home

Sunday Talk Open Thread

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:52:50 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg This!! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

If ever you wanted to see how clueless the Beltway Gasbags are, watching them discuss the Presidential election and potential VP choices today will convince you. They have no clue about the depth of the commitment of Clinton supporters to Hillary Clinton. They live in their DC bubble and have no idea what happens outside of it.

On the Unity ticket issue, I recommend Jerome Armstrong's fine post on the subject.

This is an Open Thread.[ More...]

BTW, Josh Marshall proves he is ready for Sunday Talk. He implies the Women's Voices, Women Votes group is trying to suppress the vote to advantage Clinton, IN WEST VIRGINIA. He is on the lookout for black helicopters now.

Comments now closed.

< Happy Mother's Day to All | Did You Know . . . >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Sunday Talk Open Thread | 223 comments (223 topical)
    Part of the process of making Hillary invisible (5.00 / 15) (#1)
    by Exeter on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:06:00 AM EST
    As media matters pointed out recently, Hillary's treatment is unprecedented: no other presidential candidate in her position or better has ever been forced off the stage this way by the media.

    Scott Rasmussen has decided to stop polling her, Newseek officially says she can either quit now and go out "classy" or stay in and go out "ugly," and every major network has declared the race over and Obama the winner.

    The media has made Hillary invisible. I hope the first serious female candidate isn't remembered by history going out this way.

    It was painful enough with Edwards. (5.00 / 14) (#12)
    by Fabian on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:22:03 AM EST
    It's even more painful now.  And the whole "Be a good little girl and go away so the adults can talk." vibe just sets my teeth on edge.

    It's really, really the wrong message to use with women or anyone for that matter.  Sit down, shut up and vote Democratic or else!

    I can just feel the disrespect and disunity oozing from that message.

    [ Parent ]

    "Just quit" has a long, sad history... (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by Exeter on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:35:23 AM EST
    ...for women in this country. And, frankly, Hillary's treatment now is what has happened to millions of women before here that didn't quit-- you are marginalized, dehumanized, and made to feel you like you are invisible and don't exist.  

    I hope she takes it to the convention and if they don't count Michigan and Florida, and MI and FL would have changed things, its grounds for her to run as a third party candidate.

    [ Parent ]

    She's too loyal of a Dem to do that. (none / 0) (#202)
    by ahazydelirium on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:06:22 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Making the Cable Networks Invisible (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:23:32 AM EST
    Change the channel to FOX where Hillary gets the only unbiased coverage at the moment. The Obama demographic isn't inclined toward MSNBC, CNN, or CNBC. They aren't Sunday morning fans of MTP, or This Week. So, if Hillary's demographic stops watching, they lose their entire audience. Until that happens, they aren't going to change.

    [ Parent ]
    lol...Did You Ever Think You Would Post A (none / 0) (#171)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:44:25 AM EST
    comment saying turn to Fox News?  Times they are a-changing.  But I see your point!

    [ Parent ]
    And don't forget (5.00 / 6) (#39)
    by stillife on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:33:25 AM EST
    that Time Magazine has Obama on the cover as the presumptive nominee.

    I don't know if it's misogyny, CDS, an evil media plot or what, but I've never seen anything like it.  Even the treatment of Gore in 2000 pales in comparison.

    And this is why I will never vote for Obama.

    [ Parent ]

    My friend who is an Obama (5.00 / 5) (#51)
    by bjorn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:38:27 AM EST
    supporter was furious about the Time magazine cover and the call for Clinton to quit.  She may be voting for Obama but she thinks it is disgusting and disrespectful to Clinton for this to be going on when it is not over.  I hope there are other women who voted for Obama that feel the same way.  I think women, regardless of who they supported, are pissed that Clinton is being treated so shamefully after running a strong campaign and winning half the vote.

    [ Parent ]
    I think Obama provides cover for sexism (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by Exeter on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:28:15 AM EST
    Sexism is always much more socially acceptable than racism, but it is especially now the case with Obama on the other side, because everything the media does can be thinly veiled under the guise of sticking up for Obama and ensuring that he is treated fairly.

    [ Parent ]
    I feel (none / 0) (#124)
    by sas on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:20:19 AM EST
    more venom toward Obama,Dean, Pelosi, Brazile, Kennedy and Kerry than I ever did to W and Cheney - and that is saying something.

    I spit on them all.

    [ Parent ]

    Even if she DOES lose (none / 0) (#175)
    by herb the verb on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:47:53 AM EST
    She will not be ignored, because SHE will pick the VP nominee. Not Obama, Michelle, or his supporters. Math is a funny thing: it has two sides to every equation and she has won that side of the 'Math'. Nobody has even realized that yet (except her and Bill I imagine) since they have been so snake-charmed by the Obama Phenomenon.

    Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, Donna Brazille, Ted Kennedy, etc., etc. are, dare I say, stupid if they thinks Hillary will slink away and subserviently bow down without fully exerting her power of 49.9% of the delegates.

    Even Jesse Jackson is smarter, he said last week on CNN that a unity ticket might be the best thing.

    [ Parent ]

    Clinton won't try to influence the VP (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by p lukasiak on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:56:10 AM EST
    Clinton won't try to influence the VP choice -- if/when she does concede, she's going to distance herself as much as possible from the decisions that will be made, because any influence she does exert will be "the reason Obama lost."

    The only place I see Clinton taking a stand is on the platform when it comes to health care.  I think she'll demand that the party support a true "universal" plan.

    But other than that, she's gonna take a "you made your bed, you lie in it" approach to decision-making in the campaign.  She's seen this movie before... it was Brazile's Gore 2000 campaign.  

    [ Parent ]

    Disagree (5.00 / 1) (#208)
    by herb the verb on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:09:44 AM EST
    Clinton cannot afford to be seen as either unimportant or washing her hands of the campaign at the point the VP slot is decided. Her supporters within the party itself will demand that and her future viability within the party will demand that.

    Look Chris Bowers wrote some pretty dumb stuff this week but that is because it is not based in reality. Clinton's supporters within the party structure are AT LEAST HALF of the party, they will NEED legitimacy within the party and will DEMAND it.

    Plus, when in this process have we ever seen her back down from a fight? The thing speaks for itself.

    [ Parent ]

    Read Jerome's Post This Morning (5.00 / 6) (#2)
    by MO Blue on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:10:36 AM EST
    Can't say that the choices mentioned excite me and one ticks me off.

    I agree with Jerome's assessment of  Webb.  

    First off, in regards to Webb, the guy hates campaigning, he doesn't seem to enjoy showing up at campaign events and besides, its the economy, and not Iraq, as the main issue.

    Also, would prefer someone who didn't vote with the Republicans on Iraq, FISA and immigration. His vote on immigration would IMO not help Obama gain support in the Latino community.

    Selecting Sebelius would just make even more reluctant to vote for Obama. Women are not interchangeable. IMO it is insulting.

    Richardson was so horrible during his brief presidential bid that it was painful to watch. I can see where it might help Obama with Latino voters but Richardson seems prone to political "gaffes" and the campaign definitely doesn't need that.

    The only thing I know about Kaine is that he is a popular governor.  

    Richardson will NOt help with Latino voters (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:18:41 AM EST
    Period. Most Latinos have no idea who Richardson is, much less that he is a Latino.

    [ Parent ]
    Richardson (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Kathy on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:38:04 AM EST
    couldn't help Richardson with the latino vote.

    [ Parent ]
    Ha - exactly (none / 0) (#108)
    by ruffian on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:10:40 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Disaster in debates (none / 0) (#198)
    by bjorn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:02:40 AM EST
    If McCain picks Carly Fiorina as his running mate she would wipe the floor with Richardson.  I liked him until the debates, he was terrible.

    [ Parent ]
    It's interesting to me that Jim Webb's persona (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by chancellor on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:25:47 AM EST
    has never broken out of the military mode, when, in fact, he claimed that his primary reason for running was to be an economic populist for the people of VA. Of course, his committee assignments, and the bills he has supported or sponsored, do tend to emphasize his military and foreign policy backgrounds, so maybe he's just fallen back into a comfortable role. Do agree that he would be a terrible campaigner.

    One person here, the other day, mentioned the possibility of McCain choosing Christine Todd Whitman as a running mate. IMO, that would be a brilliant move for McCain, since she is largely perceived as a moderate who broke early with the Bush administration over policy disagreements. Also, if Obama is the Democratic nominee, I don't see a Dem. female he could run with. Many women might also be drawn to a ticket with a female VP, out of sympathy, if Hillary doesn't get the nod.

    [ Parent ]

    Webb would be a good choice (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:30:01 AM EST
    But a VP has to campaign his butt off. If Jerome is right about him not liking campaigning, then he can't be the VP choice.

    [ Parent ]
    There is no guarantee a Dem will replace Webb (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by jawbone on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:37:53 AM EST
    in VA.  The most popular Dem, Warner, is running for the Senate this year.  

    Who can be elected to the Senate as a Dem?

    Maybe Obama will change the state overnight, but, somehow, I doubt it.

    [ Parent ]

    I Remember That Even Strong Webb Supporters (none / 0) (#132)
    by MO Blue on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:23:33 AM EST
    on DKos were complaining about the fact that he didn't like campaigning and seemed unwilling to put everything into the effort.

    [ Parent ]
    Christie Todd Whitman (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by Kensdad on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:41:05 AM EST
    she would be a brilliant VP choice for mccain.  in fact, i think that she would steal so many women from obama that he'd be finished unless he actually chose hillary as his running mate.

    [ Parent ]
    No she wouldn't (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by andgarden on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:47:00 AM EST
    It would seriously piss off the RW to do that. Probably depress turnout in November.

    Jerome names Kay Bailey Hutchison, and he's on the right track.

    [ Parent ]

    Whitman... (5.00 / 4) (#88)
    by p lukasiak on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:00:27 AM EST
    whitman would be a brilliant choice for McCain regardless of who the Dem nominee would be.  If the Dem nominee is Clinton, she will have a much harder time, because there were a lot of women who ordinarily vote GOP who would have voted for Clinton.

    If the nominee is Obama, his chances of winning in November go from "not very good" to "practically impossible"

    As to Webb, I think he is just about Obama's best option --- given all the potential questions about Obama's personal "judgment", a Webb choice will be "reassuring" to potential Obama voters -- Obama needs to sends the message that he is aware of the deficiencies in his own background/experience, because those deficiencies will be glaringly obvious to everyone else.


    [ Parent ]

    Whitman is too librul (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by brodie on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:20:22 AM EST
    for the Repub base.  Won't work, particularly since McCain is still viewed with some suspicion by the RW and has been spending a lot of time lately just trying to build trust with his party's base.

    KBH is far more likely.  Solid conservative creds, fairly attractive face and articulate; not terribly smart, but, hey, she's a Repub and therefore the MCM will treat her gently on this score, as they did Junior.  Probably the most likely female pick for the Repubs, and doesn't come with Condi baggage over 9-11 negligence and all the stuff about Iraq.

    Webb?  We were fairly lucky that he won that seat, and he didn't exactly win in a landslide even against a nutty racist fratboy opponent.  And he's not likely to help repair any gender issue in the party; in fact, iirc his record with women in the 80s, he may be the last person we'd want in that slot.

     

    [ Parent ]

    Whitman may be too liberal (5.00 / 1) (#211)
    by samanthasmom on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:12:41 AM EST
    for the far right wing of the Republican Party, but Hutchinson may be too far right to scoop up enough of Hillary's support.  It would be a balancing act for McCain.  Would Whitman bring in enough crossovers and indies to more than offset the die-hard Republicans who might stay home?  The RWer's certainly wouldn't become Obama supporters.  The Hillary supporters would essentially be "2fers".  If I were McCain, I'd be polling this one.

    [ Parent ]
    Yep (none / 0) (#97)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:05:22 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Not in the NYC metro area! She's polluted! (none / 0) (#107)
    by jawbone on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:10:30 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    last time I checked... (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by p lukasiak on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:18:21 AM EST
    the NYC metro area had almost as many electoral college votes as American Samoa.

    [ Parent ]
    Christine Todd Whitman (none / 0) (#71)
    by chrisvee on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:50:26 AM EST
    Wasn't her political career in effect ended by her response to the air quality concerns in NYC after 9/11?

    [ Parent ]
    She tried to refute that in (none / 0) (#75)
    by bjorn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:52:25 AM EST
    congressional hearings.  I liked her because it seemed obvious that she was butting heads with Bush and that is why she quit.  But I am not sure how she is perceived in NJ now.  If she has a positive legacy there she could help McCain win that state....just don't know how she is perceived now.

    [ Parent ]
    All (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by chrisvee on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:02:27 AM EST
    I can envision are the 527 attack ads with her giving the 'all clear' and I'm not sure the claim, 'Bush made me do it' helps her.

    [ Parent ]
    ads against VP candidates are pointless (none / 0) (#126)
    by p lukasiak on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:20:28 AM EST
    ...I mean, if the VP candidate mattered even marginally, Bush I would have never gotten elected with Dan Qualye in the #2 spot.

    [ Parent ]
    The VP candidate is mostly meaningless. (5.00 / 2) (#166)
    by Boston Boomer on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:42:00 AM EST
    That is why Hillary should not accept it.  She would be disappeared in the campaign and in the WH.  The only way a "unity ticket" would be acceptable is with Hillary at the top.  Even then, it would be very hard for me to vote for Obama.  If he is at the top of the ticket and Hillary is VP, I would still not be able to vote for him.  As for replacing Hillary with another woman VP candidate that would make me so angry, I'm not sure what I would do.


    [ Parent ]
    You Are Correct. Hillary Is Too Smart And (5.00 / 2) (#182)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:50:51 AM EST
    savvy to be the VP.  All her talents would be put on hold because there is no way obama will let her shine because he will be such a weak president; that is if he makes it to the WH.

    [ Parent ]
    His primary reason for running (none / 0) (#77)
    by kredwyn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:54:05 AM EST
    was that his son was serving in a war he disagreed with so much that he wrote an op-ed piece in the NYTimes about how wrong it was to be there in the first place.

    Yeah...he's a populist.

    But mostly he's there to try and get vets the help they need for after they come home.

    [ Parent ]

    Hillary or Obama should pick Wes Clark (none / 0) (#167)
    by Exeter on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:42:34 AM EST
    Whether they admit it, or not, the vast majority of Americans would rather John McCain answer the "3AM phone call."  It would give either ticket the necessary "national security gravitas" that both lack. 9/11 and homeland security may not be the top issue like it was in 2004, but it is still a huge swing voter issue and Obama and Hillary's biggest weakness and McCain's biggest strength.

    [ Parent ]
    I watched Sebelius' (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by kimsaw on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:02:27 AM EST
    Democrat response to the State of the Union- she is Obama's rhetorical twin and even duller in her presentation. This hopey, changey, I can give a speech  stuff, or look at me cause I'm so different, is driving me mad! These twin vapors ought to stand on something more than I voted present, I pushed the wrong button, I didn't vote because it was beneath a vote and I was against the war before I voted to fund it.

    I think this nation has lost its collective mind. We have learned nothing substantive from a lazy, leg tingling MSM since this campaign began. The media has turned Rovian! It continues to fail us. Hard journalism exists in snippets while everybody feeds on opinion, rather than facts. The media failed us on Iraq and questioning Obama's record and relationships. They have fawned "just words" and explored  nothing substantive. When someone does ask pertinent questions, the questioner is  attacked and those questions never get truly answered.

    Obama has yet to put words into action. His race speech was not a bridge builder just a history lesson stating the facts. He offered no solutions In fact he stereotype the bitter, clinging voter. There's change for you.

    Clinton states the facts and she's a racist and anyone who votes for her is too. Yet 90% of AA community voted for Obama and that's not racism in reverse. That's called identity politics.
    We're  politically correct when it comes to race relations, but when it comes to gender, sexism is acceptable. Clinton is easily compared to Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction by an arrogant congressman or she's called a female dog that's likable enough or her likeness can be molded into a nutcracker, but no harm done. Just imagine if that likeness were your mother, wife or daughter.  

    The Dems don't want to lose the AA because they are a loyal voting block. But their leadership and Obama willingly toss out those low information white voters clinging to their guns and bibles, because they swing either way. How do you build unity without swing voters? How stable is your new coalition without winning the in betweens? Isn't the goal creating unity? If you can't build unity in a party how do you coalesce a nation? I guess there's unity and then there's Obama's unity.

    The MSM and their corporate backers are nothing but lobbyist working on Obama's behalf.  We get  in return what we allow to happen. Majority rule gave us Bush and now we'll get Obama. Their strengths are based on politically fabricated hate. Divide and conquer strategies employed long ago. I totally understand why some people become apathetic, because nothing really changes in politics, the rhetorically driven divides thrive while substance dies.

    Clinton deserves more respect then she has gotten and so do her supporters. I have a right to believe in substance more than mere words, it not about anyone's skin color, its about what the candidate brings to the table. In Obama's case the plate's not full, in fact, what little there is, is starting rot.

    [ Parent ]

    Looks like I'm not (none / 0) (#54)
    by brodie on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:40:43 AM EST
    the only one online who's been thinking about Sibelius as a not unreasonable VP consideration.  She's solid, a two-termer from a longtime political family, and could help in repairing intraparty wounds along gender lines.  Unfortunately, she's not a HRC backer, which would be preferable for party unity, but every potential has her downside.  

    Some other possible women VPs are mostly from the senate, and would leave us with a Repub gov (Blanche Lincoln, McCaskill) picking the replacement.  We can't afford to lose any Dems from the senate, and McCaskill has little experience outside of her state.

    Gov Napolitano is strong, maybe a little too strong on anti-illegal immigration, but she's also unmarried and I don't want yet another dicey social issue to do with marital status/sexual orientation thrown in to go with the black guy with the funky name and the gender stuff.

    Judas Richardson as VP would really be a roll of the dice as it would make some of us fervent HRC backers more than a little insulted when we need to be uniting.  And we would get yet another softie VP candidate reluctant to aggressively engage the oppo in a role where traditionally the #2 is assigned the hardball duties while the #1 gets to play above the fray.  With Richardson and Obama on the same ticket, we'd have two softies not inclined to fight.

    [ Parent ]

    McCaskill has been horrible (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Kensdad on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:45:16 AM EST
    Claire McCaskill has ruined any appeal that she has to Hillary supporters.  She has been piling on and Hillary-bashing with incredible glee.  She also dumbed-down her obama endorsement by repeated telling the world that her 18 yr old daughter talked her into it by saying, "mom, if you don't endorse obama, then i'll never speak to you again."  what a twit!  that's some endorsement for a U.S. Senator!  talk about judgment, McCaskill has very little apparently and needs her 18 yr old daughter to advise her.

    [ Parent ]
    I agree (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by bjorn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:48:29 AM EST
    Plus she has no gravitas.  She is not impressive at all and is less experienced than Obama. He needs someone with experience.

    [ Parent ]
    Clinton campaigning as VP (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by Kathy on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:52:51 AM EST
    would present one HUGE problem: she will outshine Obama in every way.  Think about Edwards holding back so he wouldn't make Kerry look like the cardboard cutout he is.  Painful.

    But, Clinton still has a shot at this, so I nominate Clark for her VP!

    [ Parent ]

    I know it would probably (none / 0) (#85)
    by bjorn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:59:15 AM EST
    not work, but if Clinton won, what if she picked Harold Ford Jr.?  He is a centrist and very sharp.  He has remained truly neutral during the primaries.  I guess Obama supporters would want someone who openly supported Obama but I think Ford is a great candidate.

    [ Parent ]
    No (none / 0) (#116)
    by ruffian on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:14:31 AM EST
    If Clinton is the nominee she has to pick Obama. She has no ohter option.  If he refuses, she needs a VP with more experience than Ford.  John Lewis or Andrew Young are better choices than Ford.

    [ Parent ]
    bjorn, Thank goodness... (none / 0) (#204)
    by NO2WONDERBOY on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:07:30 AM EST
    you've mentioned the V.P. "choices" for Hillary instead of for Obama. Although realisistic comments here, we STILL must remain positive that she WILL BE ABLE to secure the nomination! We all need to rally behind her, make sure that voters turn out in great numbers for her in the last contests, for which is poised quite well now, and definetly press on for seating the Fla. and Michigan delegates.


    [ Parent ]
    McCaskill Is My Senator (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by MO Blue on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:56:45 AM EST
    and as far as I'm concerned she would be a negative on the ticket. (BTW I would think this even if she had endorsed HRC) She was not  particularly popular in MO to begin with and her endorsement of Obama will not help her with her constituents in the non Democratic strongholds.

     

    [ Parent ]

    Sebelius, nor any other random woman (5.00 / 10) (#67)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:47:21 AM EST
    will not "help repair intraparty wounds along gender lines."  Women are not interchangable.  I would be supporting Hillary against Obama if she were a man, or a little green Martian.  The fact that she is who she is simply adds more fervency to my support, but that is not even a little bit transferrable to Sebelius, especially in the VP slot.

    If he knows what's good for him, he will not throw the little women a bone by putting some random female on his ticket.


    [ Parent ]

    If (5.00 / 5) (#83)
    by chrisvee on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:59:00 AM EST
    it wasn't for the fact that this election is critical to our country, I might almost enjoy watching the party go 'boom!' if Obama selects a woman other Clinton as his VP.  Women are not interchangeable. Clinton is likely the most qualified person in the field of choices.  I think this path is closed to Obama from a political perspective.  Imagine if Clinton were the nominee and selected an AA running mate other than Obama.  It would be political suicide because she would be accused of thinking all AAs are interchangeable.

    [ Parent ]
    I (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by sas on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:24:58 AM EST
    hope the party absolutely explodes.

    [ Parent ]
    maybe, but (none / 0) (#89)
    by bjorn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:01:01 AM EST
    I just recommended Harold Ford Jr below.  He is a strong candidate and it is not because he is Black that I would recommend him, but if Obama did not want it, he would be excellent.

    [ Parent ]
    agreed.... (4.80 / 5) (#117)
    by p lukasiak on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:14:50 AM EST
    Clinton's higher support among women than men is due to two things....

    1. Women who see Clinton/Obama as a toss-up, and vote for Clinton because she's a woman.

    2. Women are far less likely than men to buy into the anti-Hillary media message, and make the rational decision that Clinton is by far the better candidate.

    The fact is that the nation is like a dilabidated house that the Democrats will inherit if we win the presidency.  The person you want running things is going to be a "jack-of-all-trades", someone who knows how to patch the roof, fix the leaky plumbing, and replace the bad wiring.  That's Hillary-- and that's why people support her.  Obama supporters are people who think the house needs an interior designer.  

    [ Parent ]
    From one Woman (5.00 / 3) (#188)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:54:38 AM EST
    I believe many of us women support HRC because she is the stronger candidate, because we know where she stands, and we think that the mess created by the current administration will require someone who knows the ins and outs of our federal government from day 1; someone with the skill and persistence to pay attention to the details as well as the broader picture.  I often think it takes any new president at least a year to figure out what agencies do what, how to get them staffed and working, where the loopholes are, etc.  We don't have the luxury of waiting out the first year of the new presidency, and I believe HRC already has more than a handle on the instruments of federal government.  

    [ Parent ]
    You say women are not (none / 0) (#92)
    by brodie on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:01:56 AM EST
    interchangeable, and I agree.  I prefer to call it a reasonable alternative to Hillary who, for reasons I've already noted, would not be a good pick for his VP.

    Some of us fervent Hillary backers would also be greatly offended were she to play the subservient role to a much younger guy much less qualified than she to be president.  I suspect too that Obama wouldn't be very comfortable having her as VP (as JFK was with LBJ), and having Bill to deal with.  HRC also undermines Obama's campaign theme of Change/New Politics.

    Though we have 2.5 more months to hash these things out, and things can change a lot in that time.  Right now it's fun to discuss the various possibilities.

    [ Parent ]

    Theorizing (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by chrisvee on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:09:29 AM EST
    I do realize the perception of Clinton in a subordinate position to a less qualified man is a drawback to her as VP.  I'm sensitive to that myself as I've encountered it in my own work life.  However, I suspect that if Clinton makes it clear that she really wants it and if she generates excitement amongst her supporters about the historic nature of that ticket, I think it would work.

    The escalation of the hostilities between the supporters of the campaigns may have made that impossible, though.

    Despite the fact that I think she might make more difference in the Senate, if someone is going to shatter that glass ceiling, I want it to be Clinton and not Sebelius.  She's endured the slings and arrows; let her enjoy the rewards.

    [ Parent ]

    I am in AZ (none / 0) (#63)
    by bjorn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:44:51 AM EST
    and you are right about Janet. She is a great governor, has had to be very tough because it is still a Red moving to purple state.  But the rumors about her sexuality would kill it in a NY minute.  And she did not support Hillary either.  Obama, if he does not get Hillary, needs to pick someone who supported her like Ed Rendell or Bill Nelson in FL (he puts me to sleep personally) or someone in that vein.  Picking someone who supported him would piss me off because it would be a total blow off to Clinton supporters.

    [ Parent ]
    I wonder (5.00 / 4) (#115)
    by OldCoastie on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:14:16 AM EST
    if Obama is that "tactical"... he seems to be very fond of lots of agreement - I'm guessing he will chose someone who was a supporter.

    [ Parent ]
    Hard to imagine (5.00 / 0) (#156)
    by Fabian on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:34:43 AM EST
    Obama choosing someone who would challenge him over someone who was loyal to him.

    I try so hard not to see Bush parallels, but Obama really appears to be someone who prefers the comfort of willing loyalty to the work of winning over someone who doesn't immediately agree with him.

    In fact, I see Obama on both sides of the stereotypical Hollywood pitch:

    "We love you!  We love your work! But...there's a couple of changes we'd like to make.  Just to broaden your appeal, to reach a wider audience - your Stuff is great, amazing right now.  But it could be even better!  What do you say?  Just give us the word and we'll do it."

    [ Parent ]

    I am also from Arizona. (none / 0) (#209)
    by befuddled on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:11:32 AM EST
    The same sexual slurs against Janet are the ones that have always been around against Hillary, but she has Bill to counter that image and Janet has an agenda and resume, not so good.  If she were Obama's VP--It's hard to imagine that she wouldn't be doing all the work or that there wouldn't be a blow-up eventually. What I am struggling with is the disconnect that Janet has always seemed to cut right through the BS, and yet she endorsed Obama. One of us must not have been paying attention to the discourse.

    [ Parent ]
    Webb is (none / 0) (#103)
    by sander60tx on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:08:12 AM EST
    an economic populist as well and he would probably appeal to some of the voters that like Hillary (e.g., scotch-irish appalachian whites).  Also, he's a former republican who might appeal to independent voters.  However, I'd much rather see Webb in the Senate than as VP.  We need every democratic senator that we can get.  Agree also that a "substitute" woman VP won't appease many woman and that Richardson is a gaffe machine.  However, he does have a strong resume and might help Obama out with hispanic voters.

    Oh yeah, I refuse to turn the TV on this morning.  I'm disgusted with the media's premature crowning of Obama.

    [ Parent ]

    Richardson? Snort! (none / 0) (#161)
    by herb the verb on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:36:04 AM EST
    I agree with BTD that the only choice that will help him is Clinton. Obama really has got nowhere else to go, and if you read between the lines of Jerome's piece you will see that.

    IMNHO, the VP spot is Clinton's for the taking if she wants it. And maybe she does want it, because even if she thinks they will lose in the GE (which I believe strongly and I also believe SHE believes strongly, and maybe ESPECIALLY if she believes that) it is likely the only thing that will repair her relationship with AA's in the party and save her and Bill's legacy and power within the Party without a devastating divorce. The divorced from reality Obama set of his supporters have no idea what the reality of having 49% of the delegates in your control means (see Bowers, Chris, Stoller, Matt or JM, WK).

    His only other potential choice if Clinton doesn't want it? Evan Bayh (and don't get me started), Ed Rendell, or some other prominent Clinton supporter. She will demand that for her support, and she will win that battle. The VP slot is Clinton's choice, not Obama's, she has "The Math".

    As for McCain, I am reasonably certain he will pick Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota. He is everything McCain needs, strong conservative support (without being a nut-job), young, strong campaigner, personable, no skeletons, will likely deliver SD, ND, MN, WI and make IA competitive. He didn't win McCain MN because of Religious Right freaks for Huckabee early on, but he is strong with independents.

    [ Parent ]

    Perhpas (none / 0) (#168)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:42:48 AM EST
    Those who suggest Richardson as VP in event Obama wins nomination believe Richardson could counter-balance the negative impact Obama has had among Latino voters.  I doubt Richardson will truly help here.

    [ Parent ]
    Thanks for that link. (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Fabian on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:11:00 AM EST
    I read the comments, about the first dozen.  Many adjectives came to mind: embarrassing, juvenile, painful, stupid, futile.

    If that's what mainstream blogdom looks like, I prefer to be an elitist.

    Sibellius (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by NYMARJ on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:14:13 AM EST
    Even my husband thinks that putting Sibelius on the ticket is enough to garner the "woman's" or Hillary vote.  Really annoying

    Your husband is ready for a TV news gig (5.00 / 6) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:17:27 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    True (5.00 / 7) (#111)
    by Brookhaven on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:11:18 AM EST
    I remember back when Bush, the Elder was running, he was advised that putting Quale on the ticket would get the women to vote because he was such a "dreamboat".   "big eyeroll"

    It sounds like not too much has changed has it? The Sibelius ploy would be another one of those insulting-to-women choices. First and last, she is not qualified. I never saw her before she gave that mind-numbingly boring and idiotic response after Bush gave his State of the Union, and I was way underwhelmed.  

    The Dem Party needs to get it through their thick skulls that women voting for Clinton are mostly voting for her not because she's a woman (that's the icing on top) but because she is the most qualified person to run the country and fix some of the mess left us by the Bush/Cheney criminals.

    We are voting for Clinton because of her superior Health Care Plan, energy plan, economic plan, the way she will get us out of Iraq, her overall foreign policy expertise (and the Military brass who support her have referred to her in this way after working with her on the Senate Armed Services Committee: she really knows her stuff and we saw that in the debates).  

    We don't even know the half of what the Bush/Cheney crime family left us and what the next POTUS will face.

    I won't vote for someone who is not qualified, period, I don't care if she is a woman or not. And, trying to lure women into voting for Obama as he drags some unqualified woman onto the ticket will backfire.  Most Clinton women will turn away from him in November even more than they already have and said they will(if that's possible), imo.  

    The Dems and the Repubs are no different when it comes to women and except for one thing, they both are clueless.  

    The exception: The Repubs would not have stood for the disrespect and misogyny and contempt that many Dem men (and some women: to their shame) showed towards Clinton had a Repub woman run for POTUS.

    This election season has been a true eye opener for me.  I've been a liberal Dem forever and respected so many of the same men (and some women) whose behavior this season has been contemptable and threw me sideways. It's shaken me to my core.  I now know how some devout Catholics felt discovering that some priests were molesting kids.  It must have shaken them right down to their core beliefs.  But, I found my core political beliefs are stronger than the misguided respect I had for these clowns such as Kerry and Kennedy and Pelosi among many others. If nothing else, I'm glad to know that about myself after being thrown for a loop by their mean-spirited, malicious behavior.

    [ Parent ]

    I hope your husband (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by ruffian on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:36:12 AM EST
    is not as wrong about most things as he is about that!

    [ Parent ]
    I think any woman other (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Leisa on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:40:47 AM EST
    than Hillary as VP would really be seen as pandering to us Hill supporters.  This would also further demonstrate his total lack of understanding of many of us.

    [ Parent ]
    We (none / 0) (#142)
    by sas on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:26:52 AM EST
    are tokens to be interchanged then?

    [ Parent ]
    On Reliable Sources (5.00 / 5) (#7)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:19:47 AM EST
    this morning, everyone agreed happily-- Karen Tumulty, Roger Simon and a young woman from the NYTimes whose name I didn't catch-- that yes, indeed, Hillary's supporters are mad as hell, but they're mad as hell at the media, not actually at Obama himself.

    It's breathtaking.

    Watching it (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:21:30 AM EST
    Right there are 3 of the stupidest people in the Media.

    The funny thing is Tumulty doesnot act this stupid on her blog.

    Simon is truly one of the stupidest men in the Media. What makes it hilarious is he thinks he is reallly smart. I love laughing at Simon.

    [ Parent ]

    LOL, they are happily taking the hit.... (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:22:38 AM EST
    ...for the team. What a bunch of losers.

    [ Parent ]
    Denial is a self defense mechanism that shields (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Salt on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:01:44 AM EST
    Truth and a weapon for inane data points as faux proof of elect ability.  I personally was not drawn to Obama's who IMO's weak dependent personality, leadership style, voting record were not pluses for me and the when his campaign began using grievance to re victimize identity groups to inflame voters and move them to him and against others, it was a no starter ever for me, not someone I could or would ever support. But any anger I have is at the Democratic Party and their current Leadership for what I believe was a scam on the American People by providing Obama using made up Rulz momentum he had not earned in the Primary turning the contest into rope a dope shell game intended to enthrone a nominee regardless of the wishes of the now no longer needed majority in the base.  But some good will come of this I believe both Party's have shown themselves to be the business they are and not paragons of any past fictional virtue projected on their group, same with the media, bloggers self destructed as well, maybe now we can all get back to voting for our interest not made up divisions or labels and recall We are the power in the county.

    [ Parent ]
    The thing about those MyDD.com maps. (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by BrandingIron on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:21:32 AM EST
    You can click on them and they'll change the electoral vote count, which is cool because I REALLY don't see Obama winning PA or IN in the general election, but that's the "default" that comes up for the map in the upper left corner.  It's still a McCain victory at 273 to 265, but without PA and IN, the win increases for McCain, 305 to 233.  I don't even see Obama carrying CO, which makes it even wider a win for McCain.  They even have Iowa going for Obama in the default, but it was red in 2004 and unless I'm mistaken, it's not a swing state this year, is it?  Though I guess it was blue in 2000.  Hmm.

    Oh, and what's REALLY irritating me re: maps (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by BrandingIron on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:24:12 AM EST

    is the 270toWin.com map re: McCain vs. Obama.  Sorry, but South Carolina does not become a swing state if Obama's the nominee.  That state is red.

    [ Parent ]
    Of course (none / 0) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:24:55 AM EST
    Some of these maps are just silly.

    North Carolina is not in play either.

    [ Parent ]

    And yet (none / 0) (#33)
    by BrandingIron on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:29:51 AM EST

    I see Clintonites and Obama people referencing 270toWin all the time.  It's REALLY irritating, considering that...well, I don't even know what kind of polling they're using to calculate this stuff, but it's really ridiculous to think that SC or NC or any tried and true deep red state would ever go swing because of Obama.  That other site, too...the one that's similar to 270toWin...is even more irritating to me.  D:

    Though I still think that if something weird happens at the convention--weird enough to really p*ss off the Clinton supporters--that California could go red.  People here love Arnold...so they might perk up their ears if they feel like they've been abandoned or shafted by their party.

    [ Parent ]

    I dunno (none / 0) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:31:01 AM EST
    I do not reference anything.

    I look at state polls myself and use my common sense.

    [ Parent ]

    Eh, I don't even look at polls much. (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by BrandingIron on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:41:45 AM EST

    I look at demographics and the people themselves.  If this season's proved anything, it's proved that polls are iffy (what happened to Clinton's possible win/cutting it close in North Carolina, according to the polls?).

    On the ground over here in California you know where your Obama people are and your Clinton people are (and where the McCain people are hiding ;) ).  Obama gets Oakland hands down (where I live), Berkeley, Rockridge...but then when you start moving out of this area towards the places where the richer white people live (past Rockridge), you get more Clinton supporters (so I don't know where the "rich, white people voted for Obama" meme applies here in NorCal).  Hell, Obama lost bigtime to Clinton in L.A. County (what happened to his celebrities?  I guess Scarlett "I've Got a Big Johanssen" Johanssen couldn't go door-to-door with her shilling), so that has to tell you something.  My girlfriend's parents live in SoCal in San Diego, and that's Clinton and McCain country.

    My parents live in Massachusetts and they voted for Deval Patrick.  They're also p*ssed off that Patrick turned out to be a do-nothing numbnut (my dad's word) and see a lot of Patrick in Obama.  They live in a conservative area too, and it's similar there as it is here;  once you get out of the urban areas towards the countryside and the "affluent" areas, Clinton and McCain dominate the support.  They can see McCain winning their neighbors over (and I can too x_x).  Heck, they're not afraid to vote for Republicans (Romney, Weld), and with the disappointment in Patrick, I wouldn't count Massachusetts firmly in Obama's column either.

    But those are the only two states I've got firm opinions on, because I've lived half my life in one and am working on the other half in another.  The demographics and the way things work could very well be different elsewhere.

    [ Parent ]

    what I believe (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Josey on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:28:15 AM EST
    Obama isn't relying on ideology or stats from 2004 to win the general.
    He's relying on amassing registering a zillion voters to vote for him.


    [ Parent ]
    Iowa is Obama's (none / 0) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:24:26 AM EST
    in  a walkover. He won't even have to fight hard there.

    [ Parent ]
    Even tho' IA has been tight as a tick for (none / 0) (#53)
    by jawbone on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:40:36 AM EST
    the past two elections?

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah. (5.00 / 0) (#113)
    by madamab on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:12:48 AM EST
    IA is no walkover. The GE is not a caucus.

    McCain will take it easily IMHO.

    [ Parent ]

    That Indiana lead is from one outlier poll. (none / 0) (#26)
    by tigercourse on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:27:16 AM EST
    If you go to electoral-vote.com you see that McCain has a comfortable lead there in the other polls.

    [ Parent ]
    Thaaaaaat's the other website I was (none / 0) (#38)
    by BrandingIron on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:32:31 AM EST

    thinking of.  Thanks!

    [ Parent ]
    Last 2 April Polls Showed Obama Beating (none / 0) (#35)
    by MO Blue on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:30:24 AM EST
    McCain in IA by 7% - 8%.

    [ Parent ]
    Yeeeeaaaaah, but I'm not looking (none / 0) (#62)
    by BrandingIron on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:44:36 AM EST

    at the current polls, I'm looking at the general climate and IA's history from the past elections.  It seems as though it could go either way (when you look at it in past elections), but when it comes down to it, I think it'd go red if Obama's the nom.  Remember, polling now is nothing come November.

    [ Parent ]
    You're joking, right? (none / 0) (#200)
    by Boston Boomer on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:04:51 AM EST
    Someone thinks Obama will win Indiana in the general?  Did you mean Ohio?  There is no way Indiana will go for a Democrat for President.  The last time that happened was 1964, and that was because JFK had been assassinated and LBJ won in a landslide.


    [ Parent ]
    Hmm If I were McCain and if I were Clinton with (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Salt on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:24:31 AM EST
    all this shunning of Clinton's and McCain's talent I would team up on one ticket for America and break this strangle hold the two wings of the Party's have on the electorate in this country and cast off these puppets the extreme sects force on us along with there manufactured grievances that divide and undermine our future country's future prosperity. That's a ticket I am positive could win and bring change Day 1 and for a log time needed change.  It is a powerful coalition that IMO could easily win, hands down in Nov .  Real change and real courage and a ticket about We the People not the Progressive or the Christian Right image that both McCain and Clinton shunned by the wings, well there are plenty of us in the middle to put them in the White House if they choose.  I know Hillary is brave enough but is McCain I hope so.

    That is an insult to Clinton (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:26:11 AM EST
    She will work hard for the Dem nominee, be it herself or Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    She is a loyal Dem (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Leisa on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:56:26 AM EST
    too bad it seems that the DNC has not been so loyal to her.

    Salt, that ticket would be truly historic. Talk about implosion of both parties...

     

    [ Parent ]

    Mmm, I don't know. (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by BrandingIron on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:04:33 AM EST

    Remember when there were talks of Kerry/McCain?

    I think that Clinton/McCain would be crazy popular.  I think there are a lot of people outside of our little blog world here who would say "SEE?  THAT is what you call real UNITY!" and then they'd win every state save for Illinois against Obama/Whoever.  It would be devastating and historic in a three-fold way (Clinton/Obama would be historic in a three-fold way, but merely based on race and gender...this would be first First Lady to become prez, first woman to become prez, and first dual-gender/dual party ticket to win).

    Of course, it'd set the Republican mouthpieces on their ears.

    [ Parent ]

    Its meant as a compliment, I beleive she is (none / 0) (#114)
    by Salt on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:14:12 AM EST
    a brave trail blazer who has the courage to put her country future first, we need her skills, talent and experience in the White House this round and bias should not be what keeps her out sometimes bold action are required to break through bigotry.

    [ Parent ]
    Did you see McCain's reaction (none / 0) (#129)
    by ruffian on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:22:16 AM EST
    when Jon Stewart jokingly suggested that the other night as a sure thing winner in November?  If McCain could have said 'Are you effing kidding me?', he would have.

    Pretty sure there is absolutely no serious discussion of this in the McCain camp.

    [ Parent ]

    Hillary as VP (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by DCDemocrat on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:26:07 AM EST
    I had an interesting interaction with an Obamadroid at Political Wire the other day.  I observed that Hillary actually is in a position to force herself onto the ticket if she should want.  She could go to the superdelegates, tell them she intends to bow out gracefully for the vice presidency, and they all would rise "as a man" and go to Obama to make it the price of their vote for him.  It would happen.  The Obamaphile had no end of pricey words, bought on some elementary school campus in Brooklyn, to shower on me.

    Your thought seems right to me (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:27:15 AM EST
    I wonder if she wants it.

    It may be her play after West Virginia and Kentucky.

    [ Parent ]

    Not sure I'd want it... (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by kredwyn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:06:12 AM EST
    I'd be hard pressed to sit on my hands and stay quiet if I saw him making first timer's mistakes that I could easily fix.

    If you give to much advice, the person your serving with gets resentful. Don't give enough, things go bad quick.

    As Majority Leader, she'd be a force to be reckoned with...and a thorn in the side of many who burned their bridges over the past couple months. Ostensibly, she could broker the Leader position into a far more powerful role than any of the Dem leaders have managed thus far.

    Plus she could wop Nancy over the head with the metaphorical gavel.

    [ Parent ]

    Disturbing (none / 0) (#43)
    by AnninCA on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:34:47 AM EST
    but it could be true.  There's an article on CNN that suggests that Hillary is pushing for the slot according to "close friends."  

    I found the notion a bit disturbing in that I can't imagine what good would come of it if he can't stand her, and from all reports, it appears that the animosity is very strong.

    I'm hoping that is just a bad bit of journalism.  No real source was named.

    [ Parent ]

    I wouldn't believe anything (none / 0) (#48)
    by stillife on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:37:44 AM EST
    from CNN, the "most trusted name in news".

    With "close friends" like that, Hillary doesn't need enemies.

    [ Parent ]

    I'll eat my hat (none / 0) (#46)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:35:18 AM EST
    I think the only way she would even accept VP would be if the Obama people and the party poobahs begged her to for the critical good of the party.  That's not going to happen.

    I still say she can do just as much good, probably more, by campaigning her butt off with Bill for whoever the ticket is.  She will do that.  My intention now is not to vote for Obama in the GE if he's the nominee, but I don't completely discount the possibility that Hillary could argue me into doing it against my inclinations.  I think I'm not alone in that.

    [ Parent ]

    I was thinking she might not want it, (none / 0) (#57)
    by DCDemocrat on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:41:24 AM EST
    but there was a campaign appearance yesterday where she called for Democratic unity and talked about, "we," going to the White House in a way that made me wonder if she meant, "Barack and me."  On the other hand, I am notorious for reading stuff into stuff.  

    [ Parent ]
    What would happen (