How's A Unity Ticket Sound Now?

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    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 / 0) (#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.

    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.


    I've been for it since the beginning... (5.00 / 0) (#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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    Still lousy! (5.00 / 7) (#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 / 0) (#104)
    by lilybart on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:56:03 PM EST
    and you lefties for Hillary think he is too conservative.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.


    No argument here (5.00 / 2) (#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 / 0) (#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.

    BO should stay in the senate (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Prabhata on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:39:15 PM EST
    to gain experience and humility.

    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.

    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.


    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.


    Count me out (5.00 / 9) (#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).


    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.

    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.

    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.

    I really only think it works with Clinton on top (5.00 / 1) (#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.  

    Someone always has to lose (5.00 / 0) (#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.

    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.


    Less Interested by the Day (5.00 / 9) (#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 / 0) (#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.

    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).

    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...


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

    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!

    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!


    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


    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.

    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.

    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.

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

    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.  

    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.

    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
    Hi Athyrio. (none / 0) (#86)
    by derridog on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:46:08 PM EST
    hiya derridog how does NC look today?? (none / 0) (#88)
    by athyrio on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:47:45 PM EST
    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.


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


    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.

    Call me after (5.00 / 2) (#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.



    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.


    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.


    No VP for Clinton (5.00 / 4) (#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.

    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.


    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.  

    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.


    Well (5.00 / 2) (#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.



    So is that why he won all the primaries? (5.00 / 0) (#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.


    Demoncrats? (5.00 / 1) (#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.


    I typed fast (none / 0) (#145)
    by lilybart on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:28:43 PM EST

    "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?



    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.

    Yep he's responsible for a lof of new Dems alright (5.00 / 2) (#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.

    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.  


    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.


    Oops -- points, not point's (nt) (none / 0) (#209)
    by cymro on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:57:44 PM EST
    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
    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 / 1) (#98)
    by athyrio on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:52:35 PM EST
    Obama far more than Clinton at this point...

    Hmm...Clinton/Ford - very good idea (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Prabhata on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:58:59 PM EST
    He's DLC and it might give a migraine headache to Markos.

    And any Democrat who likes a majority in Congress. (none / 0) (#196)
    by Addison on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:44:14 PM EST
    Obama (5.00 / 4) (#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)
    by pluege on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:37:10 PM EST
    a smart Obama camp reads the tea leaves, sees a November win slipping away and grabs the next best thing: VP on a HRC led winning ticket that puts Obama on track for 8 years as POTUS starting in 2016.

    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.

    Not to worry, I'm not holding my breath waiting for such sensibility and selflessness to strike.

    Obama/Clinton (5.00 / 2) (#191)
    by Addison on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:40:12 PM EST
    Absolutely. At some point, a couple months ago, I said Obama/Clinton was looking better and better, despite it's obvious weaknesses. (I think had Clinton not botched these past 4-5 months, and been ahead with Obama where she is now, Clinton/Obama would've been stronger. Alas, she couldn't close the deal).

    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.

    And I didn't think it would come to this. I thought Obama would be stronger in PA and OH. Oops. But it's nearly come to it. Obama won't be VP because that would necessitate a superdelegate rush to Clinton that is simply silliness. But a unity ticket -- once clearly a loser because Obama could do better as far as message clarity -- is almost unavoidable. A win in IN and a surprisingly good showing in WV and Kentucky is really all that can stop it.

    Clinton couldn't close the deal? (none / 0) (#194)
    by MarkL on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:43:06 PM EST
    LOL>. more "me too-isms" from the Obama crowd.

    Well... (none / 0) (#200)
    by Addison on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:46:56 PM EST
    ...if only I hadn't said that after Iowa, where she couldn't (you know) close the deal, that might be true.

    But we could go round and round on that one. What's important is you took the bait and left my points intact. Thanks.


    unity ticket (5.00 / 1) (#210)
    by inthedesert on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:01:40 PM EST
    I woke up this morning thinking that a unity ticket is the best solution to the problem of a divided Democratic Party.  The Party needs to become more truly representative of the range of voters coming out to vote in this primary so that it can win elections going forward. This is a much-needed opportunity to work on doing this.

    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  

    Until this morning I've simply been a Clinton supporter, but now I feel it is time to use all the enthusiasm and awakening of the electorate to build a new vision or coalition for the Democratic Party.  The leadership of the Democratic Party should be working on this.  How can we possibly afford to turn our backs on the supporters of either candidate? I don't think we can or should, and a unity ticket is the answer.

    Only one side is pushing a unity ticket (5.00 / 0) (#215)
    by Seth90212 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:07:21 PM EST
    (with her on top, of course). It's out of desperation. If she was dealing from strength she wouldn't want Obama because a stronger ticket is available to her. She raises the specter of a unity ticket so that voters and superdelegates will rally around this idea. She gambled that Obama voters and SD's leaning Obama would rally to her if they thought they could get both of them with her on top. It was cynical and insulting and it fell flat.

    Believe it or not, out of this Hillary bubble here, Obama has lots and lots of support. At least as much as Hillary and probably more. Obama has run a brilliant campaign which has taken out a political dynasty. He only wants to win. As Al Davis said: "Just win, baby." He will not entertain any offer of VP because the nomination is his to lose. Moreover, he will not offer the VP to Hillary because she has disqualified herself from consideration in light of the statements she had made and the campaign she has run.

    Bubble is a good way to put it. (none / 0) (#221)
    by halstoon on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:05:39 AM EST
    You're absolutely right. At this point, barring a live boy/dead girl scenario, this nomination is going to Obama. I don't see why Clinton would want VP. It'd be better to take NY governor or Majority Leader. He wouldn't want her b/c he wouldn't want Bill that close; it's better if he remains a statesman and someone Obama can call on when needed.

    and this is the alternatives Obama camp (none / 0) (#228)
    by kimsaw on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:10:37 AM EST
    throws Clinton's way. Conciliation prize, we've already got a Gov. for NY. Majority leader, well that would depend on Harry Reid giving up. Really Clinton cares about the is country and has devoted her life to good works. I bet she would take the slot if offered, but I bet Obama won't offered because this is not about the country and a shared democrat world view they share. It is about OBAMA. He's no more a uniter than Bush. If he can't work with Clinton and respect help from the smartest policy wonk in the U.S. he doesn't deserve to be President after all its all about judgment.

    I'd rather see her as Majority Leader ... (none / 0) (#233)
    by andrys on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:47:07 AM EST
    Trailing after Obama while needing to follow his line of the moment is just too much to ask, and besides her presence would not be helpful to his "change" theme.

    Harry Reid is an awful Majority Leader. (none / 0) (#242)
    by halstoon on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:52:32 AM EST
    I don't think that view is as despised as my support of Obama here at TL.

    You came out of your bubble to say that? (none / 0) (#235)
    by andrys on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:54:10 AM EST
    Brilliant campaign ?  Not in Ohio, Pennsylvania or Texas, the last 3 big states...

      To qualify for that description he'd have to win 2025 delegates without going to the delgates, but then he has contributed almost a million $ to superdelegates from his funds.

      If only the GE were caucuses, ripe for activist functioning and where those old people can't easily go ...


    Based on Age/Experience, (5.00 / 1) (#223)
    by bob h on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:01:35 AM EST
    electability, and the fact that having her as VP would be an insufferable experience, Hillary should go first with Obama as VP.  Obama then takes it all in 2016 and Hillary gets out of his life forever.

    DOA (none / 0) (#4)
    by white n az on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:07:53 PM EST
    Pelosi said so

    doesn't get the 'white men'

    Newsflash (none / 0) (#117)
    by coigue on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:03:03 PM EST

    the white men (over 40)will vote for McCain anyhow...they are the target GOP demographic.

    Is it Pelosi who doesn't get that, or you?


    The (none / 0) (#5)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:07:56 PM EST
    only way it would work imo is Obama as VP. And he's already said no. I think it's all kind of a moot point.

    I agree . . (none / 0) (#10)
    by abfabdem on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:09:39 PM EST
    she would have to be on top.  The other way around is too insulting given his light resume.  

    Not really. (none / 0) (#119)
    by coigue on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:03:43 PM EST
    If the voters decide otherwise.

    Clinton supporters less likely (none / 0) (#165)
    by waldenpond on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:51:15 PM EST
    to support Obama.  The goal is to get the demographics together.  If you are only going to get the vote by putting Clinton on the ticket, Clinton may need to be on top of that ticket to keep the vote for..... November.

    The goal is to get the Clinton voters that will only vote for Clinton.  The number is growing every day.


    That is your opinion (none / 0) (#173)
    by coigue on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:00:10 PM EST
    based on self-reporting..how acccurate it will be in the general, I don't know.

    My point is that if Obama gets more votes in the primary, he should be on the top of the ticket.

    My personal opinion is that he would get more seasoning as VP....but fair is fair.


    Opinion and self-reporting? (none / 0) (#185)
    by waldenpond on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:31:07 PM EST
    Where have you been?  Exit polls have consistently demonstrated that the number of Clinton supporters unwilling to vote for Obama is greater than vice versa and the margin has been consistently increasing.  ummm.... what part of 'will never vote for him' do you not get?

    Exit polls, gallup polls, susa... Clinton supporters apparently aren't listening to your opinion of what's 'fair is fair.'  They want a qualified candidate that can win in November.


    Self reporting = what people say (none / 0) (#197)
    by coigue on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:45:28 PM EST
    does not equal what they eventually do.

    What part of " I believed it when I said it" do YOU not get?

    If those people are actually interested in Democratic values, they will vote for the Dem after the heat of battle has drifted away.


    But it stands to reason ... (none / 0) (#211)
    by cymro on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:19:16 PM EST
    ... that moderate voters in Clinton's camp who do not approve of Obama are more likely to defect to McCain if Obama is the nominee.

    On the other hand, Obama supporters who don't like Hillary will do ... what? ... if she is the nominee? Write in Obama? Vote for Nader? Abstain? Organize a new party? Their alternatives are not nearly as palatable.

    That's why, however accurate the actual estimates of defection percentages, the direction of those predictions is a highly believable predictor of the likely outcome.

    And being "fair" doesn't come into it. We want to win the election, not lose the election while being "fair" to one candidate for the nomination. You know the old saying; well here's a slight revision:

    All's fair in love and war -- and an election campaign is a war of ideas.


    Being unfair leads to resentment (none / 0) (#232)
    by coigue on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:39:34 AM EST
    and resentment leads to losing.

    Your math isn't the only one that is possible, pal.


    Your reaction is exactly why ... (none / 0) (#241)
    by cymro on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:41:39 PM EST
    ... I'm still arguing for Obama to get the VP spot when Clinton is the nominee, despite all the problems he would bring to the ticket.

    Fair enough (none / 0) (#243)
    by coigue on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:17:24 PM EST
    I'm hoping... (none / 0) (#11)
    by reynwrap582 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:10:11 PM EST
    He'll get a nice letter urging him to accept a VP position from several hundred uncommitted Super Delegates...  Wishful thinking, I'm sure, but Dean, Gore, Edwards, Pelosi, etc. can't shut down this race, the best way to bring it to an end might be a large body of united SDs...

    When he went on vacation (none / 0) (#234)
    by andrys on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:51:54 AM EST
    and was videotaped being so sullen while walking by the reporter and when first answering a question, I wondered if he'd been told this was a possibility, that he'd have to consider accepting VP if she was able to justify their nominating her.

    He is so often sullen during the time he wants the job and is applying for it, I can't imagine what he'll be like when safely in the WH for the few minutes before he has to start multitasking, with the world complaining about his every move which is how it is.


    It's a good idea. (none / 0) (#12)
    by pie on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:10:22 PM EST
    She brings experience, intelligence, tenacity, oh, definitey tenacity. She's getting better on charisma.

    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.

    What's not to like?

    I WON'T like (none / 0) (#16)
    by Regency on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:12:32 PM EST
    the Republicans commercials in November. I don't even like them now.

    However, I gladly admit that I am so deep in the HATE tank for Barack, that there's little that could endear me to him right now, perhaps ever.

    I'll vote for Hill on top, but that's the only configuration I'll stand for.


    I don't know if it's possible anymore (none / 0) (#13)
    by magster on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:10:58 PM EST
    I don't see Obama trusting Clinton to have her heart in it after what she allegedly told Richardson (assuming Richardson would confirm this). I don't see Clinton wanting the job if she genuinely believes he won't win. (And if Clinton somehow won the nomination, it would only be because Obama was torn down or he tore himself down, in which case he'd be too much of a liability (or pissed off) to be a running mate)

    Maybe a Unity-lite: Obama/Rendell? Obama/W. Clark? Obama/B. Nelson? Obama/Mark Penn?

    Sorry but your unity light ideas don't work. (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:13:16 PM EST
    ..although Obama can have Mark Penn if he wants him.

    Doesn't Need Him (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by BDB on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:14:50 PM EST
    He has David Axelrod.  Every bit as nasty a piece of work.

    Don't work? (none / 0) (#32)
    by magster on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:17:34 PM EST
    As in you wouldn't vote for Obama unless Clinton was on the ticket?

    Don't work as in let Obama get his own VP (none / 0) (#60)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:29:45 PM EST
    ..he has plenty of choices. Picking a Hillary supporter as his VP isn't going to endear Obama to me or make me support him with enthusiasm. That's what I meant. I have no intention of voting for McCain.

    Maybe I'm biased... (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by reynwrap582 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:13:43 PM EST
    But after a few weeks of campaigning, an Obama/Clark ticket would have too much weight on the bottom.  I imagine it's hard to get people to vote for you when they'd rather be voting for your VP candidate.  Of course, an Obama loss would put Clark in a prime position for a 2012 run, so it's not all bad.

    Too much water under the bridge (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by felizarte on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:25:27 PM EST
    Barack has not been respectful at all of him in his statements; mocking tone; words he cannot take back.

    She has said she is not ready to be president on day one and that's a fact.  A VP, like the president must be ready to assume the office at any time the president is incapacitated. That situation has come up too many times in recent history.  The republicans will attack Hillary by attacking Obama.  Even now, the attack ads have begun just because they still think he will be the nominee.  They couldn't wait to start on him.

    Hillary will attract women's votes from the republicans.  Obama can't; might even keep many of them away.


    It's easily remedied... (none / 0) (#66)
    by reynwrap582 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:32:24 PM EST
    The ready on day one thing, at least.

    "I believe I am the best and most prepared person to lead this country on day one, but if something were to happen to me that made me unable to lead, my running mate, Senator Obama, is the only person I trust for the job."

    She may not be saying he's ready on day one, but she's saying that nobody else is, either, except for her.


    Won't sell. Sell it first to the republicans. (none / 0) (#106)
    by felizarte on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:57:02 PM EST
    No one would believe her.. (none / 0) (#159)
    by FlaDemFem on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:39:31 PM EST
    and with reason. He isn't ready for the job, and she has been saying so for months. And there is no way Obama is going to accept second place to a woman. No way.

    Your first two sentences (none / 0) (#118)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:03:07 PM EST
    totally confuse me.  Fix your pronouns?

    Is My Eyesight Failing Me? (none / 0) (#29)
    by MO Blue on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:15:39 PM EST
    Did you actually list Mark Penn as a possible VP candidate for Obama?  

    Youre forgetting... (none / 0) (#30)
    by Thanin on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:16:37 PM EST
    this is all politics.  They play the game, and if this is required for an ultimate win, I think they'll do it.

    Actually, we did agree it would work (none / 0) (#14)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:11:33 PM EST
    That was before Obama's attitude about it changed the minds of many. And he would not be happy in 2nd Place. It would be like someone having to teach another person who got promoted above them how to do the job. I don't like it in the real world and if I was her, I wouldn't like it either. At the same time, she could have her whole Cheney world and run the government and the Presidency.

    I agree, BarnBabe (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Kathy on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:18:20 PM EST
    it sounded really good before Obama imploded.  I also don't trust him--from what I've seen lately--to not be all sour grapes about it and ruin her chances completely.  He has proven to be quite an ungracious loser.

    Also, I love this question because folks invariably say that Clinton should not take second place because she is more qualified, but Obama should snap it up.  The reasoning is that Clinton is so senior in the senate that VP would be a demotion, while for Obama, it would be a promotion.

    If Obama's resume is so thin that he can't go back to the senate and have any power, what does that tell you?


    I will add (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:22:52 PM EST
    that he's also an ungracious winner.

    "I think Hillary's voters will vote for me, but mine won't vote for her"

    (although I hope he's learned some humility when he figured out how bogus that statement was.)


    And if I were Hillary, I wouldn't want a VP (none / 0) (#163)
    by FlaDemFem on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:46:09 PM EST
    that I couldn't turn my back on. Imagine Michelle as VP wife. The woman who said she wanted to claw Hillary's eyes out. And I sure wouldn't want a VP whose eyes were on my job, the sooner the better. And the Clintons have had enough of scandals, I think. Why add someone with huge skeletons lurking in the closet to the ticket? Especially someone as contemptuous of women as Obama.

    It wasn't about that (none / 0) (#124)
    by coigue on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:09:14 PM EST
    If Obama had said he would take VP at the time, it would be admitting that the Dems could have both....That is very much to his disadvantage.

    It was a strategic ploy, and if Hil pretends to be offended by that then That is ALSO strategic.

    It has nothing to do with what the outcome will eventually be.


    Huh? (none / 0) (#24)
    by pie on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:14:28 PM EST
    At the same time, she could have her whole Cheney world and run the government and the Presidency.

    You think that's what she wants to do?


    Still sounds good to me. Likely??? (none / 0) (#25)
    by robrecht on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:14:44 PM EST

    I still see Hillary offering it... (none / 0) (#35)
    by rooge04 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:19:18 PM EST
    but Obama refusing it.   He is much too arrogant to take it.  As are his supporters (a lot of them, anyway). They will not deign themselves to be second to That Woman, never mind A woman.   He is much too arrogant to take 2nd fiddle to Hillary.  Then again, crazier things have happened. And perhaps as he keeps losing, he'll realize that it'll be his only shot.

    If he wouldn't take it (none / 0) (#89)
    by cmugirl on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:47:48 PM EST
    it would virtually end his political career. He's up for re-election in the Senate and he may win, but who knows.  And voters don't like candidates to keep running for POTUS - usually only get one shot (see how fast JRE phased out?) Reagan was the only successful one in recent memory (well, except for Al Gore, but as I wrote to the DNC today when I demanded that they seat MI and FL, if these states are not counted, I never want to hear Dean or Brazile or any Obama supporter ever say again that George Bush stole the 2000 election).

    Naive (none / 0) (#39)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:20:10 PM EST
    I think it's about as naive to think a unity ticket will work as it is to think that an Obama/white woman or Hillary/Black man would appease the electorate.

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

    For instance, picture KOS' reaction to a Hillary/Obama ticket.

    She has no chance to win (none / 0) (#40)
    by Seth90212 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:20:50 PM EST
    Do you see supers rushing toward her? I think it is kind of insulting, if not delusional to expect the candidate with a 95% chance of victory to be the underling. And he won't take her as VP either. He needs a white male.

    "He needs a white male" (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:52:48 PM EST
    There is a word that every Obama supporter would apply to a person who said we need to run a white male at the top of the ticket, and it starts with an R.  But I guess it's fine for Obama supporters to say this stuff.

    You're being silly (none / 0) (#114)
    by Seth90212 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:00:39 PM EST
    I've seen race-baiting if not outright racism on this site, but I wouldn't classify a comment like mine as such. He needs a white male and so does she. But her chances getting the nomination are slim and none.

    Well (none / 0) (#144)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:28:02 PM EST
    I understand that you don't consider yourself a racist.  I didn't call you one, either.  But if you think there's nothing wrong with people who vote against Obama because they think we need a white candidate, you're pretty unique among Obama supporters.

    I have no idea what you're trying to say (none / 0) (#160)
    by Seth90212 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:41:37 PM EST
    He needs a Southerner, probably (none / 0) (#123)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:08:19 PM EST
    as after all, Obama is from every other region -- raised a Westerner, schooled an Easterner, now a Midwesterner.

    That's another reason that a Clinton/Obama ticket wouldn't work -- although she at least was a Southerner for a while.  But she is more a Midwesterner than him and has Eastern roots and residency now, too.  She only lacks the Western origins but seems to do as well there as he does, anyway.

    So either one of them needs a Southerner.  And a white male, I agree.  So it's Edwards.


    He's the real McGovern. (none / 0) (#50)
    by Regency on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:25:41 PM EST
    Sounds like a winner!



    And Obama should roll over and play dead (none / 0) (#61)
    by Seth90212 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:30:26 PM EST
    because he may lose in November? He'd be the first candidate to ever do that. Mondale must have known he didn't have a chance in 84, but he fought like hell anyway to get there. Same with Dole in 96. To really find out whether you're going to win or lose you have to get there. Hillary would take the nomination with only a 1% chance of victory in November. Or do you doubt that?

    I'm not sure how the unity ticket (none / 0) (#46)
    by frankly0 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:24:14 PM EST
    might work with Obama on top. I think that he has very real vulnerabilities in the general election if he's the Presidential candidate that are going to sabotage any such ticket.

    It seems to work all around, though, if Obama's VP candidate. His vulnerabilities are not going to hurt because he's only VP. Yet his presence is very useful to mollify his supporters -- a quite significant point. And they would have reason to be mollified, because being VP would season him for a future run at the WH, not to mention considerably greater distance in time between him and his baggage.

    Obama would be (none / 0) (#47)
    by Coldblue on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:24:20 PM EST
    a good VP; Hillary would be better for the cause if she remained in the senate if she were to lose the nomination.

    Agreed. HRC could become senate leader (none / 0) (#90)
    by Prabhata on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:47:54 PM EST
    Only if (none / 0) (#93)
    by cmugirl on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:50:04 PM EST
    Harry Reid decides he's going somewhere.

    Jeesh, it's awarded on seniority (none / 0) (#125)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:09:34 PM EST
    more than anything, and although Clinton is much senior to Obama . . . she's still the junior senator from her state, and junior to many, many more.

    Not seniority (none / 0) (#179)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:24:43 PM EST
    it's a vote.  Secret ballot and all.  Majority leader is a critical position to get stuff passed and is not considered a seniority-type job at all.  That said, usually it's someone who's been around for a while because they know the ropes and they know their colleagues.  I don't honestly think Hillary is ready for it yet, but if she stays in the Senate, give her another few years and she'd be dynamite.

    Unity (none / 0) (#52)
    by DaveOinSF on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:26:31 PM EST
    I probably would have agreed with that in February, but now I'm not so sure.  Hillary/Obama ticket would work, if Obama accepted it, but Obama at the top is a likely electoral loser whoever the VP is.  Edwards got sullied by running with Kerry, I don't want the same to happen to Hillary.

    Clinton/Obama (none / 0) (#54)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:27:19 PM EST
    would work for me.  Give him some real experience.

    Obama can spend a little more time in the Senate (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by felizarte on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:34:10 PM EST
    and get experience. He has denigrated the Clinton administration (the only successfull democratic administration.  He cannot take back his words.  The republicans will not let him.  Clinton/Gore won over Bush/Quayle in large measure because Clinton/Gore presented theirs as a synergistic pair.  The first woman and the first African American might be too much of change for many voters.  Either you have the first woman president or the first African American.  But not those two at the same time.

    You're probably (none / 0) (#75)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:39:03 PM EST

    I'm just sort of feeling warm and fuzzy and generous today.  :)

    I'm cracking up at the progressive blogs.  Have you ever seen such silliness trying to make sure it's not 10%?


    Superdelegates are politicians (none / 0) (#57)
    by toddy on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:28:44 PM EST
    and politicians make deals. Duh!
    they are terrified of a convention floor fight.

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

    it's the reality. deal with it.

    Does the fact that Obama has gotten 90% (none / 0) (#69)
    by Seth90212 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:33:23 PM EST
    of the superdelegates since Super Tuesday mean anything to you people? He got 2 more today to Hillary's 1. This is after her big victory in PA. If they're not rushing to her after PA, when will they? Wake up people.

    Oh, and it won't go the convention. I believe Obama will have it wrapped up by the second week of June at the latest.


    This is self-delusion at its worst (1.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Seth90212 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:45:59 PM EST
    If supers were basing their votes on scandals Hillary wouldn't have a single superdelegate. Let's get real.

    We ARE Real (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Regency on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:25:13 PM EST
    But you aren't being realistic.  Her scandals are OLD. There is no other way to say it.  Some of those "scandals" are older than me. I can tell you now that most people simply don't care and even if they do she is the one that's shown an ability to whether those controversies. She's got a rating of over %50 unfavorable, but she's still winning delegates, votes, and states.

    Barack's scandals are new and he's shown NO ability to survive them beyond the assistance of a fawning press.

    Get real, that won't last. It isn't lasting and McCain will trounce him, because the press will help and we will all be helpless.

    RW 527s will make mincemeat out of this rookie from Chicago, and McCain will come out smelling like shoeshine and victory.

    Head out of the clouds, you get real. This is the presidential election, not eighth grade prom committee.


    SDs not binding... (none / 0) (#166)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:52:01 PM EST
    they can always change their mind till the convention.  

    The convention is where every one votes, (none / 0) (#171)
    by FlaDemFem on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:55:46 PM EST
    including the SDs. And you never know how they are going to vote, in spite of their pledges. So let's wait until the primaries are over and the votes are counted before you decide that we should "wrap it up". If Obama gets any more toxic, he may find himself without any SDs, no matter what they say now. Their job is to make sure, as best they can, that the Democrats win elections. One look at the new GOP ads and most SDs are going to rethink their commitment to Obama. At least they will if they put the party first.

    He'd announced several SDs after PA, but (none / 0) (#237)
    by andrys on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:19:13 AM EST
    ...but as you saw, they're hesitating instead.

    April 22, 2008:
    "Obama strategists said Monday that they expected to announce a series of additional endorsements by uncommitted superdelegates shortly after Pennsylvania votes.  A strong showing by Obama in Pennsylvania would give superdelegates more comfort in coming forward, but a bad loss might send them back to the assessment stage."

    I see (MSNBC) says that Obama indicated his problem isn't the white working class but the older women.  And Axelrod is saying that the white working class will vote GOP in November anyway.

      Way to go, guys !

      By the way, I go to Obama sites but would never think to write them about their bubble or tell them to 'wake up' from their spell, too hostile a move when you're in someone else's territory.

      But too many Obama supporters do this kind of thing in Clinton-friendly forums and apparently don't begin to think about not further alienating Obama's potential November support.  Your combativeness and haughty behavior about how your guy will win may be an example of Obama's effectiveness in guiding you toward unity (on your terms) and hope and change from normal social niceties, but it's exactly what Obama himself doesn't need right now, assuming you actually want him to win in November.


    Yes, politicians make deals (none / 0) (#77)
    by felizarte on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:39:23 PM EST
    and it is a long time between now and the convention.  Conventions have the final say.  Even McCain is still considered a "presumptive nominee" because the convention needs to formally ratify.

    The convention will happen whether or not you like it and nobody wraps up anything until then.  She'll be the nominee.  She will choose her VP and it will probably not be Obama.


    Obama will be the presumptive nominee after (none / 0) (#82)
    by Seth90212 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:43:30 PM EST
    he gets to 2025 by the middle part of June. Hillary can do what she wants at the point but she will only be further damaging her credibility and her future. The anger is a two-way street. Lately I've spoken to some older white women (her natural demographic) who are furious at her.

    lately I've been talking (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by sarahfdavis on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:13:44 PM EST
    to some AA's who claim Obama is "bamboozling" and "hoodwinking" the black community. And their part of his demographic! There's your unity back at ya'.

    Personalities would get in the way (none / 0) (#62)
    by waldenpond on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:31:43 PM EST
    I don't think they care for each other.  It seems to me that Obama has a greater dislike.  If they would consider it, logistics are a problem....

    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.

    I just get pissed when the campaign says these types of things.  This stuff just keeps on keeping on.  How do they bring together their constituencies when a campaign keeps taking positions on issues that are just game enders?

    Not going to happen... (none / 0) (#63)
    by mike in dc on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:31:43 PM EST
    ...bridges burned and all that.  In the event Clinton is the nominee, the probable circumstances under which that happens(an Obama collapse or a superdelegate coup) are such that it would either be  politically non-viable, or the intraparty conflict would be so heated and intense as to make it impossible to unify.  In the event Obama is the nominee, she won't take VP.  period.  full stop.  

    He'll just have to do his best to win over her supporters after she concedes.  Or, she'll have to do her best to win over his in the brief window available to her after the convention is over.

    How About. . . (none / 0) (#81)
    by Doc Rock on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:43:28 PM EST
    . . . Obama to withdraw in favor of Clinton and Obama to be named to the next Supreme Court vacancy?

    How about ambassador to some nation (5.00 / 6) (#95)
    by Prabhata on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:51:52 PM EST
    in the Middle East to bring unity where is badly needed.

    He can go to Kenya and get them (none / 0) (#172)
    by FlaDemFem on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:59:11 PM EST
    all to sit down and stop killing each other. After all, he has relatives there and feels right at home.

    Demographics and party unity argue for it (none / 0) (#84)
    by cymro on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:44:38 PM EST
    There are two motivations for a unity ticket: voter demographics (as you describe) and party unity (which must be considered too). Here's how I view the two pairings:

    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.

    Obama/Clinton: This ticket is motivated primarily by the need to win the election. It may deter moderate Clinton supporters from switching to McCain, which would guarantee a McCain presidency. It's much the weaker of the two pairings, imo, because Clinton is the better candidate for the job, but it's still better than a McCain presidency.

    ?? I don't understand ...... (5.00 / 0) (#97)
    by Annie M on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:52:33 PM EST
    Obama/Clinton: This ticket is motivated primarily by the need to win the election......It's much the weaker of the two pairings.  

    If it's much weaker how can it be the ticket to win?


    You seem to have missed the point (none / 0) (#127)
    by cymro on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:10:24 PM EST
    I'm evaluating the two cases for adding the loser as VP, assuming the other has been nominated, not comparing the two tickets.

    So, if Obama is the nominee, he cannot win without Clinton as VP, whereas if Clinton is nominated, she does not need Obama on the ticket to beat McCain. So if Obama is the nominee, we'd need to add Clinton as VP if we want him to win.



    Oh duh.....my bad (none / 0) (#155)
    by Annie M on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:34:41 PM EST

    It would be sad (none / 0) (#238)
    by andrys on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:39:14 AM EST
    to see Hillary and all her ideas and energy relegated to 2nd spot where Obama would almost surely ignore her and not use that energy.  

    Clinton wants to institute changes, and she's already been VP to someone else whose ideas she didn't support (NAFTA) but had to because presidential staffs (including assertive wives) must toe the line.  Or leave (or divorce).

    From what I've seen Obama doesn't have any concrete ideas (that he will tell us) and thus the halting delivery with no teleprompter.  He could use those 4 years well if VP and I imagine she'd use his motivating qualities.


    The argument is an illusion... (none / 0) (#198)
    by Addison on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:45:31 PM EST
    ...the comparison between the two isn't real or actually being considered, it's merely a rhetorical tool to badmouth one of the options.

    If you're referring to my argument ... (none / 0) (#212)
    by cymro on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:40:13 PM EST
    .. I beg to disagree. Maybe I did not express myself clearly, but I am arguing in favor of a unity ticket -- the subject of this thread -- no matter whether Clinton or Obama is the eventual nominee.

    In short, I argue that the loser needs to be on the ticket in either case -- but for different reasons in the two cases: Clinton should invite Obama to be VP in order to unite the party, while Obama really needs Clinton as VP if he is to beat McCain.

    I also said, in passing, that I much prefer Clinton to be President, for reasons that I have posted previously and do not need to repeat in this post.

    But don't dismiss my argument as merely an excuse for noting my preferred ticket. It was not. I've posted my views plenty of times and I don't need elaborate excuses to post them again.


    Clinton will not accept the VP slot (5.00 / 0) (#101)
    by Prabhata on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:53:55 PM EST
    I'd lose my respect for her, and I don't think she'd like that.  Seriously, there is nothing that the VP slot offers her.

    It's not about her ... (none / 0) (#152)
    by cymro on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:34:14 PM EST
    ... it's about Democrats winning the GE.

    As an Obama supporter, it won't work (none / 0) (#96)
    by lilybart on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:52:00 PM EST
    I don't see the balance in an Obama/Hillary. In that case I think Hillary would be a great Senate Majority leader, which is a very powerful position for actually getting things done.

    If I thought Hillary could win, I could get behind Hillary/Obama, but that isn't going to happen now.

    A unity (none / 0) (#103)
    by sas on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:55:31 PM EST
    ticket with her as Pres. would be the only way I could ever envision voting "for" Obama.

    And that goes for both voting adults in my household.

    At this point, if it's Obama in November, one of us sits home, the other votes McCain.  Neither of us would thought this possible.  We think he is absolutely unready, and arrogant.  We don't need another W in the White House.

    Do you really think that? (none / 0) (#107)
    by lilybart on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:57:20 PM EST
    You really think that Obama's court choices would be WORSE than McCain's?

    There is a level of delusion here that I find shocking.


    If you say so (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by Regency on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:32:32 PM EST
    The delusion here isn't the problem; it's the delusion you already had on board that's stymying you.

    Barack has shown no affinity for the Supreme Court--or really any issue a progressive president should be espouse.  He's actually shown no affinity with issues period; at least with no consistency.  He wanted Roberts for Christ's sake!

    Obama, in my mind, is a straw man. McCain is a real man. They're both bound to ruin us: one with ineptness and the other with senility.  They are both unacceptable. They don't make priority out of a woman's right to choose and that is a priority to me. However, I will not be held hostage by Roe v. Wade.  To hedge my bets, I'll make sure to vote downticket Dems all the way, but the top spot'll stay blank.

    He doesn't need me to win anyway, doncha know.


    Agreed (none / 0) (#190)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:36:48 PM EST
    The Obama Derangement Syndrome here is beginning to rival the CDS on DailyKos.

    Obama derangement syndrome? Is that (none / 0) (#192)
    by MarkL on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:41:36 PM EST
    when you think a man with almost no national experience: who shirks his duties in the Senate to run for President; whose record in the IL legislature is mediocre if you take out the bills he did not author but took credit for; who is so childish he gives the finger to his opponent after losing a debate: when you think this man is qualified for the Presidency? I see a LITTLE of that here, but not much.

    The finger? (none / 0) (#225)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:52:40 AM EST
    You prove my point.

    Sounds fantastic (none / 0) (#105)
    by coigue on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:56:55 PM EST
    but I have wanted that for a long time.

    Unity Ticket (none / 0) (#136)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:18:15 PM EST
    Is a no brainer. It is clearly the most reasonable option.The reason that they would not accept Gore's proposal was neither wanted to be seen as a potential veep. Once the nominee is chosen both will go for it, without hesitation, imo.

    Obama/Clinton is a non-starter (none / 0) (#137)
    by dwmorris on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:23:42 PM EST
    Obama is inherently unelectable and Clinton on the ticket doesn't fix the problem.  Plus, she's not likely to take one for the Party given the way she's been treated.

    Clinton/Obama?  Probably a winning ticket ... and Obama's only realistic path to the White House.

    I (none / 0) (#149)
    by sas on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:30:56 PM EST
    expect a Democratic Congress and Senate to be elected this fall, in which the Democratic majority will be stronger in both.

    When is Obama's senate term up ?? What year?? (none / 0) (#154)
    by athyrio on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:34:34 PM EST

    Clinton/Nutter (none / 0) (#162)
    by americanincanada on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:45:34 PM EST
    Is what I prefer if she needs an AA VP.

    If you've seen one you've seen em all? (none / 0) (#195)
    by Addison on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:43:21 PM EST
    What does that even mean, "needs an AA VP?"

    in a word, (none / 0) (#164)
    by cpinva on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:50:51 PM EST
    anyone change their mind and agree with me yet?


    my reason is pragmatic: neither candidate would work as the other's vp.

    It depends upon (none / 0) (#169)
    by lilburro on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:54:02 PM EST
    the media darling theory, perhaps.  You may've noticed last night how the media was in a frenzy when the numbers came in and they were more for Hillary than they expected.  Suddenly it was the "Can Obama Win Show."  Hillary was winning and suddenly electability concerns felt very serious.  We'll see what happens when Indiana and North Carolina vote.  If Hillary wins Indiana and does well enough in NC so that the story is about her, the narrative about her electability might increase its momentum.  What I expect will happen is a duel between the two as the results come in.  Of course WV and KY will also go in the Hillary column.  
    It's good Hillary stays in til the end.  Obama may be the nominee, but by that point his electoral problems will be glaringly obvious, and he will either have to take her as VP to address them, or do something drastic to really try to connect with these people.  His inability to win white lunchbucket voters is a problem for his electoral chances and for his message.  How can a message about unity just not work?  
    Edwards staying in made healthcare more important.  Hillary staying in should have a similar impact on issues like healthcare and the economy.  Making those more important will help Obama in November.  I don't trust him to prioritize them on his own.  I don't really like him now but he has room for improvement (I HOPE).

    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.  

    What Barack Obama really needs is a focus group.  Whatever happened to those things?  The source of so many interesting campaign transformations - suddenly, from the sky, a healthcare crusader!  Suddenly, from the earth, an environmental activist!  Amazingly, in the suburbs, someone who cares about our schools!  Barack Obama seems focused on his message, but he needs to start targeting issues.  Right now he is resting on his laurels.

    I like your original post. (none / 0) (#174)
    by Faust on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:12:39 PM EST
    I would def support a unity ticket.

    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.

    Let me ask a side question...are there any analogs to a unity ticket? By which I mean...is there any kind of deal where Clinton or Obama could offer the other something that's big and tasty in terms of a position but isn't the VP slot? Or would only a VP slot work?

    offer him FEMA (5.00 / 2) (#183)
    by Arcadianwind on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:26:45 PM EST
    I know he lacks the qualifications, but....

    wow. (none / 0) (#176)
    by Faust on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:17:56 PM EST
    a more competent and less arrogant African American as her running mate.

    No kidding (none / 0) (#184)
    by Democratic Cat on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:28:56 PM EST
    That's as bad as suggesting Obama pick a person -- any person -- with a uterus.

    Would help Clinton, but not Obama... (none / 0) (#180)
    by Exeter on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:25:37 PM EST
    In other words, if it was Clinton-Obama, alot of Obama people that were staying home before, would come out and vote. But, in Obama-Clinton scenario, Clinton's voters view Obama as too liberal and McCain as a conservative Democrat and more in line with their views, so they will vote for McCain.

    Wait... (none / 0) (#193)
    by Addison on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:42:33 PM EST
    ...Obama is too "liberal" for Clinton voters? But I thought Clinton voters were the real Democrats and Obama was just winning because of Independents and Republicans? So now Obama is actually a more liberal choice, and THAT'S why he's unappealing? What a sea change. This sort of whiplash works better on cable.

    Um, Clinton supporters are not (none / 0) (#201)
    by MarkL on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:47:07 PM EST
    monolithic. There are many who feel he is less Progressive than Hillary.
    The people who think he is too liberal may be more bothered by Obama letting terrorists fundraise for him.

    And then there are those... (none / 0) (#206)
    by Addison on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:49:23 PM EST
    ...who are too apolitical and unthinking to worry too much about how pathetic it is to be engaging in silly WoT-inspired propaganda to make their points.

    I'm talking about the 15% (none / 0) (#214)
    by Exeter on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:01:40 PM EST
    of each camp that are still disaffected after the convention. In Clinton's camp it will be some liberal women and some conservative working class democrats.

    But, to your larger point, I think the reason more democrats vote for her is because they think she is more moderate and more electable than Barack.


    Clinton voters view Obama as too liberal? (none / 0) (#199)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:46:05 PM EST
    Sounds like you've been reading the Great Orange again.  That's nonsense.  Clinton voters regard Obama as either nowhere near liberal enough or too nothing at all.

    Not ALL Clinton voters... (none / 0) (#216)
    by Exeter on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:07:52 PM EST
    I'm talking about the 15% or so that are disaffected after the convention and are more likely to vote for McCain. The conservative white democtrats that feel more comfortable voting for McCain that Obama.

    Well I Personally Do Not View Obama As Too Liberal (none / 0) (#203)
    by MO Blue on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:48:03 PM EST
    In fact, I don't view Obama as liberal at all. His positions and statements have consistently been to the right of the other Dem candidates and that includes Hillary.

    Unity Ticket (none / 0) (#188)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:33:11 PM EST
    Would mean McCain/Rice or McCain/Lieberman

    Heh (none / 0) (#204)
    by coigue on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:48:19 PM EST
    bring it on.

    Walnuts/Squinty or Walnuts/Turkey-neck.

    Either way it's Bushenabeler/Bushenabler


    Now more than ever.... (none / 0) (#202)
    by arky on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:47:23 PM EST
    Absolutely NOT!!

    No, No, No (none / 0) (#213)
    by cdalygo on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:57:31 PM EST
    Sorry, BTD, a few weeks ago I reluctantly agreed with you. But his actions after the debate finished me with him. His refusal to take responsibility for his mistakes, his sexist attacks on Hillary with the bird flip and shoulder wipe, and his treatment of the press showed him as another W.

    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.

    Months, even weeks ago, I thought they could work together as a team. But now I feel this guy has a host of problems with women that goes beyond a desire to be president.

    Then yes, now no. (none / 0) (#217)
    by LCaution on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:19:53 PM EST
    At the first 2-person debate between Hillary and Obama, I looked at them and said "what a great team" - with Hillary at the top of the ticket.

    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.

    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.  

    Worse, I think he is an A-1 chauvinist (heaven only knows how he won his wife) who would care more about setting up a run for President than in helping Hillary govern.  Quite frankly, she'd be better off with a lion for a running mate.

    The voices are in (none / 0) (#218)
    by jcsf on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:51:21 PM EST
    And the opinion seems to be no, or a qualified maybe but ONLY if their candidate is at the top of the ticket.

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

    But if wishes were fishes...

    How can we convince her to be VP? (none / 0) (#219)
    by halstoon on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:52:32 PM EST
    Would she rather be VP than NY Governor or Majority Leader?

    No way Obama takes VP; he's winning, and will win the delegate count as awarded by voters.

    Actually, no. (none / 0) (#220)
    by halstoon on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:54:52 PM EST
    If we're to move past the past, then no. Also, they've both dissed each other too much to join in a unity 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.

    Sorry, dude. I don't think it's gonna happen.

    Since February.. (none / 0) (#222)
    by Rainsong on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:10:35 AM EST
    a lot has happened since February. I dont think the voting base split is as bad as some circles spin it, there have been very bitter primaries before, and stranger alliances.

    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.

    Third reason, is either way, there will be losses within the Party base. So damage control, ie minimise the bleeding. To me, losing some small percentage of Obama's voter base is the least damaging,(despite them being the most vocal) and also the easiest breach to heal prior to the GE campaign.

    Moving from yes to not so much (none / 0) (#224)
    by Coral on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:36:59 AM EST
    A few months ago I thought a unity ticket would be great. And even the night of the PA primary. But a few days later I'm beginning to reflect that not only would neither candidate agree, but also that each would be stronger in the GE with a different VP.

    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.

    That said, I vote for the Democrat in November, no matter who it turns out to be.

    I agree, BTD (none / 0) (#230)
    by DCDemocrat on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:35:39 AM EST
    I am an inveterate Clinton supporter.  To the jeers of my fellow bloggers, I signed on as a shipmate for the USS Hillary in January 2007.  I don't Barack Obama in the least little bit (for lots of reasons I am not going to recite here), but at this point, I see no way out of predicament other than a unity ticket.  I think it's either that or defeat.

    Headline of Patrick (none / 0) (#239)
    by oculus on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:38:36 PM EST
    Healy article in Int. Herald Tribune:
    "Dream ticket, or the odd couple?  Clinton and Obama:  Democrats like idea, but candidates don't."