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 >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Dems Need A Unity Ticket | 221 comments (221 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 ]

    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