home

Dems Need A Unity Ticket

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:04:21 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

I have found the only other person (besides Mario Cuomo) in America who agrees with me that Dems need a Unity Ticket, Dewayne Wickham of USA Today:

If Democrats are going to win the White House in November, they need a shotgun wedding in June. This is not something that either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton wants to hear, nor is it anything party leaders have been willing to say — at least not publicly. But without both Clinton and Obama on the same ticket, Democrats stand a good chance of suffering a humiliating defeat in the general election. MORE . . .

While much of the focus has been on the new voters who have been drawn into the primaries, the historic competition between Obama, a black man, and Clinton, a white woman, has transformed the Democrats in another way. It has opened a chasm between blacks and white women — the party's two most loyal constituencies.

. . . The best way for Democrats to repair the damage done by the bruising primary election campaign is to find a way to make Obama and Clinton ticket mates in the general election. Such a shotgun marriage worked in 1960 with John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, and it can work in 2008 — if good sense prevails in the Democratic Party.

Yep.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Late Night: Summing Up Rev. Wright | Obama Supporter Conspiracy Theory: Clinton Forced Wright To Talk >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Dems Need A Unity Ticket | 218 comments (218 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Why just Wickam (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Saul on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:10:16 AM EST
    I been saying it throughout this year in various past posts here on TL

    Literary license (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:12:37 AM EST
    Besides scattered commenters on this blog, I have not seen any one agree with this.

    Parent
    Gov Cuomo (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Saul on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:17:31 AM EST
    made a TV appearance describing the very same thing and said without a unity ticket the Dem could loose the election because of the bickering.

    Good point (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:31:14 AM EST
    I edited my post to note that.

    Parent
    Sorry, Obama is damaged goods (5.00 / 8) (#9)
    by MMW on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:22:46 AM EST
    He'd be one step from the Presidency as VP. Anyone who thinks that Obama is not Presidential material would not vote for this ticket. This is rewarding someone for being down right divisive.

    Sorry, I don't get this insistence. Quite frankly it seems more likely that Obama band wagon people are trying to save face right now. To me it is fairly simple S__t or get off the pot. Make a decision, if you think he's so good for the party and the country, then elect him. Don't give me that Clinton should accept VP to mollify anyone. Too tired of women carrying the load while men preen. I'd be profoundly disappointed in Hillary if she chose him as VP or agreed to be his VP. No, it sets us back.

    I'm off the bandwagon. (5.00 / 0) (#36)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:48:16 AM EST
    No more Unity Pony for me.

    Obama is a dead man walking (politically). The Republicans are playing this guilt-by-association crap to the hilt. HRC doesn't need his baggage.

    She should pick Wes Clark as her VP. They will demolish McCain.

    Parent

    What Do You Do? (5.00 / 0) (#84)
    by flashman on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:09:08 AM EST
    about the African-American voters who will think they were robbed?

    Parent
    I don't care. (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:15:28 AM EST
    Sorry.

    Why must HRC's supporters swallow their feelings and take one for the team, but they don't have to? What are they, children? Is it our responsibility that their candidate is a divisive, toxic nightmare for the Democratic Party? Are they Democrats, or not?

    They should vote Democratic just like I will in the fall, and I think they will. McCain is simply unacceptable.

    Parent

    "divisive toxic nightmare" (none / 0) (#103)
    by sarissa on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:19:35 AM EST
    Wow, just wow...

    I think the question was what do you do about the irked Obamans?  Seriously, what?  

    It has to be a unity ticket at this point.

    Parent

    I answered the question. (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:24:35 AM EST
    They will have to suck it up and take one for the team. That's what they expect of HRC supporters and that's what we expect of them.

    Should HRC become the nominee, picking another AA as VP would be seen as pandering, and rightly so. There's nothing HRC can do in that regard except continue to promote Party unity and reach out to the AA community, as she has been doing all along.

    Parent

    I am sick to death of all the (5.00 / 3) (#174)
    by kenosharick on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:09:34 AM EST
    concern for the poor Obama supporters. No one seems to give a crap about how Clinton supporers will feel. Or the voters of Mich/Fla. for that matter.

    Parent
    or seem to notice (5.00 / 0) (#185)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:17:37 AM EST
    that AAs are, what, 12% of the general population and women are 51%.

    Parent
    Yes But (none / 0) (#208)
    by squeaky on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:55:33 AM EST
    They are not all Democrats. The breakdown in women between republican and democrats particularly among young voters somewhat mitigates the big difference.

    Since 1992, the Democratic Party has had a sizable advantage in partisan affiliation among women. But women voters now identify with the Democratic Party in greater numbers than in the past -- and the trend is particularly dramatic among younger women voters.

    Fully 56% of women identify with or lean toward the Democratic Party, compared with 33% who identify or lean toward the GOP. Since 2004, the Democrats' lead in party affiliation among women has doubled (from 11 points to 22 points).

    [snip]

    Four years ago, just over half of women under age 30 identified as Democrats (54%) and 36% identified as Republicans, an 18-point advantage. Today, Democrats hold a 35-point advantage, with more than six-in-ten women in this age group calling themselves Democrats (63%) and just 28% calling themselves Republicans.

    Pew

    Parent

    If blacks can vote for Obama just because (none / 0) (#217)
    by FlaDemFem on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:59:49 PM EST
    he is black, why can't women vote for Hillary just because she is a woman?? And a great many in the black community are becoming disenchanted with Obama. He has failed to defend his spiritual guide and mentor, he has failed to bring up any policies that specifically address the major problems of the AA community, like poverty, health care and jobs. He has publicly stated that his reason for going to Trinity was political. So who is using the AA community for political purposes?? Obama. At least Hillary does address the problems in the AA community, poverty, health care and jobs. If Hillary gets the nomination, she will get the AA vote. She had it before Obama and she will have it after Obama. And she will get a huge slice of the women's vote, if not all of it. After all, it doesn't matter what one says to the pollsters, the exit polls or anyone else, what really matters, and what only the voter will know, is who they vote for in the privacy of the voting booth.

    Parent
    OK (none / 0) (#218)
    by squeaky on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:08:57 PM EST
    If blacks can vote for Obama just because he is black, why can't women vote for Hillary just because she is a woman??
    Not sure of why you are arguing this.  People will vote for who they think will best represent them and I certainly have no problem with that. I would love to see either of them in the WH and unity ticket makes tremendous sense to me.

    All I am pointing out that the 51% women voters and 12% AA voters number is somewhat misleading, without breaking it down.

    Parent

    Oh, silly (none / 0) (#222)
    by flashman on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:31:30 PM EST
    you're supposed to gush with adulation for Hillary, or suffer the wrath of the site members.  She's my candidate too, but like you, I'm a practical Democrat.  To me, all the voters matter.

    Parent
    Didn't Suggest "Taking 1 For The Team" (none / 0) (#112)
    by flashman on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:23:03 AM EST
    But AA voters have been among the most loyal Democrats since the Rooselvelt Administration. No Democrat would have won a national election in the last 60 years without the AA vote. We need to care. I want to hear a Democart's plan to unify the party if the SD's decide to 'award' Hillary the nomination.  I don't think we can just take AA's for granted.

    Parent
    But we can take HRC's supporters for granted? (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:26:44 AM EST
    I get really, really tired of this talking point.

    HRC has done nothing, not ONE THING, to alienate AA's. That was Obama's strategy. It is not her fault. It is not her responsibility. She has always been a huge supporter of the AA community. She shows up at the important events (that Obama skips, by the way).

    What would you have her do?

    Parent

    That's The Question (none / 0) (#135)
    by flashman on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:32:36 AM EST
    It's not a talking point; it's a valid concern.  I know how it is around here; anyone who raises valid concerns must be just repeating 'talking points.'  Nope.  I'm not a Obama Maniac.  I'm concerned about the GE and how we can heal the party.  I know Hillary has a good case to make to the SD's about big, important states and all.  But the AA voters might feel their candidate was taken away from them, and not compelled to vote for Hillary in Nov.  The most important thing is winning, not who to fault if we lose.

    Parent
    I'm sure you think this is a valid concern. (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:40:02 AM EST
    I'm not trying to attack you personally. But it is a talking point, and we need to think about it.

    Are Obama's supporters more important that HRC's supporters? If so, why? Don't you think that HRC's supporters will feel robbed if she isn't the nominee?

    Also, how likely is it that Obama's supporters will stay home or vote for McCain, versus how likely is it that HRC's voters will do the same?

    HRC can do nothing about the hurt feelings of Obama's supporters except bow out. Even if he's VP, there will be no guarantee that they won't feel cheated. And if he loses to McCain, which he will, IACF, of course.

    So to me, it's not about feelings. It's a numbers game at this point, and there are many, many more of HRC's supporters that won't vote for Obama, than there are of Obama's supporters that won't vote for HRC.

    Who would you rather alienate? The bigger group or the smaller group? Because even a combined ticket doesn't guarantee that Obamans won't be alienated, IMHO.

    Parent

    Madamab is right (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by rnibs on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:05:08 AM EST
    about one thing.  HRC supporters have been told over and over again that we have to suck it up for the party, even though BO has treated her with disdain, tried to force her out of the race and has tried to brand her as a racist.

    There's just so little concern for women supporters of HRC and we are totally being taken for granted.

    This doesn't mean that AA's won't rightly feel that they're being short-changed, but won't someone other than BTD show a little concern about us women?

    Parent

    Rightly? I disagree. We must unite. (5.00 / 0) (#220)
    by cymro on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:16:11 PM EST
    This doesn't mean that AA's won't rightly feel that they're being short-changed, but won't someone other than BTD show a little concern about us women?

    There are two things wrong with this comment, IMO:

    First, if the party decides not to nominate a candidate because they are deemed less likely to win, that candidates supporters may indeed feel short-changed, but I do not accept that they have actually been short changed. Therefore I do not accept the use of the adverb "rightly" here.

    Second, this thread is about how best to achieve party unity and, in particular, how to retain Obama's supporters if Clinton is nominated. Feuding about who has been taken for granted the most does not help advance that discussion. If Hillary is nominated, we need to pick the running mate who will maximize our chance of victory in November.

    Arguing that we can ignore the feelings of Obama supporters just because they have been ignoring ours only makes us just as petty and divisive as them. We must rise above that kind of irrelevant bickering and remember that the goal is to beat McCain, not to score points over the other faction within our own party.

    Please!

    Parent

    Thanks (none / 0) (#224)
    by flashman on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:41:45 PM EST
    for your dose of sanity.

    Parent
    I'm Not Taking Anyone For Granted (none / 0) (#186)
    by flashman on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:17:51 AM EST
    And I'm not telling anyone to suck anything up.  Is it impossible to have an honest discussion, on topic and without detours.  It's not an exhibit of disconcern for women.  How can you make a judgement of whether or not I show concern by one topic thread?  How does concer for one group cancel concern for another?  It's a simple question.  

    Parent
    I'd Rather Not Alienate Either (none / 0) (#159)
    by flashman on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:52:47 AM EST
    That's not my question.  It's not about who gets alienated.  I don't think you're interested in the question.  I can accept that you don't care about AA voters, but some of us do, and understand that we need to find a way to heal if we expect to win.  Feelings percipitate the numbers.  We need to find a way to count on their support.  I think the election is going to be close.  McCain is a very likable guy.  Hell, even I like him; he was my Senator when I lived in Arizona.  We will need to turn out the maximum possible voters to beat him.

    Still looking for ideas.  Hopefully, there are others with ideas about how to deal with this issue.  This is more than a 'talking point.'

    Parent

    Oh please. (none / 0) (#178)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:12:24 AM EST
    I don't care about AA voters?

    Nice try.

    I don't care about Obamans who would be so upset that BHO was not nominated that they would vote against their own interests. I don't think that most BHO supporters will do what you think they will, whether they're AA's or not. And I don't think that AA's are that monolithic or attached to their candidate. So you may be concerned about this possibility, but I think it is not that big a deal.

    I have answered the question repeatedly. IMHO, there is nothing HRC can do to prevent the hurt feelings of some Obamans. Nominating Obama as VP might not even do it. She didn't alienate them and it's not her responsibility to worry about them.

    You don't have to agree with me, but do not attempt to call me a racist in that passive-aggressive manner.

    Parent

    Who Called You A Racist? (none / 0) (#189)
    by flashman on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:21:30 AM EST
    I don't care if you don't want to answer the question. You've provided NO answer, and that's OK with me.  But YOU said you don't care, after I sepcifically asked about AA voters.  Don't try to put you OWN words into my mouth.  Own up to your words, to do otherwise is cowardice.

    Parent
    When you say someone doesn't care about AAs.. (none / 0) (#211)
    by alexei on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:01:15 PM EST
    that can be implicitly calling that person a racist.  Remember, "George Bush don't care about black people"?

    Parent
    She Said She Didn't Care (none / 0) (#212)
    by flashman on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:12:12 PM EST
    I only acknowledged what she said.  And I didn't say she didn't care about AA's.  We were taling specifically about voters and the effects of race on the election.  Please try not to generalize my comments.

    Parent
    How about Obama start right now repairing the ... (none / 0) (#210)
    by alexei on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:56:46 AM EST
    rift that he created by painting the Clintons and Clinton supporters as racists.  He should be out there now forcefully stating that the voters and the Clintons are not racists.  Then, he should gracefully bow out and work hard for the Democratic ticket, particularly in the AA community.  The Clintons should continue their work and address the issues that are important to the AAs.  Other AA leaders should be out clarifying the huge differences between the Parties and how both Clintons have been staunch backers of Civil rights.

    Parent
    Would It Be Presumptive (none / 0) (#215)
    by flashman on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:46:52 PM EST
    to expect the WINNER to be the one to reach out and try to heal?  My first thought would be to offer the VP spot to Obama, or to pick a VP who will placate the electorate.  The first choice is not a good one, as I think Obama has become quite radioactive in this election cycle.  The second would appear as pandering or patronizing, and would probably backfire.  How would a promise of a cabnit appointment go over?  I know that's 'wink and nod' politics, but it might be what we need to start pulling the party together.  If a deal can be cut, maybe Obama could be convinced to do just what you've suggested.

    Parent
    the AA supporters are starting to split (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by athyrio on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:37:14 AM EST
    away from Obama per this link

    Parent
    The AA vote is not surgically attached (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by felizarte on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:04:14 AM EST
    to Barack Obama.  They are plain Americans.  They should vote for what is good for the country.  The republicans will use everything there is now to throw at Obama whether he is the Presidential nominee or V.P.  

    I believe that this is the last ditch effort of the Obama supporters to somehow "get their man in".  It won't work.  Between Rev. Wright and who will probably continue all the way to November when his book comes out,, and the Obama supporters who have also come up with derogatory statements against Hillary, the ticket won't stand the chance.

    If Hillary is the nominee, let her run the campaign the best way she can, with the people she chooses.  Do not tie her hands.  Barack is young.  He can run again and hopefully, he would have learned his lessons and mayybe learn not to appear arrogant. Pride and dignity, yes.  Arrogance, no.

    Parent

    What? (none / 0) (#175)
    by flashman on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:10:47 AM EST
    What is a 'last ditch effort?'  I asked the question because I'm concerned, and because of my close tied to the AA community, and my sense of what they are feeling.  I'm sure this will be a factor come Noverber.  I can't say it will be a show-stopper.  But I do beileve it's an important concern.

    Parent
    its a wait and see- now (none / 0) (#179)
    by kimsaw on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:12:25 AM EST
    I haven't seen another way out of the mess except for a unity ticket for a long time. I've said it before, its all about the demographics each draws. Dems do need AAs, but they also need Clinton's constituency. Obama will lose a good chunk of the blue collars especially now.  Obama is increasingly showing himself as the weaker of the two, but he has always been when you consider the dynamics of style over substance. Bush is certainly an example of what happens when you give priority to style and don't engage on the issues.

    Given Obama's current circumstance,I would wait until the NC vote before anyone laid down a unity ticket in cement. I'd like to see if Clinton can win back some AA's in NC, I've got feeling she can.  If its not enough to dent Obama's hold then its got to be a unity ticket with Clinton on top. The "fierce urgency of now" means we need concrete solutions not jello molds waiting to form. If Obama says no, then he is all talk and no walk , and he shouldn't be President anyway.  

    Parent

    Only problem (none / 0) (#61)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:00:13 AM EST
    with your silly argument is that Obama is going to win the nomination.  I don't know that Hill would want the VP.

    Parent
    wanna bet? (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:03:14 AM EST


    Parent
    I would love to (none / 0) (#79)
    by TruthMatters on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:07:05 AM EST
    take that bet.

    I mean its not like after May 6th, Obama will be under 200 delegates away from hitting 2,024 or anything, I mean this magical rush of supers to Hillary that her supporters have been talking about for MONTHS thats just around the corner right? right after she wins Texas and Ohio, errr after Wright, err after bitter-gate, err after she wins PA, errr now its what after Indiana the supers will rush to her right?

    Parent

    20 bucks to your favorite charity? (none / 0) (#83)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:08:19 AM EST
    right now?


    Parent
    sure (none / 0) (#86)
    by TruthMatters on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:10:04 AM EST
    but its a political bet so the donation will be political, it will be to the DNC (they need the funds)

    Parent
    never (none / 0) (#90)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:12:07 AM EST
    pick another

    Parent
    you are sure (none / 0) (#99)
    by TruthMatters on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:16:44 AM EST
    you are going to win anyways, so it doesn't matter where i send my money.

    thats the point of betting its a cost benefit analysis, you say Hillary will win, I say put your money where your mouth is, if she doesn't you donate to the DNC. but fine we will do this, If I am right you donate to the DNC, and if you are right I will donate where you say.

    but yep I am sticking with the DNC

    Parent

    done (none / 0) (#100)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:17:29 AM EST


    Parent
    I do this not to be snarky (none / 0) (#107)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:21:42 AM EST
    but only to make a point.
    I believe Hillary will take this.  I have said so for months.  I believe Obama will implode.
    if neither of these things happen giving 20 bucks to Dean and Brazille will be fitting punishment for me for ever thinking the democratic party could extract its head from its rear end and win an election.
    I will take it like a man.
    and I will be done with the democratic party for ever.

    Parent
    lol (none / 0) (#141)
    by TruthMatters on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:35:02 AM EST
    I too believe Obama will win, but its of he is close to 2,024, by current projections he Puerto Rico will put him over the top if he gets 60 more supers to endorse him before then.

    he got another one today ;)

    its simple Hillary has electability issues of her own, no one who is considered unfavorable by over half of voters doesn't have electability issues. supes know its a roll of the dice either way, so they will just go with the delegate count and say hey thats how we choose, not our fault we lost.  

    Parent

    I disagree (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:39:54 AM EST
    it is our fault BECAUSE of the way we choose.
    as far as Hillarys negatives, the same thing was said when she ran for the Senate.  she was underestimated then and she is being underestimated now.
    IMO she is a solid 51%.  Obama will either be 60% or 40%.  we wont know until Nov 6th.

    Parent
    Why don't you make it to (none / 0) (#158)
    by waldenpond on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:50:08 AM EST
    each others local senate race or something?  I think the DNC needs a lesson.  Money can go to local races, 572s etc.  Not the DNC.  They really need a slap down.

    Parent
    because the DNC (none / 0) (#160)
    by TruthMatters on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:52:59 AM EST
    will help democrats across the country who may need it to get elected and they will use it against McCain.
    so giving the DNC money only helps all democrats.

    Parent
    DNC money only helps all democrats (none / 0) (#161)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:55:17 AM EST
    hard thing to convince most Hillary supporters of.
    that.

    Parent
    Sick of the DNC treating me like an ATM (none / 0) (#182)
    by Ellie on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:14:42 AM EST
    Every single time it's "Quick, hand me your money and then F--k Off! Snap to it, honey, cab's waiting!!!"

    They'll get their love when I get back my personhood they sold off over my most strenuous objections. (Turns out they used my donations to court the sellers, if you can imagine such a thing!)

    Parent

    speaking of silly arguments....................... (5.00 / 3) (#104)
    by cpinva on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:19:51 AM EST
    that cracking sound you hear isn't ice breaking in hell. no, that would be noise made by the fragmenting caused by the obama campaign imploding.

    whatever advantage he may have enjoyed is gone, either by his own hand or that of his "friends" and "mentors". the media tide has started ebbing for him as well; the "love fest" would appear, for the most part, to be a thing of the past. actually, i figured it would happen the moment he was nominated, were that the case. the inevitable just came sooner than expected.

    he will in all probability win the NC primary, due to the overwhelming support of the 21% AA population. that's pretty much it for him. he's limping into home plate, getting ready to be caught in a double-play.

    sen. clinton just needs to keep on keeping on, and let sen. obama continue self destructing. it's unfortunate really, given a few years of seasoning, he could have been a legitimate contender. as it is, he may not recover from this.

    as for the "unity" ticket, i agree, there does need to be one. that said, sen. obama shouldn't be part of it, he's toxic to the campaign and the party right now, low-hanging fruit for the repubs in the fall. what's andrew young up to these days?

    Parent

    Sort of racist, isn't it? (none / 0) (#139)
    by NealB on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:34:34 AM EST
    ...suggesting simply to sub a black candidate for Obama? I think the idea of a "unity ticket" is to put the specific individuals who were the top two vote and delegate winners on the ticket together. Not just any possibly viable black man or white woman in hopes of mollifying the supporters of the loser.

    Parent
    caution (none / 0) (#77)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:07:04 AM EST
    dont believe everything Dick Morris says.
    in fact.  dont believe ANYTHING Dick Morris says.

    Parent
    I agree w/your entire post, but..... (none / 0) (#122)
    by vicndabx on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:27:34 AM EST
    it doesn't change the reality of the situation for dems.  My gut (reliable barometer that is of all things political) tells me this is gonna be another tight race for president.  We're gonna need the entire party's support.  No matter how much we dislike McCain, he's pretty centrist on a lot of issues and there's a good chance he will draw off some dem/ind support.  With a Hill/O ticket, O can benefit from the political astuteness the Clintons bring to the table.  Furthermore, the entire talent pool cabinet Hill would likely choose from (Wes Clark, etc.) helps blunt that argument.

    Parent
    Blunt that argument (none / 0) (#129)
    by vicndabx on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:30:41 AM EST
    the "do we want this guy one step away from the presidency" argument.

    Parent
    I still think the Dems. . . (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:24:15 AM EST
    have a good chance of winning with either Clinton or Obama -- although I'm beginning to worry about the Wright effect on Obama.

    I'm not at all averse to a Unity ticket (in either order, although it would be kind of weird to see Clinton junior to Obama given their respective political histories) but there are other ways to achieve unity than simply combining the two candidates on one ticket.

    I do hope that both camps (I'm less worried about the candidates themselves) understand the need for unity after the eventual decision is made.

    There are unity tickets, and unity tickets (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by p lukasiak on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:25:28 AM EST
    I think it would be a great idea for Clinton to nominate an African American for the VP slot -- not just Barack Obama.  Obama in the VP slot will leave Clinton vulnerable to attack based on that choice.  

    And the bottom line on Obama is that the overwhelming support he got in the black community was based on his race.  No white guy with his resume and schtick would have gotten more than 10% of the AA vote against Clinton (and Edwards) in SC, and wouldn't be breaking 25% in states where its only been Clinton and Obama.  Obama is merely a symbol of African-American aspirations, and as such can be replaced by another symbol and unify the party (except for the Faculty Lounge-type Obots..the Veruca Salts of Democratic politics).

    And the person I'd like to see her nominate is Bill Gray; former Congressman, and long term head of the United Negro College Fund (but I'm open to other suggestions.)

    But if Obama is the nominee, I don't see much point in making Hillary the VP.  She (and Bill) would wind up with far more media attention than would be good for an Obama campaign, making it far more difficult for him to get his message out.

    And Obama needs a VP with strong national security credentials or at least someone who can connect with the 'working class white voter'.  In the latter category, I think Ed Rendell would make a great choice.

    Do you understand how insulting it would be (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:36:33 AM EST
    to AAs if Hillary were to choose some other generic black guy? It would be the same if Obama just chose some other woman.

    No, I think BTD is right. It has to be these two, in some way or another.

    Parent

    The one problem is (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:34:57 AM EST
    I suspect that if you put Obama on the top of the ticket you would still lose a lot of base voters who do not want him as President even with Hillary there to support him. And likewise, vice versa. I use to agree it is the only way, but I have my doubts now. The only way I see it, and maybe I am bias, is for Hillary to be on the top of the ticket and Obama is going to have to do a lot of cleaning up. And even that can change this coming month.

    Parent
    Hillary as President and another Black guy as VP (none / 0) (#40)
    by democrat1 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:49:59 AM EST
    I agree with you in that Obama is damaged goods and
    toxic to any ticket.  Not only Rezko, Wright and his comments on middle class America and his lack of experience mortally wounded him and he is unlikely to recover in this election cycle. The best bet for democrats is Hillary as President and another good black guy as VP will be a winning combination. Obama can try his luck after 8years.  By that time all this will be behind him and he will be more mature and have enough experience to handle any situation

    Parent
    oh I get it (none / 0) (#66)
    by TruthMatters on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:03:09 AM EST
    black people are only voting for Obama because he is black, so it doesn't make a difference any ol black guy will be good enough right?

    Parent
    People don't think that way (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by dianem on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:20:54 AM EST
    It is totally beyond reasons that 90% of black Obama supporters are voting for him simply because he is the better candidate, but that doesn't mean that realize that they are simply voting for "the black candidate". People rationalize their decisions. They may subconsciously be voting for him because of race, but they think they're voting for him because he is a wonderful candidate because of X, Y, and Z. Switching to another black candidate now would insult them because it would imply that they are simply voting for Obama because he is black. It would be especially bad coming from Clinton since Obama's campaign has effectively tarred her as a racist.

    Parent
    What an incredibly insulting comment! (none / 0) (#166)
    by independent voter on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:01:15 AM EST
    How would you like it if you substituted "woman" for "black" in your comment?
    Try this on: It is totally beyond reason that 90% of women Clinton supporters are voting for her simply because she is the better candidate, but that doesn't mean that (sic) realize that they are simply voting for "the woman candidate". People rationalize their decisions. They may be subconsciously voting for her because of her sex, but they think they're voting for her because she is a wonderful candidate because of X, Y, and Z.
    For G-d's sake! How superior and dismissive can you be in one post????

    Parent
    Unfair comparison (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by kayla on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:11:43 AM EST
    90% of women aren't voting for Hillary.

    Parent
    I agree that (none / 0) (#200)
    by rooge04 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:25:53 AM EST
    it would be silly for Hillary to simply chose another black man as her running mate. Just as silly as I thought it was when people were dismissing her as VP and suggested Obama choose Sebelius or Napolitano as token women.

    Parent
    You are totally wrong (none / 0) (#204)
    by dianem on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:43:51 AM EST
    First, Clinton's support among women isn't anywhere near 90%. And I can assure you that if it was, then people would be freely saying that they were voting for Clinton merely because she was a woman - and they would be right. Women are no more of a homogenous block than blacks - they have different ideas and feelings, and different needs in a candidate. Before Obama started labelling Clinton as a racist, a lot of black people supported her in the primary. But he has consistently played the race card in ways that manipulated black sentiment until they felt as if it would be betraying their ancestry to vote for anybody but Obama. He has repeatedly appealed to their desire for equality and fairness in a way that indicates that "fairness" means a black President.

    If anything is insulting it is the suggestion that black people are a unified block that automatically will vote for a particular candidate or party. The only reason they are voting the way they are is that the Obama campaign has manipulated public opinion and lied about Clinton. Black people are a diverse as any other group in America.

    Parent

    Oh, really? (none / 0) (#214)
    by independent voter on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:24:41 PM EST
    but, in your opinion The only reason they are voting the way they are is that the Obama campaign has manipulated public opinion and lied about Clinton. those black people are not smart enough to make a decision unless they are lied to and manipulated.
    I bet you are one of the first to spot SEXISM in every statement, gesture, and facial reaction.

    I would like to remind you that blacks have been faithfully pushing the button for the WHITE Democratic candidate for many years. I'm quite sure you believe they did that because they were voting for the BETTER CANDIDATE.

    Parent

    They're not that faithful (none / 0) (#216)
    by dianem on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:47:57 PM EST
    A lot of black people didn't vote at all and an increasing number have been voting Republican due to the abortion issue, a fact that was of great concern to the Democratic Party. I don't know where you got the impression that I thought that black people are not smart. Perhaps you are assuming that smart people cannot be manipulated. That's not true. Smart people are as vulnerable to mnanipulation as less intelligent people, especially when most of the media are participating actively in the manipulation.

    Please lose the idea that black people are a homogenous group. They are as diverse as any other group of Americans. When they all walk in lockstep you can be certain that there is something funny going on. This is not unique to black people, by the way. For example, the overwhelming support of Americans for the war in Iraq was a result of manipulation of their feelings by the government and the near-universal media support for the war. If Americans had been given less biased information, they would not have been so unified. If the media were not parroting Obama's campaign's lies about Clinton then black people would not be as unified against her.

    Oh... and I don't see sexism everywhere. I do see it in a lot of places, but certainly not in "every statement, gesture, and facial reaction". In fact, I can't recall the last time I saw it in a facial reaction. Can you actually see sexism in someone's face? I can't.  Sexism, like racism, is generally more subtle. It's rarely so obvious that you can see it. Well, until this election, when a lot of people were pretty obvious about it.

    Parent

    I've suggested before that (none / 0) (#191)
    by brodie on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:31:25 AM EST
    Hillary, should she feel compelled to cater to the AA community if a racial divide still exists a few months from now, would have very few options as remedy.  There's the now-badly damaged Obama, and just about no one else.

    Bill Gray?  Wow, that's a flash from the past -- like the 1980s.  Not entirely unreasonable (smart, well-spoken moderate-lib, PN) but far from ideal.  The only other AA I can think of is Harold Ford Jr, but he lost his last race and VP picks aren't usually chosen from the ranks of recent losers.

    A month ago, the HRC/Obama unity ticket seemed reasonable.  But not now with Rev Wright running amuk and Obama seeming to be clueless about how to handle it.

    Far too fluid politically right now to push for any unity ticket that includes the potentially toxic Obama-Wright.

    The upside of course is that Wright will give SDs considerable pause as to whether Obama could survive politically in the fall.  

    I now like Hillary's chances of coming back to win the nom.

    Parent

    Time will tell (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by BernieO on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:26:41 AM EST
    If Obama keeps imploding and more comes out about issues like Rezko, Ayers or Auchi Obama may be damaged goods. And I think Hillary as VP will not help him. Many of Hillary's female supporters will not like to see what they perceive as a more qualified, experienced woman take second place to a younger, less seasoned man. This would just be a symbol of the kind of demeaning thing that women deeply resent. It also looks like Obama needs a mom to help him do the job.
    I believe it would be better IMO for Hillary - and Bill - to just keep telling her supporters that we must support the Democratic candidate, and how disastrous four more years of Bush policies will be for our country. She has already made this clear on several occasions. Her supporters really respect her and I think they would most likely heed her advice, once emotions cooled off. Hillary should stay in the Senate where she can be her own woman. I find it hard to believe that Obama would - or could afford - to give her more than an mostly ceremonial role as VP, which had been the norm until Gore's and then Cheney's vice presidencies.

    A unity ticket could well be dangerous (5.00 / 6) (#15)
    by athyrio on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:33:11 AM EST
    at this point, and I don't see it helping Hillary in any way....I trust her to make the correct choice as I think Hillary is totally electable in her own right as supported by many polls at this point....Thank God she has good political instincts, and the best political advisor around...her husband...

    I don't think it's fair to say ... (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Annie M on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:46:20 AM EST
    That Obama wouldn't help Hillary in any way.  Obama has built a formidable fund raising machine and has millions of supporters - many of them new to the process.  What he has achieved is indeed impressive.  If having him on the ticket is a way to keep from alienating these voters - I'm for it.

    Parent
    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:49:45 AM EST
    I dont think people vote "against" a VP but a VP could bring people to the voting booth.

    Parent
    He can sell her the data base as he is the DNC (none / 0) (#82)
    by Salt on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:08:16 AM EST


    Parent
    Don't count your marshmallow peeps just yet (none / 0) (#188)
    by Ellie on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:20:30 AM EST
    All they've done so far is rushed around Teh New Coolness and the numbers and support hasn't shown it's substantial numerically or in attention span.

    The hype's been glory alleh-lou so far but it hasn't shown itself to be solid yet.

    I was on a gajillion databases too, btw, before installing a really efficient call blocker.

    Parent

    Obama has raised more money .... (none / 0) (#196)
    by Annie M on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:42:36 AM EST
    than any other democratic candidate in history.  Period.  That's impressive.

    Parent
    lets hope she listenes to him (none / 0) (#19)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:36:34 AM EST
    and not the wankers who have driven her campaign into the ditch.


    Parent
    A unity ticket is too little and too late (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by koshembos on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:38:34 AM EST
    First, the USA Today is wrong. The chasm is not just AA and women. He ignore the blue collar workers and a substantial segment of the truly progressives.

    Even if the term shotgun wedding make sense politically (it doesn't), an Obama/Clinton ticket will lose at least the blue collars and many women. A Clinton/Obama ticket will lose the wine drinkers (many of whom are half Republican anyhow) and most of the Kos goons.

    Only a truth and reconciliation getting together can help and this is not in the cards.

    You crack me up.....shotgun wedding ;) (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:42:42 AM EST
    I want it.  I don't mind being a flower girl.  It would be the best thing that ever happened to our country no matter who gets top billing.  There has been so much damage done though and so many people just not good at sucking it up, doing what is best for everyone and moving beyond their own petty bullsnot, and tackling the not so petty job at hand.  I don't even blame the candidates for this hideous predicament much.  This disaster was created by candidate supporters and media support, and NO - you don't get to say told ya so.

    Yep. (none / 0) (#56)
    by pie on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:58:01 AM EST
    This disaster was created by candidate supporters and media support, and NO - you don't get to say told ya so.

    People need to step back, take a deep breath, and THINK.

    Parent

    I still don't feel it is that great an (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Serene1 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:43:37 AM EST
    idea. Both have equally big baggages now the cummulative effect of the baggages will be bad in GE.

    If Hillary were to win the nomination, I think it will be better for her to select a candidate who is fresh and will be able to attract the youth and AA vote. Right now with my limited knowledge of the Dem field, I don't know who will fit the Bill.

    Earlier I thought Patterson would have been a good running mate till I saw him and his wife happily revealing their extra marital everything to anybody who was willing to listen.

    Maybe.... (5.00 / 4) (#31)
    by Fabian on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:44:13 AM EST
    Eh, forget it.  Let Obama choose some older wiser White Guy to be his VP, and let Clinton go hold her own in the Senate.  Better than her being the fall guy to Obama's failures.  (There's a "mommy" meme in there somewhere.)

    Unless Obama can shake his baggage and divisiveness, there's no reason for Clinton to have him as a VP.  Her ideal partner would be a national security type - I think Clinton's demographics are pretty good on their own.

    If Obama wins, he gets the support of Bill and Hillary which he'll need, desperately.

    If Clinton wins, it will be up to Obama to show whether he is a Uniter or a Divider.  Will he campaign sincerely and enthusiastically or not?  Will we find out if that "D" behind his name actually means anything to him?

    She already has that (none / 0) (#44)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:52:12 AM EST
    I don't believe Hilary needs anyone on the ticket to strengthen her national security image. Too many already have classified her as a hawk. She needs someone to soften the ticket with a domestic image. If Richardson hadn't burnt his bridge, he might have been a good choice. If not Obama, I can't think of anyone else.

    Parent
    No woman needs anything (5.00 / 4) (#49)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:54:42 AM EST
    to soften her image, not even HRC. Imagine if Bush attacks Iran. McCain will be suggesting that men are the only ones who can lead a country during wartime, and he does have military experience.

    I really believe that Wes Clark would be ideal.

    Parent

    What about (none / 0) (#105)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:20:30 AM EST
    Jim Webb?

    Parent
    Webb is okay (none / 0) (#133)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:32:18 AM EST
    He's more soldier than politician at this time though.  He isn't a 50/50 blend at this date.  I think he needs more experience on the Hill.  He's too green and he's too camo and pomp and circumstance on somedays and just makes me groan painfully when the camo brain overtakes the common sense brain.  Clark has his camo brain well in hand and it stays checked ;)  It exists but it doesn't get to take over.

    Parent
    We need him in the Senate. (none / 0) (#136)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:32:41 AM EST
    We are verging on a filibuster-proof majority.

    Parent
    Personally, I Would Be Against Anyone (none / 0) (#156)
    by MO Blue on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:47:26 AM EST
    who voted with the Republicans on Iraq and FISA. Also, from what I have heard he is not particurly good on the campaign trail and is not a team player.

    Clark would be much better IMO. Think he has improved his campaigning skills, has a great deal of on-line support and is a team player.

    Parent

    If Clinton ran with Clark (none / 0) (#121)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:27:26 AM EST
    McCain is toast.  I have NO doubt about that.  I don't think Clinton needs Obama to win the Presidency at all.  Three things cause me to want a Unity ticket considered though if she is the nominee.  1. How it will strengthen instead of weaken the base of the Democratic party.  2.  A woman and an African American running the White House....I have dared to dream my country would mature but to have it all at once, what a time to be alive and live in this country.  How many social dynamics would be profoundly changed under that leadership?  3.  This world is overpopulated and underfed, we have serious problems and people are going to be going to war with each more than ever.  I've read the Pentagon long range studies as to what challenges face the globe in the next twenty years and IT IS NOT PRETTY. Does Clark want to be VP or does he want to do something that uses his profound peacemaking out of sows ears skills more effectively and would that be the best thing he could do for himself and the world?

    Parent
    Ah, Militarytracy... (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:31:31 AM EST
    that is a beautiful dream indeed, and one that I share.

    Once the glass ceiling is broken with a woman President, I have no doubt that Americans of every stripe will follow in her footsteps. Not to mention that Bill Clinton was quite inclusive in his Cabinet appointments, and I see no reason to think that HRC would not be the same.

    I don't think Obama needs to be a part of that dream in order for it to happen. Later on, perhaps. We Democrats are a very forgiving group.

    Parent

    Dared to dream, indeed..... (none / 0) (#167)
    by vicndabx on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:02:33 AM EST
    talk about possibilities.  Not just for us but the entire planet....

    I agree if it's not Obama, then cut our losses and go w/the sure bet, Wes Clark would be ideal.

    Parent

    actually (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:47:51 AM EST
    I think passing up Obama and picking "another black guy" as VP would be a huge mistake.
    it would be seen as rank pandering.  and it would be.
    I agree with your point, but (none / 0) (#123)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:28:05 AM EST
    But this would only happen in the scenario where Obama was so totally, obviously damaged that he cannot win the pres or the VP.  Otherwise, he will be the presidential nominee.  I see the train as being too far down the track to prevent that short of a full implosion of his candidacy.  If he implodes on his own, no one can blame Clinton for picking someone else. That is why she needs to be careful and not help the implosion.

    Parent
    true enough (none / 0) (#143)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:36:14 AM EST


    Parent
    Why a black "guy"? (none / 0) (#147)
    by ricosuave on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:38:14 AM EST
    Why not an all-chick ticket?  Hillary has huge support among female AA pols, though this seems to be invisible to the press.  Perhaps because the only female black politician they know is Donna Brazile?

    Parent
    No chance -- Obama is a libaility now (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by Universal on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:48:46 AM EST
    I just wrote about Hillary's VP options over at my own site, and said that Obama is not an option. There is no way he can be on the ticket. North Carolina, Mississippi, and Louisiana are demonstrating that with the massive support their anti-Obama ads tying downticket candidates are receiving.

    And to further the point, Al Sharpton got into a heated phone exchange with Obama over the Sean Bell situation.

    Not only is Obama losing Caucasian voters by the seconds as Wright has revealed himself and Obama for what they truly believe (contrary to the 'out of context' hypothesis), now Obama is losing AA voters as well.

    Obama is sinking faster than the Titanic. He cannot be permitted to taint either Hillary's fortunes or the chances of other Dems fighting to be elected. He is radioactive now, and there's no going back.  

    Paul F. Villarreal AKA "Universal" AKA "RokSki"
    VillarrealSports.com

    Here is the Sharpton info (none / 0) (#81)
    by Universal on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:08:09 AM EST
    It is over for Obama: He is about to start bleeding AA support:

    http://www.villarrealsports.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=576#576

    Al Sharpton has called him out over the Sean Bell case. It is downhill from here.

    Sharpton must know that Obama is on the way down and is looking to take Obama down while simultaneously lifting himself up as THE black leader of note in America.

    This is descending into a free for all.

    Parent

    Seriously? (none / 0) (#180)
    by kayla on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:13:20 AM EST
    Al Sharpton = AA support?
    Al Sharpton is upset with Obama and so it follows that Obama is bleeding AA support?  

    Not buying it.

    Parent

    I agree that the Dems need unity, but (5.00 / 8) (#43)
    by Anne on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:51:42 AM EST
    I completely disagree that a unity ticket works to get us back in the WH.  At this stage, I see Barack Obama as the equivalent of an albatross around the neck of the ticket, whether he is at the top of it or in the VP spot.

    Obama does not just have baggage, he has baggage with cement blocks in it.  The inroads Hillary is making with independent voters will, in my opinion, vanish if Obama is on the ticket - I think those voters go to McCain.

    Here's what really bugs me: why are we contorting ourselves into shapes even pretzels have the dignity not to been formed into in order to put someone on the ticket who just does not have what it takes to take on the actual job of being the president???  He's not ready, and we cannot afford to waste a year while he struggles with the paralysis of not being able to figure out who to please, just in time for the 2010 midterm campaigns to get underway.

    Make Obama the Secretary of Deep Thoughts or something - that's a job he wouldn't even have to hold meetings for - but for the love of God, I wish people would stop trying to force feed us what I fear will be the worst president since Jimmy Carter - assuming he does not go down to humiliating defeat.

    Putting her on the ticket with him, or him on the ticket with her, will not make me feel all warm and fuzzy about Obama, will not make me happy with my party, will not make up for all that went into getting us to where we are (yes, Howard Dean and Donna Brazile, I'm looking at YOU).  

    If the party wants unity, for crying out loud, how about fixing the Michigan and Florida debacle?  How about reining in people like Brazile who has done more to fan the flames of division?  How about someone in the party show real leadership and real courage and stop trying to manipulate the outcome of the nominating process?

    Unity doesn't start with the ticket, and believing it does and forcing it to happen may make things worse.

    Secretary of deep thoughts (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by vicndabx on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:55:44 AM EST
    that was hilarious...... :-)

    Parent
    Secretary of Fundraising? (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:56:42 AM EST
    So far that seems to be his biggest talent.

    (Very, very well said.)

    Parent

    Gee (none / 0) (#144)
    by cmugirl on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:36:21 AM EST
    I thought that job would go to Jack Handy (From old SNL days)

    Parent
    Clinton/Obama (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by pie on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:54:02 AM EST
    I can put my differences aside if it means a  victory in November.  

    I want me one of them mandates.  ;)

    I Think It Is A Mistake To Rush Head Long Into (5.00 / 5) (#48)
    by MO Blue on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:54:10 AM EST
    judgement on this. If Obama's baggage makes him too toxic to win the GE, then he will carry the same baggage as a VP.

    The Dems have a couple of months to see how this all plays out and what effect it will have on the GE and on down ticket candidates. I'm all for waiting for seeing what else might be out there and how it will play to each demographic. Obama might suddenly learn how to relate to women and the working class or the AA community might not like Obama distancing himself from Rev. Wright.

    IMO the party elders need to tell each candidate that they, their campaigns and their political cronies need to hit hard on party unity.

    fair point (none / 0) (#59)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:59:04 AM EST


    Parent
    It Is Worth Observing (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by The Maven on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:55:12 AM EST
    that despite Wickham's point that "Such a shotgun marriage worked in 1960 with John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson," the Democratic ticket didn't exactly win in overwhelming fashion that year, and their margin of victory was certainly aided by the Chicago machine of Richard J. Daley.

    I would have preferred a scenario where we would be able to trounce McCain both in the electoral and the popular vote in November, but barring some external event that causes McCain's campaign to implode, I think the best we can hope for at this point -- unity ticket or no -- is another nailbiter like 1960 (when it went our way) or 2000 (when it didn't, thanks to Scalia, et al.).

    Add to that (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by cmugirl on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:40:17 AM EST
    There was no internet and 24 hour cable "news" where a candidate's words can be brought back to haunt them. ("Tell us, Sen. Clinton, why you chose Sen. Obama as your running mate.  You want him a heartbeat away from the presidency, but yet 6 months ago, you told us he wasn't ready to take the 3 am call.  How do you square your position then with your position now?  Do you think he's now ready to take that 3 am call?  If so, why isn't he on top of the ticket?")

    Parent
    Obama is not damaged goods where politics is (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:58:18 AM EST
    concerned.  He's somewhat damaged this cycle but unifying with another candidate soothes much damage.  Reverend Wright and bitterness in time will fall into his building character column just like blue dresses and Keating Fives have done in the past if Obama stays in politics and uses the terrific abilities he has.  Unifying doesn't always work though, I doubt Al Gore will ever be able to improve the looks of Joe Lieberman ever again but Barack Obama IS NOT a Joe Lieberman.  He is young goods.  He is untried goods and he is learning goods but he isn't really damaged goods in the long term.  He still remains one of the Democratic party's brightest young stars.  I look for him to become a supernova like a Kennedy.

    No more (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by pie on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:03:39 AM EST
    voting "Present."

    Take a stand.

    Parent

    Yup, he would have to create a record (none / 0) (#87)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:11:00 AM EST
    that can stand up to scrutiny and that he can answer for.  Like Clinton and McCain have ;)  He wanted to be president first though and he wanted to play everything very safe in order to get there as soon as possible ;)  Nothing is safe though for a president of the United States and I think he just figured that out.  I think if he did more bloviating on a foreign relations committee and less having people shoot him instead, he could end up with some wisdom to go along with his brilliance.

    Parent
    Great Talking Point (none / 0) (#221)
    by squeaky on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:18:21 PM EST
    But I think that you do not understand what voting present means in Ill. It hardly means not taking a stand. It is a no vote but with political spin to it. Also a very small number compared to his 4000 votes as Senator.

    Parent
    Disagree (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by MO Blue on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:24:49 AM EST
    Obama has no staying power. IIRC one of the reasons that Obama said he was running was because he was bored in the Senate. If Obama is not the nominee or loses the GE, I think he will look for greener pastures elsewhere rather than stay in the Senate.

    Parent
    At this point (none / 0) (#63)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:01:38 AM EST
    it will take a lot of hard work to rehabilitate his political career.

    If he is willing to put in the work, maybe he will get there. So far, I've seen no evidence that he is either willing or able to do that work.

    Parent

    That's true (none / 0) (#73)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:05:34 AM EST
    but he could do it.  I think he will do it.

    Parent
    A tiger can't change his stripes (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by Davidson on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:32:26 AM EST
    He has shown himself to be someone who suffers from severe entitlement issues to the point he's willing to do anything to win (e.g., race card) yet refuses to do the hard work or to take stands when the chips are down.

    He'd be a horrible VP and I don't see him becoming a better politician.  I'm not saying he'll never be president; I just think he'd be bad at it.

    Parent

    Davidson (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:16:46 AM EST
    Anybody who wakes up one morning and says to self "I'm going to be president of the United States" has severe entitlement issues.  Some people even get to go to a mental healthcare facility for saying such things out loud.  Most natural born leaders have severe entitlement issues and must learn to deal with that flaw that comes with the leader package.  Most leaders have egos that must be bridled and the masses help them learn that whether they like it or not.  

    Parent
    I hope so. :-) (none / 0) (#76)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:06:49 AM EST


    Parent
    The other shoe. (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:59:16 AM EST
    I haven't heard much about it yet because of the Rev Wright topic. But there was another article out about his $8000 a month retainer to subsidize his meager salary in the Senate. After a year he wrote letter to get the guy a government grant. True?

    the truth is (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:05:15 AM EST
    there could be many other shoes.
    we simply dont know.

    Parent
    True (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by janarchy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:12:13 AM EST
    Here is the story.

    Parent
    Only one Shoe too; veritable Imelda Marcos closet (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by Ellie on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:42:18 AM EST
    ... of fine footwear is due to tumble out in the GE and, should he survive the campaign to be on the top or bottom of a ticket.

    It will look like Manolo's after some newbie moved the decimal point two to the right on the price gun.

    Parent

    No Obama on a Hillary ticket with the current (5.00 / 4) (#64)
    by Salt on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:02:16 AM EST
    baggage and possibly more to come he would be IMO a net negative she could not rise above, she would lose some of her base with double negatives and she will need all to beat McCain, Obama is a liability and a vulnerability he has surrounded himself with a reckless clinging dependent crowd like Bush did, it would be better to have him as the nominee loose the White House out right but maybe pull margins in the Congress and teach the Party a good lesson on how not to run a Primary. And no Clinton as VP out of the question she should not wash the Partys shirts that will be damaging and drive women to McCain. She needs a NC or Ind former Gov if they can pull one of those States and turn it blue, Rendell and Strickland could bring in their States for her even if they are not on her Ticket. I of course would prefer a Hispanic catholic leader so that demographic can be represented in the Party leadership and with so many challenges for that community and growth oh my but not sure who could run, Richardson is not acceptable on any level now, and two women not a good idea.
    While it may be hard for some to accept Obama IMO is headed towards toxic levels and its not because of Wright anti American and racist teachings its something else about who Obama might really be in any event the media persona is headed for a nosedive so them whats left.  

    To win she will need a ticket with a storng messgae of empowered leadership that is competence, experience and will reinvigorate and empower America again and he dose not fit that theme and the threat of stay home cant be avoided now it is what it is but the grievance and entourage would make her fail.

    In those days before (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by Arcadianwind on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:18:56 AM EST
    Wright, Ayers and Bittergate, the Unity Ticket seemed like a good idea. But now it is a broken dream, shattered by the misogynistic frenzy, CDS, and race baiting that consumed the Obama camp like some kind of brain parasite.

    I agree with you Salt; the unity must come through process, and empowerment, not via a ticket.

    Obama's ride is over. The tsunami arrives in the third week of May... West Virginia, Kentucky, and Oregon will speak. And then it will be clear.

    Parent

    I've gone back and forth on this idea (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:03:42 AM EST
    With her comments yeterday that we should move on from Wright, Clinton seems to be trying to salvage Obama as a VP if she wins the nomination.

    I think she would like to run with Obama. He brings voters and excitement. Obama could be a drag on the ticket with some constituencies, but those groups will be less likely to turn away from a ticket with him as VP than they would with him as P.

    A potential problem I have with Obama as VP is that he could play too nice, as Lieberman did in 2000.  Lieberman made Dick Cheney look like a reasonable man.

    She is trying (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:05:57 AM EST
    to save the Party, IMHO.

    I think she has always known about Obama's liabilities but wasn't sure if he would be able to deal with and overcome them. Now, I think she is sure.

    He doesn't have what it takes.

    Parent

    Edwards was a bad attack dog too (none / 0) (#93)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:13:11 AM EST
    They would have to have Hillary be the tougher one instead of the traditional VP role doing that.

    Actually, as much as I in some ways hate the idea because I want her to be pres, Hillary would be a great VP - if Edwards were the top of the ticket.  Wouldn't that have been the best?  Can we still get that?

    I'll think about it again in a couple of weeks after the Wright dust settles. At the moment I seriously doubt Obama will get elected Pres or VP.

    Parent

    No to Obama as VP (none / 0) (#124)
    by Davidson on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:28:27 AM EST
    The right wing and the media will not only exploit Wright and Rezco, but they'll also expose the race card that he played against Clinton and will consistently remind people of the slams he made against the Clinton administration.

    As someone posted upthread, Clinton will need everything she has to beat McCain.  She needs someone to help buffer her from rabid attacks (think: Rendell) and can also help her in GE battleground states like OH, PA, and FL.

    Obama would ensure her defeat.

    Parent

    I haven't run the numbers, but it seems to me (none / 0) (#155)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:45:17 AM EST
    that if you combine the women voters who are very loyal to Sen. Clinton and the AA and young voters who are very loyal to Sen. Obama, that could be a winning ticket even if McCain peels off some white men.  The Clinton and Obama loyalists are not going to be discouraged by the GOP bringing up race or Obama's trashing of the first Clinton administration.

    Provided her win is legitimate (I think she needs the popular vote) Obama loyalists would likely see this as positioning their guy for a run at the presidency in eight years. They aren't going to pass that up. And it's hard to imagine that Clinton loyalists will refuse to vote for her at the top of the ticket just because he is the VP choice.

    Parent

    Why do I suspect that this scenario (5.00 / 4) (#75)
    by suisser on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:06:02 AM EST
    is being put forward because of concern that  Clinton will be the nominee?  It is generally understood that if Obama gets the nomination, Clinton will play good democrat and will call upon her supporters to rally behind Obama. If it's the other way around I feel much less sure that he and his followers will behave in the same way. So, Obama can count on Clinton to do the right thing even if she's not of the ticket while  Obama will need to be rewarded with the VP slot?

    Unity (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:15:24 AM EST
    Hilary has consistantly stated that her and her supportes would support who ever was the nominee. I haven't heard that same rhetoric out of Obama. In fact he has said the exact opposite.  He and his supporters have all but threatened mutiny if they don't get their way. And with the race tightening it probably will get even worse. Hilary isn't the only candidate that should be taken in the back room!

    Parent
    What about (none / 0) (#97)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:15:45 AM EST
    Mayor Nutter?  

    Parent
    A Nutter on the ticket? (none / 0) (#108)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:21:53 AM EST
    Let's leave that to the Republicans!

    (Sorry, I couldn't resist -- I actually like and respect Michael Nutter a good deal, at least based on the relatively little I know about him).

    Parent

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Steve M on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:12:57 AM EST
    I am perfectly fine with the unity ticket, and I am perhaps alone among the Clinton supporters in being just fine with an Obama/Clinton ticket.  I do think, however, that a Clinton/Obama ticket buries Obama's negatives in a way that Obama/Clinton does not bury all of Hillary's.

    Not alone. . . (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:19:24 AM EST
    this sums up my opinion pretty well.  Although, as I posted above, there are ways to attain unity without a combined ticket.

    Parent
    Democrats don't need unity (none / 0) (#127)
    by Prabhata on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:30:28 AM EST
    HRC can win even if some of BOs followers (not supporters) decide that they cannot support Hillary.  She will win enough independents when running against McCain.  Last AP poll said so and I believe it.  If the Democratic had a good nominating process Hillary would have already bagged the nomination.  She would be hitting McCain.

    Parent
    Certainly they need unity. (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:05:30 AM EST
    Does anyone dispute that the Party needs to be unified to win elections?  The recent history of a diverse (in terms of political viewpoint) Republican Party managing to win elections by unifying their various wings ought to show us that.

    Whether they need a Unity Ticket to achieve unity is a different question.

    Parent

    BTD, don't you think Wright should (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by MarkL on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:22:00 AM EST
    be consulted about a unity ticket?
    I'm sure he will have LOTS to say, if Obama is the VP. He'll get plenty of opportunities to say it, too.
    Having Wright dog the unity ticket with regular commentary---would that be good for the Dem's chances?

    Let Hillary RUN unemcumbered, stop this Unity BS (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by Ellie on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:23:23 AM EST
    BTD, this isn't aimed at you personally but at party "insiders" and brainiacs who huddle to figure out new ways to lose again.

    Could they at least do their hand-wringing and tongue-wagging PRIVATELY when important races will be playing out?

    Why the hell are they working so hard, yet again, to jolt Obama's sputtering run?

    Why don't they show a thousandth of that concern and energy for, oh I dunno, FRICKIN DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES occasionally?

    Before chattering like a congregation of titmice around a bread-scrap of any kind of idiotic "unity" scheme, I'd want to see the full force of Dem support that Obama's had SOLIDLY BEHIND HILLARY until she makes or fails to get on the ticket.

    I'd want to see some graciousness from Team Obama on that count too.

    I can be out of line here; like I've said previously, I changed from D to I because the party stopped backing every single reason and issue that drew my loyal support in the first place.

    The failure went so deep, Dems didn't even to pretend they gave a damn about upholding basic constitutional values.

    Unity? Ridiculous.

    I Definitely Want To See The Democratic Elders (5.00 / 4) (#142)
    by MO Blue on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:36:05 AM EST
    start to put some real pressure on Obama to start talking about party unity and stop the B.S. of my voters will vote for me but my voters won't vote for her.

    Also, they told Hillary to get Bill under control. I want them to tell Obama to get his surrogates like Clyburn and Clay under control and stop promoting the theme that Clinton and her supporters are racists and that Hillary is stealing the election from a black candidate. I want them to tell Brazile to STFU  with the threats of AA's leaving the party and implied threats of riots etc. NOW.

    So far they have completely let Obama off the hook on supporting party unity and they better get their acts together or there will be no party unity IMO.

    Parent

    Obama (none / 0) (#151)
    by AnninCA on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:40:23 AM EST
    has been talking about it, MO.  I've seen several references to him saying he is emphasizing that we'll come together in time and that this ISN'T about race.

    He's doing the right thing here.  I don't think Clyburn's recent rant was campaign directed, frankly.  It's harmful.

    Sure enough, Clyburn is now ranting that Wright is great.  

    So much for his opinion, then, on Bill Clinton.

    Obama isn't so stupid as to think that's a smart move.  (Sorry.....wandered here a bit off-point).

    But it's connected.  :)

    Parent

    Shotgun wedding? (5.00 / 3) (#128)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:30:35 AM EST
    More like a suicide pact.

    At least it looks that way this week.

    Rove advise? (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:31:09 AM EST
    Go back to Senate and get big bill through! There isn't time for that now. The nominating decision will be made within two month. If he couldn't do it in two years I can't see him accomplishing it in two months.

    I'm rather a nut (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by AnninCA on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:33:10 AM EST
    that we simply do not throw out precedents this year simply because it's a tight race.  Granted, it SEEMS as though this is tragic.  But why?  This is a democratic process.  The potential for a tie race was always possible.  It just happened to be this year, that's all.

    Candidates get to choose their running mates.  Period.  They also get to continue to run the race until he or she decides that it's time to drop out.

    I'm opposed to Dean running around telling Super Delegates what to do, which is not in our Democratic Party rules at all.  They can wait until the convention, if they so wish.

    I'm opposed to Pelosi stating that SD's should vote for the person with the biggest number of delegates.  That's not the tradition nor even the stated intention of the SD role.  She's telling them what to do.  They are independent.

    I'm opposed to telling the candidates that a unity ticket is what is needed.  If Hillary wins and sees that Obama could be an asset, great.  If not, no.  And vice versa.

    The system will work if we all let it.

    I agree with this. (none / 0) (#162)
    by eleanora on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:56:09 AM EST
    Let the rest of the primaries play out, see how Senator Obama puts the Wright issue to rest, and then we'll figure out where we are. Voters still want to be heard in FL and MI, as well as in the rest of the states and commonwealths. Let us vote first.

    Parent
    They ARE the ticket (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by Dadler on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:37:09 AM EST
    Nothing more obvious exists.  If they both care about the party and the country first, they'll agree to run together whatever occurs with the nomination.  Those arguing Obama is somehow damaged goods, well, that's laughable.  EVERY politician is damaged goods.  We have a completely divided party right now.  It needs to come together with this ticket or we're much more likely to end up with the malevolent McCain (tho he could be beaten without that ticket, I believe, just not as easily), and the complete economic destruction of the nation will then be able to be completed.  Partisans of each Dem nominee need to pull their heads out of their aces and face a quite glaring reality.

    unity ticket as necessity (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by pluege on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:46:32 AM EST
    it stands to reason that if each candidate has  about half of the democratic support that a unity ticket is going to be necessary to avoid major fracture.

    I've been saying this for awhile (none / 0) (#3)
    by Dave B on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:14:20 AM EST
    My thinking was that Hillary should be at the top of the ticket because she has more experience, and because after 8 years she will really be too old to be running for president.

    Obama as VP would give him valuable experience, and would set him up nicely to run for pres in 2016.  He'll be something like 54 at the time, still pretty young.  It could set up the Democrats to hold the White House for the next 16 years.

    I have liked the idea of Clark as VP, but he would fit in nicely in the State Department.  I would not be surprised if the Nuclear Umbrella ideas are coming from him.

    actually (none / 0) (#4)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:15:00 AM EST
    I think the nastier it gets the more likely a unity ticket is.
    it may come to the point where if either of them want a future in the party it will be necessary.
    One Variation of a Unity Ticket (none / 0) (#6)
    by sarissa on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:18:32 AM EST
    What about a unity ticket (Clinton/Obama) wherein Clinton agrees not to run in 2012?  

    Anyone think that might work?

    good luck with that (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:20:07 AM EST


    Parent
    you would (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by TruthMatters on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:20:23 AM EST
    never get her to agree not to run, Dems have a great chance to win 2 terms, if we get em elected to 1 term, then it would take a major screw up for us not to get them re-elected. why would Hillary give up a 2nd term, when she says she will win the nomination on her own?

    and it would just be dumb, never agree NOT to run for a 2nd term

    Parent

    I agree. (none / 0) (#17)
    by rooge04 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:35:35 AM EST
    It's the same way I don't even understand why every Senator always promises to finish out their term (and I'm not talking just Obama).

    Parent
    But (none / 0) (#20)
    by sarissa on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:36:40 AM EST
    it might beat not getting to be President at all.

    If I were Hillary I would be at least a little concerned that, upon McCain beating Obama in the fall, I might not get the nomination in 2012 (due to bad blood or some other rising star).

    Not saying its a great idea, just an idea.

    Parent

    McCain is NOT that (none / 0) (#111)
    by TruthMatters on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:22:53 AM EST
    strong of a candidate, hell you have Hillary and Obama trying to destory each other while the Media ignores McCain and McCain can barely poll EVEN with them?

    he can't stop bad press from happening, and now the Judicial watch filed an FEC complaint against him?

    no he is just a flawed candidate as Obama or Clinton, and even more so because at least democrats have excitement on their side, McCain IS the nominee and still 27% of voters took the time to go and vote AGAINST him in PA? not even stayed hope 27% took the time to actually go out and show they don't want McCain, and Paul supporters had to have the nevada conventions closed since they out numbered the McCain supporters.

    anyone who tries to paint the '08 elections as a cake walk for McCain are simply ignoring reality. Hillary or Obama can beat him, and together its even worse, because that means all the excitement and activism in the primaries for BOTH sides of supporters goes to the GE.

    if someone says that McCain can easily win, they are a Republican, or Blind to the political realities of this country

    Parent

    I hope (none / 0) (#119)
    by sarissa on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:26:31 AM EST
    you are right.

    Parent
    McCain cant easily win (none / 0) (#126)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:30:18 AM EST
    but he can win.
    dont ever doubt it.

    Parent
    You're right (none / 0) (#157)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:49:16 AM EST
    I find it unbelievable that being a war monger in a country that is tired of war, McCain is polling either close or ahead in many states. In the real world with the economy and Iraq, he should be polling right up there with Bush. But he is the media darling and that won't change.

    Parent
    point is he can (none / 0) (#181)
    by TruthMatters on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:13:27 AM EST
    win just like Hillary can win, or Obama can win.

    but to say oh if its this candidate then say hello President McCain, anyone who says that is a Republican or doesn't understand reality.

    but back to this thread, a unity ticket is a winner, maybe Hillary supporters will drop their candidate, but Obama supporters would vote 1) for a democrat and 2) to get Obama the VP slot.

    if Hillary supporters would really vote for McCain because Hillary is only a VP, then there is a problem with her supporters. but in my opinion, if its a joint ticket over 90% of their supporters would vote for the ticket. think about it these 2 have gotten 30 million Americans to vote for them in the damn PRIMARIES!

    Parent

    Judicial Watch (none / 0) (#165)
    by waldenpond on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:59:44 AM EST
    McCain's response to that will be Clinton and Obama have made Judicial Watch Top 10.  

    Parent
    She could promise not to run. . . (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:39:58 AM EST
    in 2012 the same way that Obama promised not to run in 2008 -- that might work.

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:40:51 AM EST


    Parent
    That's a variation on my unity ticket (none / 0) (#70)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:04:56 AM EST
    scheme from a few months ago wherein they flip ticket positions in 2012.

    I've rethought it since then due to the danger of making those kinds of promises 4 years in advance.

    Parent

    Clinton would bring little to an Obama ticket (none / 0) (#11)
    by Exeter on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:24:21 AM EST
    While Obama would be very important to a Clinton ticket. Sure, there are some Clinton voters who might stay home or vote for McCain and be swayed by Hillary on the ticket, but the vast majority of them don't like Hillary enough to forget their strong dislike of Obama at the top of the ticket.  

    This isn't 'just' a slap at HRC's face but women (5.00 / 4) (#55)
    by Ellie on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:57:27 AM EST
    ... and a growing list of voters he's spent months insulting.

    Obama didn't just mess up with a couple of teensy gaffes here; he screwed up royally. And putting him at the top or bottom of the ticket now is frankly an insult to the voters he needs to attract.

    It's not even about burning through a mountain of goodwill, financial resources and hard earned political capital.

    At every juncture where he was called upon to dial back his massive ego and take one for the "team", he chose to take another hit off the Hype Blunt and keep on his personally chosen path of disaster.

    I wouldn't suggest that anyone should roll over to appease behind the scenes interests -- if and only if that person offered something beyond being shallowly media-genic to offer. Obama doesn't have the brains, talent or temperament.

    If he did, it wouldn't take megabucks and six weeks to fail to make even a dent in PA -- and the good graces were still on his side.

    He's a bigger drain than an asset. His "ability" to draw new support is highly questionable; I maintain that it was less HIM doing it than a small amount of excitement whipped up to frenzied proportions by opportunistic and self-interested agents outside Obama's control.

    Maybe he'll season into a better politician after he's more experience; (politician in the real sense of combining pragmatic skills with what's needed to take his case to colleagues and the public through media.)

    He's not ready for prime time.

    Parent

    With the current climate, (none / 0) (#16)
    by rooge04 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:34:55 AM EST
    I think this is precisely where this is headed. If Obama loses Indiana and Clinton goes on to win WV and KY and PR (very very likely) then I could see them agreeing to a Unity ticket. Especially if Hillary is at the top. Not only because it is my personal preference and I think it's the BEST outcome, but I think that Obama would know that here is his chance. And he would take it.  Not to mention, that Hillary so far has been quite open and vocal about the idea.

    So many Democrats seem to (none / 0) (#21)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:37:47 AM EST
    have been born yesterday. Not only do I agree with this, I think it's obvious.

    The media would love it too.

    The media WOULD love it. . . (none / 0) (#25)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:41:01 AM EST
    but probably only because they'd have visions of Wright and Bosnia running on the same ticket.

    Parent
    Disagree (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:43:47 AM EST
    I think they'd see it as a kind of romantic happy ending.

    McCain would be turned into Darth Vader.

    Parent

    I don't know (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:43:52 AM EST
    Think how much fun we could have mau mauing them as racists and misogynists.

    Snark.

    Parent

    Dare I mention. . . (none / 0) (#62)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:01:13 AM EST
    the irony of using the phrase "mau mauing" in a discussion of racism?

    But on the broader point I agree -- the media would likely see Clinton and Obama as a media-fest two-fer.

    Parent

    It was marked as snark (none / 0) (#98)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:16:20 AM EST


    Parent
    LOL (none / 0) (#184)
    by Faust on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:17:29 AM EST


    Parent
    Keith would love this? (none / 0) (#38)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:48:48 AM EST
    I mean I know I would love this and CNN would love this and heck, FOX News would probably air some extra strange Dem lovefest special feature because the Republican party was about to have its tushy handed to it.  What is MSNBC going to do with it though?

    Parent
    Fall in line, I expect (none / 0) (#42)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:50:59 AM EST


    Parent
    We're going to have to smoke some (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:02:56 AM EST
    good cigars while watching that episode go down ;)  Just to mellow all the crow dining we will be witnessing all at once.  I'm going to have to be sitting in a smoke filled room to grow through that television viewing experience.

    Parent
    As the old song goes! (none / 0) (#33)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:47:51 AM EST
    United we stand!If they don't, one of their political futures is gone. Plus to quote another oldie "It's now or never". Unlike Republican's, Democrat's very rarely accept a loser. If either is seen as tarnished, they won't get another chance.

    Nice try, BTD (none / 0) (#35)
    by Jim J on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:48:07 AM EST
    I and many others, private citizens and pundits alike, have said from the beginning that a unity ticket is the only possible solution. Clearly you were being facetitious, yes?

    he has been saying this for months (none / 0) (#41)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:50:39 AM EST


    Parent
    Yes, as have many others, sir (none / 0) (#203)
    by Jim J on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:38:17 AM EST


    Parent
    Ruthy (none / 0) (#45)
    by independent voter on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:52:29 AM EST
    how would you like it if Obama picks another woman as VP? Would that be just the same to you as Clinton on the ticket?
    Double standard

    I was the pandering comment (none / 0) (#88)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:11:36 AM EST
    but mostly I agree with you.
    I have been saying pretty much exactly what you said for months here.
    however.
    like I said below, it may get to a point where it is simply necessary,  like it was with Kennedy and Johnson, to just swallow hard and do it.
    and as much as I think it probably wont happen I also think that if it did it would probably be a good thing for the party.
    so we really dont disagree that much.

    Parent
    From the land of the scattered commenters (none / 0) (#46)
    by vicndabx on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:52:53 AM EST
    Party leaders should've wised up long ago and made this happen.  I still think it's the best way forward for us as a party, but if we're gonna do it, dem leaders need to "get off the pot" as noted above.  The longer this Wright thing remains the focus, the worse it is, IMO, for the unity ticket's chances.  Once this is addressed by both Hillary and Obama, and moves out the news cycle, the narrative becomes the ground-breaking presidential ticket the dems are putting forward.

    Do I hear Supreme Court (none / 0) (#52)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:56:07 AM EST
    I've often thought that Obama prefers the image of the enlightened thinker rather than that of politics. He might be  just what the court needs.

    No thanks. (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:58:40 AM EST
    I'd prefer someone who I can trust with womens' rights.

    Parent
    True, but... (none / 0) (#190)
    by NWHiker on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:26:52 AM EST
    A few more years in the Senate may at least clarify if he can be trusted or not.


    Parent
    As one of those old white women (none / 0) (#71)
    by Molly Pitcher on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:04:57 AM EST
    I dislike the idea.  She'd have to constantly watch her back to make sure she did not get thrown under the bus.  

    This country is bigger than the party, and I'd like it kept safe for my grandkids.  Let her pick her running mate (if we are lucky and she gets the nom, of course.)  

    Incidently, don't get too happy about the prospect of O bowing out.  He's too stuck on himself, I do believe.  But old white folks, especially old white women probably make a better party base than blacks, who after all are not monolithic--eg, the percentage who do not vote for O.  Plus, black women have two candidates here to identify with--if black trumps white, female may well trump old white male.

    Oh, and does anyone else recall that there was spec that TX and LBJ were responsible for the JFK shooting?  If anything happened to President Hillary, would there be rumors about either the Chicago machine or disgruntled blacks?

    I think this could only happen (none / 0) (#78)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:07:05 AM EST
    with Obama as VP.  I don't believe Clinton would accept the Vice Presidency.  But I'm beginning to believe that a Unity ticket is the only way we win in November.  Here's hopin cooler heads prevail before the Convention.

    Read that (none / 0) (#85)
    by AnninCA on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:09:50 AM EST
    article this morning and knew you'd be pleased, BTD.  :)

    Make it stop. No unity ticket (none / 0) (#89)
    by Prabhata on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:11:46 AM EST
    It doesn't work.  BO does not add anything to HRC, and HRC does benefit in any way being a VP.  She can do much more for the people of NY and as a governor of AR.

    how? (none / 0) (#94)
    by TruthMatters on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:14:03 AM EST
    no seriously can you please tell me how the governor of of AR can better help the people then the vice President of the United States

    and ever notice this is always about Hillary? why would Hillary be VP she does not benefit in anyway, maybe not but the PARTY benefits and those 2 have HUGE support and could almost guarantee the White house for democrats, but hey if Hillary can't be the top of the ticket who cares.

    Parent

    The VP has no power (none / 0) (#115)
    by Prabhata on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:24:20 AM EST
    Just because Bush gave Cheney all that power it doesn't mean a VP has it.  The Constitution is clear on that.  BO can have HRC go into useless meetings.  PR stuff.

    Parent
    The VP has no power (none / 0) (#118)
    by Prabhata on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:25:36 AM EST
    Just because Bush gave Cheney all that power it doesn't mean a VP has it.  The Constitution is clear on that.  BO can have HRC go into useless meetings.  PR stuff.

    Parent
    no no you said (none / 0) (#146)
    by TruthMatters on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:37:39 AM EST
    she could do more as the governor of AR then as VP.

    I asked how.

    Parent

    If Democratic unity is enough to win (none / 0) (#101)
    by Joan in VA on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:18:50 AM EST
    the WH, then it is a good idea. If it isn't enough, then forcing 2 history-making candidates on the electorate isn't a good idea. They will just fall back on the familiar McCain/whoever whitebread ticket that they are comfortable with. Frankly, either of them needs to choose the familiar as a running mate. This should have been a slam-dunk for us but we can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory if we force too much change. We know a joint ticket is the right thing to do because we respect both candidates but I don't want to be self-righteous in defeat. We need to do whatever it takes to win. That is the most important thing for everyone right now. We have to stop the destructive Repub policies.

    Wright has eliminated BO from winning (none / 0) (#109)
    by Prabhata on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:22:00 AM EST
    a national election.  If the SDs give him the nomination, he's a road kill.  I don't see how he can win in November.  He is damaged goods.  Only those who keep drinking the kool-aid don't see it.

    Not crazy about that Idea.... (none / 0) (#125)
    by kc on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:30:02 AM EST
    there is indeed too much baggage. Plus, I think the GOP is holding other stuff to dump on him--it isn't likely they would show their whole  hand now.

    Also, I agree with the above comments that she would have to watch her back.

    the GOP is definitely (none / 0) (#138)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:34:25 AM EST
    although it has been interesting watching the completely odious Dick Morris day after day dismissing Hillarys campaign and saying its over.
    he is smart enough to know its not over but he keeps saying it.  why?
    I think he and possibly some other deluded republicans still think Hillary would be the easier candidate for them to beat.
    if that what he thinks its not the first time Dick has been wrong.  and doubtless it wont be the last.


    Parent
    I've been saying this (none / 0) (#132)
    by scribe on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:31:32 AM EST
    literally for months.

    Here's a second piece (none / 0) (#153)
    by waldenpond on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:42:50 AM EST
    with some stats.  Same story, it appears Clinton supporters are tougher.

    2-1 of Obama supporters with unfavorable view of Clinton won't vote for her.
    3-1 of Clinton supporter with unfavorable view of Obama won't vote for him.

    Fewer black Obama supporters dislike Clinton but their numbers have grown faster, more than doubling during the period to 33 percent.

    Obama is disliked by nearly half the whites who have not gone beyond high school, a near doubling since November. Four in 10 white women backing her have unfavorable views of Obama.

    Alan Fram   over at RCP.

    I remember when (none / 0) (#154)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:43:08 AM EST
    Hillary would say, yes, we need a unity ticket but we have to decide who is at the top!  Sounds reasonable!

    Obama would say, we can't talk about VP's until I'm nominated.  And his wife would say that she wasn't sure she'd even campaign for Hillary if she's nominated!

    Now Hillary doesn't talk about unity tickets anymore.

    Obama doesn't want unity.  Like the petulant child that he is, he wants to WIN and nothing else.  The unity pony(tm) has galloped away and there's no reason to try and catch him.

    I say (none / 0) (#163)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:57:21 AM EST
    let's see how things shake out before before we start pushing a unity ticket. It may become obvious over the next few weeks what is the best option to unite the party.

    BTW (none / 0) (#164)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:59:42 AM EST
    Just before Penn, SurveyUSA released a national poll, which said that if Clinton and Obama were to run as a unity ticket, 48% of Americans wanted Hillary at the top of the ticket, 40% wanted Obama.

    Apparently, many people are like me and see that it's the only configuration that would even make sense.  

    Link

    Carter was a disappointment (none / 0) (#168)
    by standingup on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:03:09 AM EST
    on Larry King last night.
    Can Obama and Clinton be on the same ticket? CARTER: I think that would be the most unlikely thing that I can imagine. I don't think that either one of them would add very much to the other's ticket. KING: You don't? CARTER: No. KING: OK. CARTER: What I would like to see is for them to get somebody like Senator Sam Nunn from Georgia, who is an expert on defense matters and who has a, you know, stable and very proven record. KING: For either one? CARTER: For either one, yes.
    Another party elder making a statement against a unity ticket. Why take this stance now when he could at least have taken a neutral position if nothing else?

    Guess what! (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:34:21 AM EST
    Sam Nunn endorsed Obama!  What a coincidence that Carter wants him rather than Hillary! (not)  Carter is in the tank for Obama. If he were the fair-minded guy he thinks he is, he'd have admitted that and said that he wouldn't talk because anything he said would be seen as "biased".

    But no, he's just another politician, and one partly responsible for 12 years of Republican rule.

    Parent

    Whoops, correction (none / 0) (#194)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:35:28 AM EST
    Sam Nunn actually serves on Obama's advisory team.

    So Carter's statement was a huge clue.

    Parent

    no way (none / 0) (#172)
    by beyondalldoubt on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:07:19 AM EST
    I am so sick of meeting people where they are. The democrats need to stand up and make people meet them where they are.

    It's quite possible (none / 0) (#173)
    by curryorama on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:07:46 AM EST
    that Obama will end up too damaged to be on the ticket at all.

    Well... (none / 0) (#192)
    by jarober on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:33:41 AM EST
    That all depends on how much damage you think Wright is doing - and on how much more you think he might inflict.  Quite apart from anything Obama says or does, Wright now looks like a guy who's eager for his "15 minutes".  If the damage gets bad enough, Clinton may not want Obama.

    Hillary can do better than Obama. (none / 0) (#195)
    by vicsan on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:40:33 AM EST
    Surely she can find someone who is actually qualified to be VP? Obama isn't. He's not ready for Prime Time and if I had to put up with Michelle for 8 years, possibly 16 years, I wouldn't be a happy camper. The woman grates on me...like fingernails on a chalkboard. I use to love the woman. Now? Not so much.

    I guess I'm more of a pessimist... (none / 0) (#197)
    by NWHiker on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:45:43 AM EST
    than many here.

    I don't see a unity ticket happening because I think the SDs are going to give Obama the nom free and clear and he'll pick his own VP (won't speculate on who... Maybe Markos? Yes that's a bad joke.)

    Anyhow, my fear is that we are going into the GE with a candidate who is damaged and will not win. I don't think the SDs have the guts to "overturn" what they see as major momentum/new paradigm etc and I don't Clinton can win enough over the next primaries to make up for all those red states.

    But HRC now has the (none / 0) (#198)
    by brodie on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:52:07 AM EST
    momentum (or at least any that Obama had is now fully stopped), and a victory in IN coupled with a much better-than-expected showing in NC for HRC would confirm that fact as well as convince SDs that Obama has been damaged and/or just can't connect with working class Dems.

    A good thing, as it's turning out, that this primary season is so long -- it's taken time for Obama's "vetting" to occur and for some of his skeletons, like Wright, to come out of the closet.

    I believe the tide is now turning in Hillary's favor.

    Parent

    Again (none / 0) (#199)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:03:01 AM EST
    As long as this remains nothing but a politically expedient thing to do, I can't agree.

    If there is perhaps a more than politically expedient reason to this, let's discuss further.

    Until then, I'm not supporting this.

    More specifically, aside from helping to win the election, aside from mollifying voters, what does one bring to the other that makes the other's administration greater than the sum of its parts.

    DemocraticCat made this point, but it needs (none / 0) (#205)
    by lookoverthere on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:45:17 AM EST
    repeating: the potential numbers of a Clinton/Obama ticket, combined with the massive voter registration drive Sen. Obama and the DNC are already planning, could mean a huge victory downticket.

    And Clinton/Obama could mean 16 years of Dem administration and majorities, which is how long it's going to take to repair some of the huge problems we have.

    As I see it, Sen. Obama's voter registration effort is the heart of his GE plan. He will leap over the traditional Dem coalition by bringing in new voters---this means the bulk of American adults who don't bother to vote at all. He has experience with voter registration drives (Carole Moseley Braun's Senate race) and politically, he will not be beholden to the old-style Dems who have backed the party for years.

    But the recent damage to him politically may not make any voter registration drive payoff for him at the top of the ticket. A unity ticket, though, combined with a voter reg., could mean it doesn't matter what 527 slime gets tossed about. We can all just point and laugh because we outnumber our good friends on the other side of the aisle.

    This is a good time for such a combined effort, given the historic nature of these candidacies. People like to be in on the history, so they have personal incentive to vote. And both Dems have shown their abilities to turnout supporters and money.

    And IMO, when Sen. Clinton is the nominee, she will have to earn the votes of Obama supporters, just as in the reverse. I will look to Sen. Obama for graciousness in his loss and leadership for the good of the party and the issues he espouses on his web site, but she will have to do the uniting.

    It's the winner's job to lead on this issue.

    New Voters (none / 0) (#207)
    by jarober on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:55:16 AM EST
    "As I see it, Sen. Obama's voter registration effort is the heart of his GE plan. He will leap over the traditional Dem coalition by bringing in new voters---this means the bulk of American adults who don't bother to vote at all. He has experience with voter registration drives (Carole Moseley Braun's Senate race) and politically, he will not be beholden to the old-style Dems who have backed the party for years."

    I have news for you: that was Dean's plan in Iowa.  That was Adlai Stevenson's plan in 1952 and 1956.  That was McGovern's plan in 1972.

    The "youth vote" is forever talked about, and never, ever materializes.  Any candidate that depends on such a plan will be in for a very rude awakening in the general election, without regard to their ideology or their party.

    jarober, please read what I wrote (none / 0) (#213)
    by lookoverthere on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:24:12 PM EST
    "this means the bulk of American adults who don't bother to vote at all."

    Not limited to youth. It means people who went and voted for the first time in their lives during these primaries---most of them are not 18.

    Parent

    Remember how that worked out (none / 0) (#209)
    by TomK on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:56:17 AM EST
    Hmm...

    Obama Clinton ticket.  And then the same authoritarian conspiracy that shot JFK to get their guy Johnson in can shoot Obama and get their gal Hilary.  And then Hillary can talk to Bill O and Scaife about it, her BFF's, and they will cover it up, again, and the conspirary will get it's war with Iran.

    We need a VP the conspiracy wouldn't want as president to protect Obama.  The best ticket is:

    Barack Obama
    Ron Paul

    Obama has all but ruled out offering the VP (none / 0) (#219)
    by Seth90212 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:13:32 PM EST
    to Clinton, given her tactics and statements. It also is not the best ticket to ensure victory in November. He will choose a VP to balance out the ticket, which Clinton does not do.

    Wouldn't you think Mr. Wickham (none / 0) (#223)
    by oculus on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:32:07 PM EST
    would acknowledge his soul mate?

    Dems Need A Unity Ticket | 218 comments (218 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment