinton/Clark ticket. I think it can win a lot of the voters that might hesitate between Clinton and McCain.

I do worry about the loss of the African American vote if Obama doesn't get the nomination. Getting the African American vote, with large turnout, plus white working class seems key to a Democratic victory, and right now that seems difficult to envision.

I also worry the Obama has negatives now that I have only recently become aware of...and that causes me concern for winning the GE with him on the ticket, no matter who else is on it.

He has failed to respond effectively to the "bitter" idiocy, and that worries me. If he can't deal with that, what will he do when attacked by the Republicans on more substantive issues?

He has also failed to reach out to women ... older white women like me, who are generally fairly liberal and love Hillary. In fact, his treatment of this demographic has been rude and insulting. (And don't get me started on his followers!)

I began this primary season with the calm expectation that the Democrats would coast to victory in November. Now I am having trouble seeing any path to victory at all, with either candidate. Though Clinton, if nominated, probably could pull it off.