I still think Obama's playing dress-up Democrat, and thinks our party shares equal blame, if not more (pro-choice folks, anyone?)than the other side.  

Wright said that Obama will say what he has to say because he is a politician.  What this tells me is that Obama does not believe these things he says, but he will say them to get elected.   He says them because his running for president and that's what people want to hear. He isn't necessarily a different type of candidate, but he will say that to get elected.  He will make something a racial issue that he knows is not true.... if it will get him elected.   He does not believe in his message per se, but as a politician, he will say what he has to say to get elected.

He can do this.  It is fine.  But if he chooses to do this, the American people should be aware of it.

Hillary admits her faults.  She admits her style, She admits that you may not love her.  But she puts it on the table.  She is honest and will tell the truth to the American people.  She is not a closet racist (like the front page of the WaPost today claims). Obama hides his true nature.  He will not tell you the truth.  He will tell you what you want to hear and then do something else behind the scene.  He is the perfect (deceitful) politician.

It will be a real test of character for the party: Unity ticket and certain victory and possible realignment, or no Unity ticket and sure defeat and a continuation of Bush policies.

"Bonus: white woman from Kansas reminds of Obama's own oft-overlooked roots. A "mother and child reunion."

I am so sick of women having to bolster men - Hillary would have to clean up after Obama (and probably would be doing all of the work and getting none of the credit) and now, Obamanation's ideas for better VP's than Hillary include another women to be his mommy.

Part of the reason many of us no longer view a unity ticket as a good idea - in addition to our belief that Obama is not electable, and would sink Hillary if she is at the top of the ticket - is that we keep hearing Clinton talk about party unity, about her willingness to do whatever it takes to put a Democrat in the WH, and we hear none of that from Obama.  Zip.  Zero.  We don't understand a candidate who talks about unifying the country, who doesn't appear to have any interest in unifying his party if he is not the person around whom they unify.  Who thinks unity means standing alone at the top of the ticket, and who can't bear to say anything positive about his opponent, her husband's time in office, or Democratic party successes because it takes the spotlight off him.  Doesn't unity start at home, so to speak?  Doesn't it require some selflessness, as opposed to the selfishness that Obama increasingly seems to personify?

If there is to be unity in this party, Barack Obama needs not to lead that effort, but to apply himself to that effort.  It has to be the "Barney" approach, and if that means they have to stand on a stage and sing "I love you, you love me, we're a happy family," then that's what needs to happen, now - not at the end of the primary season - NOW.

Clinton supporters know that it isn't going to happen, that whatever Hillary's efforts are to speak to unity, they will be twisted and presented by the Obama campaign and his supporters as some desperate attempt on her part to undercut him and steal votes.

Really, we'd like to be all grown-up and adult about this, but that requires adult behavior from all parties - starting with the man who wants to bring unity to the country and change the way things are done.

But if the Unity Ticket is some kind of artificial construct created by others because they think that it's what the Party needs, I'll find that an insult to both me as a voter and the candidates.

Their styles of functioning everything is totally different. Hillary is a more detail oriented workhorse. She would need somebody who complements her style to make the team more effective.

From all accounts of Obama's senate tenure, he seemed more of the showhorse type who liked being the centre of attention.He would never adjust as Hillary's veep. Similarly if he had to choose a veep candidate Hillary would be the wrong choice for him also. For him to work effectively he would need an experienced hand who wouldn't mind working in the background as the veep.

And finally there is too much bad blood b/w them personally. I don't thing clintons can particulary forgive a guy whose pastor used the pulpit to diss them. Similarly Michelle in a new yorker interview had made a statement that she would like to scratch bill's eyes when asked about what she thought about Bill (she did later excuse it as just kidding).

This kind of personal animosity will not just disappear and will manifest itself in oneway or the other.

I'm not convinced that either of the two now left standing is the strongest pairing for the other but I'm not convinced that it's not the strongest pairing either.

In reality:

• They are much the same on the issues
  
• They are both calculating pols
  
• They both have weaknesses and strengths
  
• They have both been morphing into the other, as they see the advantage in doing so

So, I say bring in a good therapist who can discuss shadow personalities and projection and unconscious behaviors. And the endless ability to deny reality and rationalize their own changing views.

Obama is now the holistic candidate.  :)

My question... did you discuss what the effect of a unity ticket would be or just spend several paragraphs smearing the Clinton's.

Can't people just have a conversation about what the benefits of a unity ticket might be?

This isn't marriage. It's a political arrangement, one that has to take into account potential benefit to the party as a whole and to our chances of winning in November.

But then, I neither love nor hate either of these candidates, and I do find them very similar on most points of policy. Stylistically, I think they even could compliment each other to a degree, and I don't think anything in this campaign has been so absolutely nasty that they can't get along fine at the end of the process -- politicians fight tooth and nail all the time, but come together when they have to. The blogs IMO have contributed to this sort of soap-operaization of the race that I don't think is realistic.

The Clinton supporters that argue against it are wrong when they say that the more experienced person needs to be at the top or that an "outsider"/"insider" ticket goes against the message (e.g. Carter/Mondale, Reagan/Bush, Clinton/Gore, Bush/Cheney).

A more reasonable case against it can be made on the need for compatibility.  The four presidencies mentioned above are notable for influential vice presidents that oversaw significant areas of policy.  Going forward, we should expect to see less "do nothing" vice presidents (Quayle, Agnew) from both parties.

At the top of the ticket, Obama probably doesn't trust Clinton to follow his lead.  In fact, he knows she would not be on board with his post partisan tactics.

The current division in the party is over electoral strategy and governing style.  It isn't policy based.  That is driving the desire to purge all things Clinton.

And allowing some black pundits to keep slamming Bill Clinton as a racist....boy are they stupid or what?

barack and hillary would kick butt, AND

I think you're basically correct about their policies.  

The main difference is that hillary has a decades long track record of selling out to the fascists, and barack has only a few years. At the end of the day, if we the peee-ons are sold out by either one, we the peeeee-ons are gonna get the same big words and big sentecnces and big tomes kind of excuses for selling us out --

ya know

the kind of big words, big sentences, big thoughts, big tomes, BIG EXCUSES that define success at Yale or Harvard law.

if you don't have the facts, argue the law. If you don't have the law, argue the facts.

I don't know that it could be done.  I thought if they could do it, they should have been meeting now to combine in June.  (They could come up with excuses for meeting.)  The problem seems to be the dislike between the campaigns (including sitting legislatures) and staff.  They would have to tear apart their campaigns and reassemble and time is relevant to prepare to shift to the GE.

But I digress.

I think there are risks to the party in November with or without a Unity ticket.  The risks of not having a Unity ticket are that the party splits.  The risks of having a Unity ticket is that having no white men on the ticket could put the party at a disadvantage.  That's a lot of change and I think we all know there are parts of the electorate who will be uncomfortable with electing a woman or a black man and putting them on the same ticket potentially exacerbates that problem.  We might unify the base, but not expand it enough in some swing states to beat McCain.

Obama drafting Clinton as a VP candidate will not solve the situation as it pertains to Clinton supporters.   A meaningless gesture designed to placate a group of voters who will regard that gesture as an insult more than anything else.

The ONLY way at all.  The ONLY way at all I can see Clinton being being VP is if it's not a meaningless gesture, is if it's understood (spoken or unspoken) that the VP will be calling the shots in an Obama administration.  Sort of the same thing we have right now in the White House.  Only with Clinton in the White House.

Not Cheney.

A situation where she is VP but has less power than she had when she was first lady would simply be unacceptable.  

Clinton being VP for Obama would be a step down for her.

Obviously there are some issues with his language set if you're identify yourself mainly as Democrat as opposed to a progressive/independent who votes Democratic (there's a difference), and maybe that's some of the division we're seeing.

But that isn't what I initially wanted to comment about, the point just expanded as I tried to cut-off various potential misunderstandings.

My main point is that I think that when it comes to a presidential ticket branding usually trumps ideology as the most hard-to-overcome issue. So I think your focus on the main difficulty is misplaced, and even your mention of the "Old" versus "New" philosophy thing doesn't quite fit. 8'o'Clock Coffee won't be sold in Starbucks, Punk bands won't wear Abercrombie and Fitch shirts (unironically), and Hillary and Obama won't be on a ticket together unless necessity trumps branding. And we're almost there.

If his entire message is running against Washington and all the players who have played in Washington, it completely undermines his theme to pick someone identified with Washington as his running mate. It totally blunts his own message.

More to the point, he has eviscerated all things Clinton including the 8 years of WJC's presidency which would make him shallow and insincere to now pick Hillary as his running mate.

Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated

There are many other more credible and to me more acceptable blacks who it would be hard for AA's not to vote for or to stay home.

And they might even be Catholic.  

Wouldn't a better idea to be to pressure who ever the loser is to unconditionally support the nominee?  That IS what the whole point of the Unity Ticket is, right - support, voters, GOTV?

So why do they have to actually be on. the. ticket?

Mark - I don't think that after defeating HRC, Obama can or will pick someone as highly identified with anti-abortion. The one insurance policy Obama has to bring back 99 percent of embittered HRC supporters is that McCain is anti-choice and the Supreme Court will be in play in the next presidency. That will be enough to bring them home.

I get emails about Clinton from Obaman family members that makes me sick -- and make me think I ought to kidnap my nieces from our family compounds to get them away from being raised by men I have loved all of my life but cannot trust any more at all.

And the stuff they send about McCain and swear by, see above, is just as crazy.  These are grownups sending such stuff -- some are highly educated lawyers, doctors, teachers, with long experience in politics and the press -- yet falling for the frailties of the 'Net as if they were novices.

Also, if it's true that both Clintons will support Obama as the eventual nominee (as they have both said), why wouldn't HRC's supporters come around to supporting the Dem ticket even without HRC on it?

But speaking for myself, the arguments made by BTD sometimes appear one dimensional to me.  I figure winning is very important, crucial even, it doesn't matter what you believe if you don't win, but if that's the ONLY reason why there should be a unity ticket then people can see through that.

Even if one thinks it goes without saying, in order for a Unity Ticket to work, one has to be able to articulate -- other than a path a victory -- what Clinton would bring to an Obama aministration, or what Obama would bring to a Clinton administration.

I'm really trying to make this more clear but maybe just repeating myself.

Ok.  Just to boil it right down to a very specific question.

There are things and priorities that Gore brought to the Clinton administration that made his administration much better than it would have been without Gore.  If you ask me, I can articulate some of them.  Although, carrying Tennessee was important, it wasn't the ONLY reason to select Gore.  

Clinton becomes VP, and Obama wins the GE.  What does she do for the next 8 years?

Obama becomes VP, and Clinton wins the GE.  What does Obama do for the next 8 years?

One can't ignore those questions or make any assumptions about them.  The ONLY way the Unity Ticket thing can work is if those questions are answered.

People are smart enough to know when they are being pandered to, and the idea would simply backfire if it was handled in a way (by either candidate) that gave the other candidate's supporters the impression that they were just being pandered to for the sake of unity.

Unity for unity's sake.  It doesn't work.  There has to be a logic behind it.  People need to understand their roles.  

BTD.  Make the argument two or three dimensional.  It doesn't mean winning becomes less of a priority, it just means that other factors or worth considering.

For instance, something like this:  Obama lacks experience.  He will need someone beside him who has been there before and knows what it takes.

On the flip side.  Clinton has a tendency to polarize people.  She will need someone beside her who will be able to build the relationships that she can't build because of her history and political outlook.

This sort of thing.

Now I'm convinced.  They should have another debate.

They should not only discuss Umbrella deterrence.

The divisions are extreme now. They are not ideological. Heck, how could they be? There is not a dime's worth of difference between the candidates on the issues.

1. The VP slot is no longer something that matters just to the election. After Clinton-Gore the VP role expanded. I don't see that he brings enough - if anything that role - to justify the downsides given his lack of preparation for the role. We are only now uncovering how minimal experience he brought to the table.

2. With all due respect, there are key differences between them. He doesn't support Universal Health Care. He has dog whistled his willingness to put Social Security "on the table." His willingness to praise Roberts and mention the role of clergy in the choice issue gives me chills. He doesn't support the LGBT community (one throw away line in a speech doesn't equal letting McGuirken travel with you).

3. I see red-flag character issues. He stood silent while his surrogates have race-baited and hurled misogynistic insults at Clinton. He embraced that ethic with his flipping the bird routine (all of it) after the debate loss. Even worse he has whined incessantly over any uncomfortable questioning or intense scrutiny.

Combine HRC's highly-energized base of women, older voters, working class whites and Hispanics with BHO's highly-energized base of African-Americans, younger voters and upscale whites and you have a coalition capable of not just victory, but potentially overwhelming victory in November.

There is another dimension to this as well--that of legitimacy.  If you think of the race as effectively tied (and I think that, given the absence of winner-take-all mechanisms in this process, the results so far are close enough, and laced with enough ambiguity, to more than justify that view) then how the candidates measure up to the challenge of securing practical (as opposed to merely rhetorical) unity becomes an excellent way to judge which candidate is more deserving of the top spot on the ticket.  

In the case of an effective tie--which means simply a case where the legitimacy of either nominee would be subject to doubt by roughly half the party--a very strong argument can be made that victory should go to the side that is willing to acknowledge most fully the legitimacy of the losing side's claim on power.  And an excellent first demonstration of that willingness would be for either candidate to announce a definite intention to nominate the other for Vice President.  Perhaps the uncommitted super-delegates, and former candidates who have not endorsed, could even publicly demand this in the form of a pledge.

If both candidates were to agree, this would automatically put the remaining part of the nomination battle on a very different footing.  It would become a competition to show why one is best suited for the top spot, without the crutch of claiming that one's opponent is wholly unsuited to it.  If one candidate agreed but the other did not reciprocate, then this would give the first-mover a significant claim of greater moral legitimacy and electoral advantage in the fall.  Of course the candidate who did not take the pledge could also make a Sherman statement refusing the Vice Presidential nomination, but there would consequences to that reluctance as well.

Suppose both candidates took the pledge, what then?  Then the bidding for most-generous-winner could escalate from there.  One can imagine offers of specific policy portfolios, seats on the major inter-agency principals committees, nomination of specific cabinet/agency posts, a fixed schedule of one-on-one meetings, and other such terms of partnership.  To avoid awkwardness on the campaign trail, these subsequent rounds of negotiation could be carried on privately, with neutral observers from the DNC and uncommitted super-delegates present.  The stipulation would be that the candidates are being judged on their willingess to compromise in the interests of party unity.

Why would either candidate ever agree to be judged by how much they are willing to concede to their rival?  Simple:  Neither currently has, nor is likely to have, the power to work their will at or before the convention, without severely damaging their chances in November.  Each is powerful enough to check the power of the other, but not powerful enough to overcome the other.  We don't need to assume that they are uniquely noble or altruistic, only that they are prepared to face facts.