home

Strong Majority Of African Americans Want Unity Ticket

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:04:49 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

This is a wonderful finding from an ABC/WaPo poll:

Clinton continues as the preferred choice as Obama's running mate, with 39 percent of Democrats saying they'd like him to pick her if he's the nominee. That peaks at 59 percent of African-Americans, 47 percent of Clinton supporters and 42 percent of women (vs. 34 percent of men).

There's also an indication that Clinton on the ticket would be a slight net plus in the general election: Among all Americans, more say having her run with Obama would make them more likely to vote Democratic (25 percent) than to vote Republican (18 percent). The rest (54 percent) say it wouldn't make a difference in their choice.

More...

(Emphasis supplied.) It turns out that the only people against a Unity Ticket are Ted Kennedy, Mark Cohen and Creative Class bloggers. Obama's strong African American base want unity as do Clinton supporters. The divisive ones are people like Kennedy, Cohen and the Creative Class bloggers. I must admit I feel vindicated by this finding.

By Big Tent Democrat

Comments now closed.

< Defense Begins Closing in Rezko Trial | ABC/Wash. Post Poll: 64% of Dems Say Hillary Should Stay in Race >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Strong Majority Of African Americans Want Unity Ticket | 220 comments (220 topical)
    Not Surprised One Bit (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by squeaky on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:08:56 PM EST
     I still remember your quote from a Mississippi AA voter who had no problem voting for Hillary should she clinch the nomination.  

    Waiting for Kennedy et al........

    Great memory (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:10:02 PM EST
    And spot on.

    you are so right.

    Parent

    H/T To Oculus (none / 0) (#132)
    by squeaky on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:27:23 PM EST
    The Reasonable Obama Supporters Of Mississippi

    Parent
    Remember LA debate? (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:46:20 PM EST
    When Stevie Wonder jumped up and the audience went wild?

    Parent
    No TeeVee (none / 0) (#218)
    by squeaky on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:06:05 PM EST
    Got a link? I missed it.

    Parent
    Won't Make A Difference (5.00 / 8) (#3)
    by BDB on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:09:21 PM EST
    Ted Kennedy, et al, are far more interested in who controls the democratic party than they are winning in November.  The only way there will be a Unity Ticket is if the SDs decide to go with Clinton because of GE strength and put Obama on as VP to make it go down easier.

    Exactly. (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:15:35 PM EST
    I wonder when the rest of the peons will realize this.

    Parent
    But Obama is crowning himself king on May 20th.... (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by Angel on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:19:49 PM EST


    Parent
    Triumphalism. (Love that word, BTD.) (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by oculus on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:00:29 PM EST


    Parent
    Exactly (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by angie on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:07:16 PM EST
    DNC to AAs: thanks for the votes, now STFU. The creative class & DC insiders have proven more then once, imo, that they don't really care what the AAs want as long as they get their votes.

    Parent
    our votes (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by tek on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:46:22 PM EST
    actually, after following my Democratic senator, Dick Durbin, very closely for two years, I believe that's what they think about all of us.  They want our votes and our money and then they callously betray us as soon as it's in their interest.  I don't believe there are any politicians in this country anymore who really care about the American people--except for the Clintons.

    Parent
    Clinton/Obama (4.20 / 5) (#11)
    by Davidson on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:17:59 PM EST
    Also, Clinton at the top of the ticket is the only way it would work GE-wise.  Obama/Clinton would fail.

    Parent
    Forget that now (none / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:19:19 PM EST
    Obama is going to be the nominee.

    Let's try to win the GE now.

    Parent

    That's Obama's job (5.00 / 6) (#17)
    by Salo on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:20:19 PM EST
    Just like it was Kerry's and just like it was Gore's.

    Parent
    Right: let's try to win the GE (5.00 / 7) (#25)
    by Davidson on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:21:46 PM EST
    We can't do it with Obama at the top.  At best, it's extremely unlikely.

    Parent
    Why forget it?? The convention (5.00 / 8) (#61)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:59:36 PM EST
    isn't over yet, BTD, and that is where the nominee is elected. And I wouldn't count those delegates before they vote, if I were you. Especially the pre-Wright ones. And the ones that represent the groups that Obama has thrown under the bus along the way. If Hillary does well in the last primaries, and gains popular votes equal or better than Obama, then they would be fools to nominate Obama. Hillary's armor can protect him from the top spot, but not from the second spot. Remember, she has withstood the worst the GOP can throw at her. Obama got rattled by the Wright controversy and thinks the primary campaign is like the Bataan Death March. No way he can stand up to the GOP, especially since he has no policies he can articulate when asked about them. He may have them, but they are on his web site and he apparently hasn't read it. So unless the SDs want to in effect announce to the American people that they want a puppet in the Oval Office, they had better vote for Hillary as the nominee. Obama doesn't have the chance of a snowball in hell of winning the GE. And you should know that.

    Parent
    Look, this way (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:48:04 PM EST
    we get Hillary as VP, then Hillary as President, we get Hillary for 16 years, and that would be a great way to poke Teddy in the eye.  He never got either job.  

    Parent
    VP question (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by samtaylor2 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:55:21 PM EST
    I (Obama supporter) think a unity ticket would be great.  I think that by coming together they could make the gender/ racial healing process (a process that needs to happen between these 2 camps) part of the campaign itself.  I am not sure how they could be done, but it strikes me as as not only good for the country, but would be a good political tool.  If they did it correctly they could really put a crimp into the politics of division that republicans use.  

    Side question, lets say Obama offers the VP to Hiliary, which I think he will (if just out of political expedience) and let's then say she turns it down (because, because- this is a hypothetical).  What VP would Clinton supporters like to see with Obama?  

    Parent

    I would like Ed Rendell, (none / 0) (#210)
    by bjorn on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:57:50 PM EST
    given your scenario...

    Parent
    Just for the record (none / 0) (#9)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:16:27 PM EST
    I think you are entirely wrong about Ted Kennedy's motivations here.  (Daschle's another matter entirely.)

    Just sayin'.

    Parent

    Wow! I think this is proof that (5.00 / 6) (#4)
    by bjorn on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:09:53 PM EST
    African Americans don't think Clinton is a racist!  Many still love the Clintons and I think they were torn about who to vote for...

    Of course they do not hate her (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:10:56 PM EST
    Just as white women do not hate Obama.

    Pride is a GOOD thing.

    A unity ticket is sooo the thing to do.

    Parent

    And Notably (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by The Maven on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:20:41 PM EST
    the percentages reporting that they would be somewhat or entirely comfortable with an African-American or woman president are very close, as well, coming in at 88% and 84%, respectively.  This also seems to show that there does remain slightly more reluctance toward electing a woman, something that I am fairly certain other polls over the past decade or so have borne out.

    Compared with the reported discomfort at the idea of a 72-year-old president, these numbers should offer a fair degree of confidence that McCain will have significant hurdles to conquer in terms of a generation gap in the general election.

    (I hope this doesn't constitute being too OT, since it's all coming from the same batch of poll results.)

    Parent

    Interesting stuff (none / 0) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:23:55 PM EST
    I was just really happy with the number I featured in this post.

    The chance for Unity is right there, if we are smart enough to take it.

    Parent

    I wasn't so sure about it before but.... (none / 0) (#58)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:56:14 PM EST
    ...these numbers do make me think it might work. I just wish that I had more faith in the Obama camp making the offer. Sometimes I get the feeling that they are willing to take the gamble of winning totally on their own terms rather than making concessions to the Clinton supporters.

    Parent
    Aw geez, how the heck did i post this twice? (none / 0) (#74)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:05:14 PM EST


    Parent
    Because it was just that good Maria. :) (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Teresa on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:12:37 PM EST


    Parent
    I wasn't so sure about it before but.... (none / 0) (#59)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:56:25 PM EST
    ...these numbers do make me think it might work. I just wish that I had more faith in the Obama camp making the offer. Sometimes I get the feeling that they are willing to take the gamble of winning totally on their own terms rather than making concessions to the Clinton supporters.

    Parent
    BTD = Cassandra (5.00 / 5) (#104)
    by angie on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:18:19 PM EST
    doomed to speak the truth* and have no one listen to him.

    *I still don't see the Unity ticket working as to women. That is, Obama/Clinton is lopsided to the extent that it will actually offend a lot of women (myself included).

    Parent

    after seeing these numbers I totally agree (none / 0) (#10)
    by bjorn on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:16:29 PM EST


    Parent
    I think you're (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by rnibs on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:01:07 PM EST
    right that most AA's don't hate Clinton, but I don't think they were torn between chosing him over her because they voted 90+ percent for him.

    I just wish the first viable AA candidate had more of a record to run on and didn't support policies that I can't support.  


    Parent

    not so torn. (4.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Salo on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:13:27 PM EST
    the votes themselves are almost painful to watch in their Eastern Blockness.

    Parent
    I love the concept (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:18:51 PM EST
    but I think the practicalities are impossible.

    I repeat what I've said before.  I believe all the up side and none of the down side of an Obama/Clinton ticket will happen when Hillary and Bill campaign their butts of for him from the convention on through November.  Personally, I think the day-to-day dynamics of a unity ticket would be absolutely horrible, and an actual White House administration a near disaster.

    and vice versa (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by angie on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:24:00 PM EST
    that is, Clinton the nominee & Obama (not in the VP spot) working his butt off for her.
    And yes, I know BTD says to forget that -- it will never happen, Obama will be the nominee (which, btw, I really wish he would stop saying because it is making it hard for me to maintain my board crush on him) but I still say it's a long way to August. I don't know how it will happen -- call it women's intuition -- but I see Clinton as the nominee by the time the convention rolls around.

    Parent
    Please, Please, Please let this happen (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by andgarden on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:19:01 PM EST
    It is the only way to win, in my opinion.

    Michelle says NO. (5.00 / 6) (#20)
    by Angel on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:20:42 PM EST


    Parent
    Michellle better suck it up (5.00 / 5) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:21:02 PM EST


    Parent
    YOU tell Michelle... (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Angel on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:22:27 PM EST


    Parent
    Is she reading? (5.00 / 5) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:24:37 PM EST
    Suck it up michelle.

    Parent
    It will take a lot more than that, BTD. (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by Angel on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:25:32 PM EST


    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:26:49 PM EST


    Parent
    LOL! (3.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Blue Jean on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:09:34 PM EST


    Parent
    Seems To Me That Obama Is Not In Favor (none / 0) (#75)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:05:18 PM EST
    of an unity ticket. If he was, don't you think he would clamp down on his SDs from saying that this isn't going to fly?

    Parent
    Computer says no... (none / 0) (#50)
    by Salo on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:38:50 PM EST
    ...ah cough cough.

    Parent
    59% of African Americans (5.00 / 8) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:20:45 PM EST
    want it. It is the white elites who are tryoing to run the Colintons out of the Party.

    I am so encouraged by this finding.

    I want see what, if anything, the blogging jerks have to say about THAt.

    You think Keith Olbermann will notice this? Never.

    Parent

    I love that the Creative Class (5.00 / 5) (#39)
    by andgarden on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:30:41 PM EST
    think that they're speaking for all black people.

    Parent
    That poll (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Salo on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:38:01 PM EST
    reflects the idea that you can have your cake and eat  it too.

    Parent
    And they can (none / 0) (#51)
    by andgarden on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:44:39 PM EST
    if the leaders are as smart as the people. . .

    Parent
    that is emotionally manipulative BS (5.00 / 10) (#60)
    by MMW on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:57:27 PM EST
    Count me opposed to seeing another woman, taking one for the team.

    Parent
    Count me opposed as well (5.00 / 4) (#113)
    by RalphB on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:22:09 PM EST
    The ticket would be upside down and would just be silly once the new wore off.

    Parent
    Heh...she is not taking nothing... (none / 0) (#199)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:51:24 PM EST
    she gets the better deal.  VP then President, after that Obama is done 8 years.  

    Parent
    They are neither "creative" nor ... (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by Robot Porter on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:11:02 PM EST
    do they have much "class."

    Parent
    So true andgarden. But then you know... (none / 0) (#63)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:00:15 PM EST
    ...how the creative class likes to declare itself an expert on anything that interests them. We used to call those folks dilettantes in my day.

    Parent
    Buhdy assures me the MSM is (none / 0) (#71)
    by oculus on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:03:33 PM EST
    reading the blogs.  We'll see.

    Parent
    I don't think it is the only way to win (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Faust on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:21:33 PM EST
    But It's probably the BEST way to win.

    I remember back to the Calinfornia debate which the pundits were soooooo disapointed in because they wanted a fight and it was a "love fest."

    If Obama and Clinton could recapture the energy of that debate and the energy in that room, I do think that the result may well be a tidal wave.

    And I don't think that the arguments against it because Obama has promised "change" fly.

    He has also promised unity that looks past differences. What better way to do this than to unite with someone he has had such a dramatic fight with?

    Parent

    choices. (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Addison on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:19:56 PM EST
    We rapidly reaching the point -- an increasingly empirically provable one, apparently -- where Obama not picking Clinton as VP would not merely be a bad decision, but a horrifically stupid one.

    Tell that to your creative class brethren (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:22:23 PM EST
    please.

    Especially the ones all offended on behalf of A-A voters.

    Parent

    My "creative class brethen?" (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Addison on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:24:51 PM EST
    I don't even entirely understand what "creative class" is, who coined it, or why on Earth anyone chooses to use it. It was apparently made up while I was out of things. I fully reject it as an invented term, as a useful grouping, and most of all as a tag for myself.

    But I'll get the word out.

    Parent

    Oh stop playing ignorant (none / 0) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:26:08 PM EST
    You know exactly who I am talking about.

    What other blogs do you post at?

    Parent

    Oh, I know what blogs use the term... (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Addison on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:28:46 PM EST
    ...(mostly here and OpenLeft, judging by your posts, though I don't go there often) and I know who you're applying it to, sort of. I'm just saying I don't understand exactly who's covered by it, the genesis of the term, or why on Earth it's used. And I hate it.

    Parent
    I hate it too (5.00 / 5) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:29:51 PM EST
    I am taking it out of their lexicon by making it a term of ridicule.

    Parent
    I wish you great success. (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by andgarden on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:31:31 PM EST


    Parent
    Well... (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Addison on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:32:41 PM EST
    ...understand I think it's a ridiculous, ridiculous term -- and, Jesus, if the "creative class" made it up about themselves I am appalled beyond words at their utter ignorance about "creativity" and their pompousness -- and I don't appreciate being "ridiculed" by being lumped in with them as "brethren."

    That's why I was protesting.

    Parent

    Go tell them (none / 0) (#66)
    by Edgar08 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:00:46 PM EST
    You are appalled at their ignorance.

    Parent
    I don't have an account at OpenLeft... (none / 0) (#88)
    by Addison on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:10:58 PM EST
    ...and Dkos, for instance, has a grand total of 39 comment usages for the last month. Many of them appear to be derisive uses. And I could just the same tell you to go to Hillaryis44 or NoQuarter and deal with them for all their excesses and stupidity. When I see something I disagree with, and I have some idea of the context and a counterargument, I say so (if I want).


    Parent
    You should open an account there (none / 0) (#103)
    by Edgar08 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:18:02 PM EST
    So you can tell them you are appalled at their ignorance.

    Nothing stopped you from opening an account here to let us know what we're doing wrong.


    Parent

    I came here... (none / 0) (#136)
    by Addison on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:28:23 PM EST
    ...because I've always enjoyed arguing -- and occasionally agreeing -- with Armando. And this is where he went, as it turns out. All my comments above and beyond that can be chalked up to the fact that I'm often bored and always opinionated.

    Parent
    And we a glad to have you (none / 0) (#162)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:36:38 PM EST
    We especially like the fact that you put in time helping folks in Asia.

    All the rest of you commenters, don't mess with Addison.

    And don't mess with Masel either.

    Those are two of my favorites.

    Parent

    Oh BTW (5.00 / 2) (#167)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:38:14 PM EST
    Al Giordano is an old friend of mine. So don't mess with him either. And if Bob Johnson comes back, don't mess with him either.

    Kid Oakland you can potshot if you like . . .

    Parent

    No (5.00 / 4) (#200)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:52:30 PM EST
    Bob Johnson cannot come back and no personal attacks on anyone, including Kid Oakland. We keep it civil here.

    Parent
    I was joking (none / 0) (#212)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:00:56 PM EST


    Parent
    I agree. Addison is the cream of the crop in (none / 0) (#174)
    by Teresa on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:40:39 PM EST
    Obama supporters that I've encountered. Nice, fair and sensible.

    Parent
    Addison (none / 0) (#202)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:54:47 PM EST
    I have no problem with the majority of your comments here. You are usually civil.

    Parent
    I asked over on a CC site about this phrase (none / 0) (#148)
    by DFLer on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:31:50 PM EST
    and was directed to:


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_class

    I found the original article coining this phrase:

    http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0205.florida.html

    Sysops and or Jeralyn: BTW I followed the instructions to highlight the link, hit the link button, paste the link in the given box....still looks just like what it would look like if I merely pasted it in as text....further instructions re turning a link into one word would be helpful. Thanks


    Parent

    Linking things... (none / 0) (#161)
    by Addison on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:36:32 PM EST
    You have to highlight the word you want to make into a link, and then use the button.

    So I'd type "Creative Class," highlight that, and then paste the url in the little box.

    And yes, I just this evening went to that wikipedia page. Shiver.

    Parent

    Step By Step (none / 0) (#170)
    by squeaky on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:38:47 PM EST
    To make links here.

    Parent
    Clinton as nominee and AA backlash (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by Davidson on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:20:33 PM EST
    Obviously, there isn't a strong anti-Clinton backlash considering how many want her on the ticket so why is there the constant excuse that if Clinton got the nomination AAs would revolt en masse?

    Look (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:21:43 PM EST
    Sure clinton could win if she got the nomination but it is not likely to happen.

    Time for unity. NOW.

    Parent

    Time for unity? (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by abfabdem on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:48:46 PM EST
    I know at some level that makes sense, but why do I feel the exact same way as when the 2000 election went to Bush?  It was like some great cosmic mistake had been made and now it seems to be happening again.  America chose the lightweight, and we lost eight years of enlightened energy and environmental policy and got into a needless war.  This was our chance for healthcare and I think with Obama as President it will not happen.  Will he fight for it?  What will he fight for?

    Parent
    Unity (5.00 / 2) (#173)
    by pie on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:40:37 PM EST
    will occur with the most qualified candidate at the top of the ticket.

    You said that he had the media support, so he would win the nomination.

    Are you now saying that the ticket that has Clinton in the top spot and Obama as VP can't win?

    All the way to the convention.  Let's do it.

    Parent

    Well, (none / 0) (#28)
    by Addison on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:22:43 PM EST
    The argument would be that there's a big difference between her being VP and her as nominee after "stealing" the nomination.

    Parent
    GE polls: Clinton wins (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Davidson on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:48:00 PM EST
    So, again, if blacks will revolt en masse, why does she continually not only outperform Obama in the GE polls but beats McCain handily?

    The AA excuse has been the major reason why so many have been opposed to picking the far stronger GE candidate and it just doesn't truly play the role everyone says it would.

    Parent

    Go away. (none / 0) (#72)
    by oculus on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:04:53 PM EST


    Parent
    What's wrong with that comment? n/t (none / 0) (#196)
    by rilkefan on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:49:46 PM EST


    Parent
    I reacted strongly to "stealing (5.00 / 1) (#211)
    by oculus on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:00:42 PM EST
    the nomination."  

    But, BTD and J say to leave Addison alone, so I will.

    Parent

    I've never believed that (5.00 / 5) (#24)
    by davnee on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:21:44 PM EST
    more than a handful of AA's would be lost in Nov. if Clinton was the nominee, particularly if black elites, beginning with Obama himself, campaigned for her.  

    I'm not a fan of the unity ticket for a number of reasons, but I'd like the choice to belong to Clinton.  If she wants the job (and thinks it is superior to waiting for 2012), then she should have it.  She can't hurt the ticket.  She can only help it.  This is all about Obama's ego.  Can he handle running on the ticket with a candidate that is going to outshine him not only in the campaign but every day for the next 4-8 years?  That or there really is a DNC conspiracy against the Clintons, in which case she should go nuclear.

    I think she should campaign vigorously the rest of the way and force the seating of FL and MI.  If the super-d's won't budge for her then (and assuming she does have the popular vote lead which she may well get after PR), she should suspend her campaign, but not release her delegates until the convention, thus leaving the door open for the Obama meltdown scenario.  These poll results suggest that the public will be fine with that.  And I'm guessing these numbers only improve for her after her blowout tomorrow in WV.

    I'm praying for an Obama meltdown....before (5.00 / 5) (#29)
    by Angel on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:23:39 PM EST
    August.

    Parent
    Angel...maybe you could move that meltdown (none / 0) (#44)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:35:21 PM EST
    time frame up a couple of months.  :)

    Parent
    I'll take it anytime between now and August.... (none / 0) (#47)
    by Angel on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:36:43 PM EST
    How's that?  

    Parent
    Excellent !! Somewhere Around May 20 Would (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:45:43 PM EST
    be perfect...

    Parent
    Clinton Can't Take A Backseat To Obama... (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:26:35 PM EST
    She is too smart and will continually make him look bad if she is not at the top of the ticket.
    If she wins the nomination and he refuses to be the VP, then oh well.  She could do, oh so much better, anyway.

    Parent
    BTD asked Michelle to suck it up (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by bjorn on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:50:42 PM EST
    I think we have to suck it up also if Obama gets the nomination.  It really would be a good thing for the party and frankly if I were Clinton I would not want to go back to the senate after how she has been treated by some of them!

    Parent
    It Is Not Personal (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by squeaky on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:00:20 PM EST
    She will do fine. Most of the fireworks is for us, backstage the pols are often arm and arm.

    Parent
    bjorn...I Wish Something Would Suck Michelle (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:00:57 PM EST
    up...but I digress.  In theory you are right, but I don't know if I can control my hand it make it put an x next to obama's name.  

    As for Hillary going back to the Senate.  First, let's hope it doesn't happen.  Secondly, if she does go back, she will do so with her head held high and with such class it will make those snakes that treated her so badly, look even worse (if that is possible). :)

    Parent

    I LOLed! (5.00 / 0) (#130)
    by bjorn on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:27:16 PM EST


    Parent
    Per Huff Post, Reid doesn't (none / 0) (#84)
    by oculus on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:09:13 PM EST
    support Hillary Clinton for Senate Majority Leader.  

    Parent
    I'd think he wouldn't. (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by davnee on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:12:27 PM EST
    LOL!

    Parent
    I laughed too. (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by oculus on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:13:56 PM EST
    HE must be reading the blogs.

    Parent
    That's ok. I don't support HIM as Majority Leader. (5.00 / 6) (#139)
    by DeborahNC on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:30:00 PM EST


    Parent
    IMO picking up Hillary as VP won't save (5.00 / 7) (#40)
    by athyrio on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:30:45 PM EST
    Obama, the only way it will work is with Hillary as president and Obama as VP...

    Ether Way (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by squeaky on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:36:28 PM EST
    It is big time historic. Americans love this kind of story. It is so historic, imo,  that the American voters will vote in unprecedented numbers. In either matchup McCain will be pummeled with the force of a tsunami.

    Parent
    It really would be something. I'd prefer Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Teresa on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:38:05 PM EST
    at the top of the ticket because I'm afraid that Obama can't win. I think his only chance is with her but I don't think he'll offer.

    Parent
    Axelrod and Plouffe read the polls. (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by oculus on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:06:16 PM EST


    Parent
    I Disagree (none / 0) (#54)
    by squeaky on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:48:32 PM EST
    I think both matchups are equal and not only include the vast majority of Democrats but also appeal to a wide swath of Americans who are sick of the white male rule. In this way McCain really represents not only BushCo but the past.

    Parent
    I don't think both match ups are (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by oculus on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:20:38 PM EST
    equal by a long shot.  I do think Obama, if elected, would be a much better President if Clinton is his Vice President.  

    Parent
    That's because Hillary would be doing all the work (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by Angel on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:27:03 PM EST


    Parent
    That is one possibility. But I think Obama (none / 0) (#141)
    by oculus on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:30:46 PM EST
    would be looking over his shoulder constantly and trying to make sure he at least measures up to her.

    Parent
    He will never measure up to her. He doesn't have (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by Angel on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:32:48 PM EST
    the class.

    Parent
    Nah (none / 0) (#164)
    by squeaky on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:36:50 PM EST
    He is a pro. They will do what they do best and that is win legislators over to their POV. Seems unstoppable to me. Also it will do much to counter the damage Smirk and Snarl have done  to our international image.

    Parent
    Not equal to me squeaky just on health care (none / 0) (#73)
    by Teresa on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:05:00 PM EST
    mainly. If this unity ticket happens, I hope he puts her in charge of getting her plan through.

    Parent
    We Will Need (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by squeaky on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:31:17 PM EST
    A lot more than Hillary and Obama to enact UHC in the US. It is a big no no with the GOP and many Conservative Democrats are still dead set against it. Great for popular appeal, but realistic? I dunno.

    Some say that we will pick up 6-8 Democratic Senators, in '08. Not sure that will be enough to pull it off.

    Parent

    That's a good news poll all around. I wonder (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Teresa on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:32:36 PM EST
    if the media will get it yet? The Clintons aren't perceived as racists by AA's and the people want Hillary to stay in until she has no shot (or wins somehow).

    I'll just bet that tonight, there will be more people telling her to get out, she's destroying the party and it will get worse tomorrow night. Why can't they see what we see?

    As a Clinton supporter, I have really mixed feelings about her accepting, if offered. She will get all of the blame if Obama loses. I'm just going to trust her to do what is right for her if they offer it to her.

    Want to hear people screaming for her (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by andgarden on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:36:02 PM EST
    to get out? Look no further than the toxic Americablog.

    Parent
    *sigh* (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by kempis on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:00:08 PM EST
    I'm in such a horrible, reactive snit, so totally ticked off at the way Hillary has been treated by her party, that I'm no longer responsive to Obama on a ticket, either leading it or being second, even if Hillary is on the ticket.

    I hope I get over this by November....

    BTD!!!! I looked in the mirror (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by p lukasiak on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:01:14 PM EST
    It turns out that the only people against a Unity Ticket are Ted Kennedy, Mark Cohen and Creative Class bloggers.

    and it turns out I'm not Ted Kennedy, not Mark Cohen, which means you think I'm a creative class blogger, because I've always been opposed to an Obama/Clinton ticket even when I wasn't planning on sitting out November.

    Now, I understand that because I do the occasional guest post on some blogs that you might mistake me for a "blogger."

    But the "creative class" stuff...well, I think I deserve an apology ;-)

    I think it is time for you (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:07:55 PM EST
    to rethink your position.

    Parent
    Which one? (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by p lukasiak on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:16:58 PM EST
    I have so many! ;-)

    my objection to the Obama/Clinton tichet has always been about the fact that it will interfere with Obama's ability to get his message out -- the coverage will be 24/7 political soap opera about the relationship between Hill, Barry, Bill, and Michelle...and their staffs.

    And I felt that way BEFORE the campaigns started making accusations about each other.  

    Obama needs to show with his VP pick that he is aware of his deficiencies -- but not his "political" deficiencies which is what asking Clinton to be the nominee would signal.  He needs someone who symbolizes impeccable National Security credentials... not a pander to Clinton supporters, but a reason for the rest of the country to think he's fit to sit in the Oval Office.

    Parent

    Nope (none / 0) (#111)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:21:21 PM EST
    Obama is a Media Darling. That won't happen.

    Parent
    sometimes... (none / 0) (#153)
    by p lukasiak on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:33:18 PM EST
    I can't tell when you are joking.

    Parent
    I'm not here (none / 0) (#171)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:39:55 PM EST
    If he picks Clinton, he will be treated as the greatest most magnanimous most unifying force in the history of politics.

    I kid you not.

    Parent

    And it will be half right (none / 0) (#175)
    by andgarden on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:41:21 PM EST
    It will be a self-fulfilling prophesy. I'm convinced it will work.

    Parent
    I'm telling you (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:44:18 PM EST
    It is virtually a no brainer now.

    Parent
    That sounds like the meme of those (none / 0) (#115)
    by oculus on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:22:49 PM EST
    who won't vote for Hillary Clinton because they don't want a Bush/Clinton/Clinton/Bush/Clinton succession.

    Plus, don't you think having a First couple who are African American w/two cute girls will generate enough press interest?

    Parent

    Taking a backseat/VP (5.00 / 7) (#76)
    by MMW on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:05:53 PM EST
    Validates all that they have done to her. This validates the media treatment, the spinelessness with which the Dem leadership have allowed that treatment of her, the arrogance and vitriol of the creative class.

    Now she must turn around and swallow her pride to save the party that was happy to abandon her?

    She must play nursemaid to the very individuals that referred to her as a "monster"? The people who called her racist?

    Dems deserve to lose.

    Eeeeeeeeeeeyep (5.00 / 0) (#93)
    by Edgar08 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:12:51 PM EST
    No way around that.

    Parent
    It show that one again women are expected (5.00 / 3) (#116)
    by feet on earth on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:23:09 PM EST
    to be their "brother's keepers" (where did I HEAR this wording?)  but the party has NO intention to be a "sister's keeper".

    Ah, this brother of mine  is a NO keeper for this sister.  This party
    and Obama are under my bus.

    Parent

    She's done it before (none / 0) (#96)
    by dianem on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:14:06 PM EST
    Clinton is tough. Very Tough. I don't know if she'd take the VP slot, but she has earned it, and it should be offered to her. It would matter, just like fairly counting the votes of Florida and Michigan would matter. I kind of get the feeling that the Dems don't really want to win this election. That they want anothe 4 years of Republican rule, preferably with a Congress that is bulked up by all of the Obama supporters who vote downticket. That's the hope, anyway. If they just show up and vote for Obama, it won't help downticket Dems, and they've alienated enough straight ticket supporters that I suspect they're going to need a lot of new voters who vote for the entire Dem ticket.

    Parent
    She's "tough"? Does that mean its okay (5.00 / 6) (#128)
    by MMW on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:26:52 PM EST
    to defeat her with outright lies and innuendo? With character assasination?

    She hasn't earned the VP slot, if this were fair she's earned the nomination and Presidency. They're attempting to defeat her and marginalize her supporters, yet the offer of VP will somehow fix this?

    This really is like an abusive hubby bringing home flowers.

    Parent

    I agree. It's insulting to women for people to (5.00 / 4) (#180)
    by DeborahNC on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:43:26 PM EST
    suggest that she'd be sooo willing to take the #2 spot (or, that it would be a good thing for her).

    If it's something she wants, then I'm okay with that, but I would be extremely surprised if she accepted. Her experiences are so broad, while his are quite narrow. Also, she'd outshine him, and the pairing would seem unbalanced, imo.

    Parent

    When only 47% of someone's supporters (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by Edgar08 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:10:30 PM EST
    Find a VP slot acceptable, that doesn't sound like a very good number.  That sounds like a bad number.

    The poll proves a-list bloggers are incorrect about AAs but doesn't do more than that.

    And as much as I love proving a-list bloggers as incorrect (and believe me, I do), it's still not a convincing argument for the issue.

    Based on name recognition alone, I figured the numbers would be higher.

    That is silly (none / 0) (#117)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:23:26 PM EST
    Most of her supporters want her in the top slot.

    It is ridiculous to think they will object when the VP slot is what is available.

    that is what is what is so compelling about the argument. Clearly most of Obama's supporters WANT Clinto as the VP.

    Parent

    I don't think it's ridiculous at all (5.00 / 2) (#192)
    by RalphB on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:46:47 PM EST
    that many Clinton supporters would not want her in the VP slot.  For one, I don't and for an obvious reason.  It's one more time where the better qualified woman has to take a back seat to a frankly unqualified man.  This the opposite of a liberal value.


    Parent
    a small distinction. (none / 0) (#126)
    by Salo on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:26:12 PM EST
    supporters are not precisely the same as voters.

    It seems minor but it's clear that Daschle Kennedy Kerry dislike her--And those three are the moneymen.

    Parent

    Won't Kennedy be concerned (none / 0) (#135)
    by oculus on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:28:17 PM EST
    enough about his legacy and that of his brothers to want to smooth things out?  

    Parent
    I've not lightly (none / 0) (#169)
    by Salo on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:38:37 PM EST
    compared Obama to McGovern or Dukakis.  

    Kennedy's legacy is what it is.  They would have been good Wardens in Boston.

    Parent

    Hey, watch it. Big McGovern supporter here. (none / 0) (#190)
    by oculus on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:46:32 PM EST


    Parent
    And? (none / 0) (#198)
    by Salo on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:50:55 PM EST
    The chap designs a system of delegate distribution as a DNC poohbaah, promptly wins that nomination loses election. Ushers in a series of challenges from Kennedy, Mondale, Dukakis---we fluke it Clinton, lose with Gore, Kerry etc.

    Okay, okay it's not his fault.  Something's systemically broken IMHO. It's not like the Dems are actually radicals. Their policy platform looks like Wet Toryism.  They just can't pick an appealing leader.

    Parent

    Sure (none / 0) (#131)
    by Edgar08 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:27:18 PM EST
    But that doesn't solve Obama's problem with..... the Clinton supporters.

    Except I guess maybe 47% of them.  If that's enough, fine.

    All that poll shows is that Obama supporters on the internet have no idea what Obama supporters in the real world are thinking.

    Which is fine.  But it doesn't show that picking Clinton unifies the party.

    Parent

    Who cares w/ A-As want as Obama's r-mate? (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by Exeter on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:11:47 PM EST
    (I mean that purely from an electoral vantage point.) A-As have already shown in the primary that they will vote for Obama whomever the running mate may be.

    I would be interested in polling that shows who (if anyone) might be able to swing a swing state, or might be able get Seniors, blue collar workers, or Hispanics to vote for Obama.

    It needs to be more ... (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Robot Porter on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:27:28 PM EST
    the Unity ticket won't be enough.  Obama needs to cave on UHC.  And he has to make his language more friendly to base Democrats.

    Because it can't be the usual Obama move, "I gave Hillary VP, what more do you want?  Let me eat my waffles in peace."

    Unity is a state of mind.  Not just a single action.

    Of course, I still believe Clinton is going to get the nomination.  Crazy me.

    Crazy like a fox maybe... (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by Angel on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:31:15 PM EST


    Parent
    I know this isn't popular here, but (5.00 / 6) (#159)
    by vicsan on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:36:07 PM EST
    I do not want her on his ticket. She's too good for him and the only reason that poll shows they want her on the ticket is because they know he can't win the GE without her and they're RIGHT. He can't. The electoral maps favor Hillary, not BO.

    I could maybe stomach him on bottom of the ticket if they promise to lock Michelle up in the VP mansion for 8 years. I cannot listen to that woman for 8 years, Sorry. I do NOT like her...not even a little bit.

    I'm trying to not be offensive here. This is as nice as I can say this.

    Michelle (5.00 / 2) (#178)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:42:05 PM EST
    is a big problem imo. She'll be as big a drag for Obama as all his other baggage.

    Parent
    She really is (5.00 / 2) (#193)
    by vicsan on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:47:45 PM EST
    a big problem. Can you imagine a possible First Lady
    saying she "wanted to scratch Bill Clinton's eyes out when he made his Fairy Tale remark" about BO's campaign? She is NOT First Lady material. IMCPO.

    Parent
    clap clap clap (none / 0) (#176)
    by RalphB on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:41:21 PM EST
    well spoken and so true!

    Parent
    The leaders are out of touch (5.00 / 2) (#201)
    by joanneleon on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:53:32 PM EST
    The leaders in the party, the leaders in the media and the leaders of the netroots are all out of touch.

    Now, we'll see if they listen to the people or if, as is more often the case, they decide that they know better.

    I saw a guy from FAIR speak last year and he said that Congress and the media are always six months behind.  I think that the netroots are beginning to suffer from the same affliction.  It must have something to do with gaining a large audience.  Maybe it causes people to stop listening.

    Back in February (5.00 / 1) (#214)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:02:16 PM EST
    the leadership should have taken both in a room, locked them up and made the following deal:  We are coming with a Hillary/Obama ticket.  Everyone is gonna work for it.  This way, we train Obama and he gets another 8 years after.  

    But the Dean's style, Obama's ego and the political dinosaurs got in the way.  So, frankly I think the leadership needs to be thrown out, they cannot make a political deal if their lives depend on it.  They are making me crazy.  

    I will not vote for BO if he is the candidate (5.00 / 1) (#215)
    by Prabhata on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:03:08 PM EST
    Besides, I don't see HRC taking the VP spot. If McCain picks HRC as VP and she accepts, I'll vote for McCain though.  He's old and the probability of HRC taking over is greater.  I really would like that.

    No Unity Ticket. (1.00 / 3) (#70)
    by icebergslim on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:03:25 PM EST
    Again, Barack Obama's primary MESSAGE, one that HRC kept changing due to poll numbers, is CHANGE.
    Clinton is not change.

    Second, what state does Clinton bring?  New York?  We are going to win NY, along with NJ and CA, IL, etc. the standard blue states.  We need a VP that can flip a state our way.

    Lastly, Bill Clinton.  IF HRC is the VP we will have 2 VPs.  What democratic nominee want to be bothered with Bill Clinton sniffing around, breating down your neck, telling his wife what to do?  And trying to tell you, the president what to do?  NO WAY.

    Enough.  They had their turn.  She had her chance this primary season and voters want CHANGE.  Period.

    Her arguments are, at this point, silly, ridiculous and for many becoming irrelevant.

    Obama won all the metrics.

    Now let's focus on bringing the party together and winning in November.  If you don't like how this has stacked up, read this.  And ask the Clinton Team which had every advantage going for them a year ago, who was  THE INEVITABLE NOMINEE, how they lost to the new kid on the block.  They ran a lousy campaign, especially post Super Tuesday, and for all practical purposes, it was over after Wisconsin.  We all know this to be true.  And the media let this drag out because of the revenue behind the "two democrats fighting."

    It is over.  Let's move on.

    Strange comment it seems to me (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:07:18 PM EST
    "Now let's focus on bringing the party together and winning in November."

    That is exactly what I am doing. you seem intent on blocking that unity.

    Parent

    you have no idea... (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Salo on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:14:11 PM EST
    ...do you?

    This isn't an argument that can be hashed out. It's a power struggle.

    Note the comments commenter  and talking the points:

    Move on. Draw a line under it. Change. Silly. Ridiculous. That's the value of your dissent today BTD.  

    Parent

    Huh? (none / 0) (#108)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:20:39 PM EST


    Parent
    notorious (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Salo on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:22:29 PM EST
    Dkos poster.

    Parent
    Oh I know (none / 0) (#122)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:24:44 PM EST
    But this is Talk Left. We judge folks by what the post HERE, not anyplace else.

    Parent
    note the talking points. (none / 0) (#160)
    by Salo on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:36:09 PM EST
    One thing I would suggest to Clinton is to gracefully get the hell out of Dodge City.

    I understand victory to be Obama's to gain or lose.   I've not compared him lightly to Dukakis or McGovern.  He'll face problems that Kerry managed to defuse.   I went in this year thinking "Ham Sandwich" or "Incitatus". Now not so much.

    Obama won the comission...it's his glory or fault now.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#181)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:43:31 PM EST
    Mostly she has not crossed the line.I do not think her arguments make much sense but heck, half of the arguments you read everywhere, including at this site, make no sense.

    Parent
    Umm, nope. It's not over yet. (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by Angel on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:07:32 PM EST


    Parent
    This ought to be good. (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by Teresa on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:09:03 PM EST
    Try Arkansas, PA and Ohio for three. The rest of your post is very unifiying IBS.

    Parent
    Come to the realization... (none / 0) (#94)
    by icebergslim on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:13:15 PM EST
    that for a VP we need someone to BRING A STATE TO THE TABLE, and flip it.  Period.

    Hillary ran a good race, but its over.

    I see her being a magnificent supreme court justice or senate leader.  That is her strength.

    We don't need to revise the Clinton past in this change election.  We don't.

    And we do need to come together, the sooner the better.

    Parent

    At this point, we need to worry about the states (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by Teresa on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:16:24 PM EST
    we should carry and aren't likely to before we worry about flipping any.

    Parent
    Yeah (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by Salo on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:20:51 PM EST
    It's a pretty pass when you have to flip Ohio in this ani-GOP climate.

    Parent
    Obama is going to help holding PA (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by kempis on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:43:31 PM EST
    I know what Poblano says, but I live here and I know the state. It's going to McCain if Obama is the nominee.

    I may be wrong, but I'm having a hard time envisioning how a Dukakis-like coalition of AAs and academics can "change the map" to anything other than mostly red with a few blue spots.

    Parent

    gah--add "need" to my title above (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by kempis on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:44:03 PM EST


    Parent
    Not to mention (none / 0) (#188)
    by janarchy on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:46:21 PM EST
    Massachussetts and Pennsylvania. And despite the belief it's inevitable, New York could easy go red. People always forget that Upstate NY is not the same as downstate.

    Parent
    Do tell (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:23:51 PM EST
    how is Obama going to solve his demographic problems? That's the elephant in the room.

    Parent
    Go alone bother, I am no brother's keeper no more (5.00 / 1) (#220)
    by feet on earth on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:16:07 PM EST
    I am a sister's keeper.  That's what your call for unity brings out from many white, senior,  racist, uneducated, blue-collar women.

    Parent
    Oh, and my first preference... (none / 0) (#98)
    by icebergslim on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:14:22 PM EST
    is Ted Strickland, Governor of Ohio.  A Clinton supporter and highly respected by the Obama Campaign.

    Parent
    you have to love this (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by Salo on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:18:55 PM EST
    "We" are having to flip Ohio.   That's how far back "we" are starting really.

    lol. The Hubris.

    Parent

    Right, because what will really (5.00 / 5) (#123)
    by andgarden on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:25:03 PM EST
    bring women around is an anti-choice Governor. Riiight?

    Parent
    A very plausible choice (none / 0) (#106)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:20:03 PM EST
    The question is can he bring Ohio. I imagine the Obama camp is polling that question as we speak.

    Parent
    I tend to agree. (5.00 / 0) (#99)
    by Salo on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:15:44 PM EST
    If Clinton has any sense she'll avoid that ticket like the plague.

    Parent
    100% agreed. I posted something similar upthread. (5.00 / 0) (#195)
    by DeborahNC on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:49:24 PM EST


    Parent
    Even if Obama doesn't lose (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Edgar08 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:16:07 PM EST
    I'm still gonna laugh (or cry) at his attempts to run a country.

    And then I'll blame people like you for making him president while you continue to blame Clinton for his inability to run a country.

    Parent

    Man, bitterness is ripe and running (none / 0) (#146)
    by icebergslim on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:31:25 PM EST
    rampant.

    Parent
    Hint: (5.00 / 7) (#152)
    by andgarden on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:33:14 PM EST
    You can't snark your candidate's way into being accepted by half of the Democratic party. Offer them something, or many will walk.

    Parent
    Yes You Can! (none / 0) (#191)
    by Salo on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:46:36 PM EST
    Blowback.

    Parent
    I'm (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by Edgar08 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:33:44 PM EST
    Clinging to Clinton.

    Parent
    You are not alone, apparently. (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by oculus on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:50:45 PM EST
    I figure she stays in the race, doesn't say much about VP; bides her time; and maybe DNC and Super-Ds look at those electoral maps.

    Parent
    I'm shocked, shocked, I tell you (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:35:11 PM EST
    that people are bitter when Obama supporters post such garbage as this.

    Parent
    Thanks (5.00 / 3) (#172)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:39:56 PM EST
    for reminding 1/2 the party why they should become independents. Or vote for McCain. Or not show up in Nov. if Obama's the nominee.

    Feh, you guys have already said you don't want the Clinton voters anyway. Obama thinks we're bitter too. Everybody is bitter unless they're for "the one".

    Parent

    Really? (5.00 / 5) (#109)
    by Blue Jean on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:20:47 PM EST
    Really? Perhaps you would like the Clintons and their Dem voters to sit silently behind a curtain, the way the women delegates were forced to do at the First Anti-Slavery Convention.
    Of course, it would have to be an awfully big curtain, since the Clinton voters make up half the Dems. (And if you look at life long Dems, rather than Independents and "Dems For A Day", they make up a bigger percentage.)

    While you're at it, maybe you can tell the Clintons and their voters; "You can vote for us and send money to us, but we don't want any input from you, much less sharing any power with you. After all, the Democratic Party has a long tradition of losing nobly, and the only Dem President who's won two terms is an awful embarrassment to us."

    That way, you can be assured that the Dems lose again in 2008. That's what you want, right?

    Parent

    let's recap the TP (5.00 / 0) (#118)
    by Salo on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:23:51 PM EST
    silly, ridiculous, move on. No unity ticket--we must come together soon.

    Parent
    LOL (5.00 / 3) (#137)
    by Edgar08 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:29:27 PM EST
    There are nicer ways to deal with the likes of Icebergslim, I know, I don't know why I choose to just totally go off.

    Probably because I know the most vile thing I could ever dream up to say about Obama will still only be half as vile as what I've heard this Obama supporter say about Clinton.

    Although, I try.  As moderation allows.


    Parent

    I was lukewarm (5.00 / 0) (#147)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:31:32 PM EST
    to Obama but thought he was a weak general election candidate. IBS turned me off to him completely. She's hugely racially divisive. You're either with her or you're a racist.

    Parent
    Yeah! (none / 0) (#157)
    by RalphB on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:34:31 PM EST
    Something tells me this is the message from the "creative class".  What a joke!

    Parent
    WTF? (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by squeaky on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:23:59 PM EST
    Don't you think that the unprecedented fact of a woman as POTUS represents change? If not, you need to get out more and look around.

    The fact that she is a Clinton palls in comparison, imo.

    Parent

    To the public, not she did (2.00 / 0) (#140)
    by icebergslim on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:30:28 PM EST
    not represent change, only more of Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton.

    Do I want a woman POTUS?  HELL YES, but it won't be Hillary Clinton.

    For her, timing was an issue and this is not her time.  She should have ran in 2004 when her war vote was not so divisive in the party.  She could have beaten GWB.

    This time around after the fiasco of the Iraq War, that one vote is the one that sunk her for many party activists.  Sorry, it is.

    Parent

    Please don't come here (5.00 / 7) (#124)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:25:19 PM EST
    and tell us what we "all know" to be true.  This is the kind of "unity" preached by George Bush -- "I won the election, now I get to do what I want, and you can come along for the ride if you want."  Sorry, no sale. You'll have to do better than that.


    Parent
    shut up and unite? (5.00 / 4) (#166)
    by kempis on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:37:51 PM EST
    I was telling some friends today that way too many Obama-supporters think they can win over Hillary-supporters like this:

    slap slap slap what's wrong with you, you ignorant, racist, yahoo! Vote for Obama! slap slap slap

    The above post is a pretty good example of that.

    Parent

    Wow - it just slays me that for the Obama (5.00 / 4) (#206)
    by Anne on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:56:40 PM EST
    supporters, "unity" - when it is not masqerading as just the opposite - seems to mean "you all are free to join us over here, but first - let us condescend and patronize."  Well, gee - thanks so much!

    The margin between these two candidates is razor-thin, and a significant majority of voters are not ready for this contest to be over.  Why do you suppose that is?  Could it be that with each day, each week, that passes, people see a little more of Obama than they did before, and like what they see less and less?  

    And I don't know what the deal is with "they had their turn;" Hillary Clinton is not a "they" - she is an individual - and quite an accomplished and intelligent one, regardless of who her husband is, and what his former job was.

    Obama is all about change, that's true - but that's what you have to be when you don't have a clue who you are or what you believe in.  Makes it so much easier to be all things to all people.

    I have to say that it is comments like yours that not only throw cold water on the notion of a unity ticket, they throw cold water on your candidate even getting our votes.  And having said that, this would be your cue to once again insult our intelligence by telling us how stupid it would be not to vote for Obama.

    What you really ought to consider doing is reaching waaaaay down inside, seeing if you can find any grace, and exercise it in favor of not trying to talk us into or out of anything - there is a slim chance that if you all would stop insulting us and stop doing that smug and self-righteous victory dance that your candidate has not actually earned, we might be able to support him IF he is the nominee.  If.

    I'm sure comments like yours are widely applauded where you came from, I'm just not feelin' it.

    Parent

    Well, this is just the kind of shove-him-down-my (5.00 / 4) (#217)
    by Joelarama on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:05:25 PM EST
    -throat commenter I've been so disgusted at.

    All the way from Daily Kos.  I'll move on.  But it will be despite left blogosphere denizens like you who have signed on to every baseless smear of Hillary and any Democrat who supports her.

    Parent

    Eh (none / 0) (#127)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:26:48 PM EST
    do Obama supporters have any new talking points?

    This is the same thing they've been saying for months but somehow Hillary keeps winning primaries. I guess you've come here to try to shop the same stuff you've been shopping at kos for months now.

    Parent

    Ummm, one word: NO. (2.00 / 1) (#149)
    by icebergslim on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:32:47 PM EST
    I never had any talking points, that was the Clinton campaign.  Don't need them.  Reality, strategy and common sense of what is going on is all anyone need at this point.

    Parent
    Right, no talking points (5.00 / 3) (#156)
    by andgarden on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:34:21 PM EST
    from the Obama campaign. Ever.

    Hope and change and a new kind of leadership never require key phrases.

    Parent

    It's (5.00 / 0) (#165)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:37:13 PM EST
    interesting that all the Obama supporters on the blogs are repeating the same things you are verbatim. LOL!

    Parent
    heh (none / 0) (#179)
    by Salo on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:42:48 PM EST
    I guess you can be sure that his machine is disciplined and on message.  That is a great thing to have.  It'll do exactly what it was designed to do.  Francis Picabia used to make such machines. They were precise and ran like clockwork.  They never failed to what they did.

    Parent
    You sir are absolutely full of sh-t (none / 0) (#168)
    by RalphB on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:38:28 PM EST
    Creating your own reality, like Bush, does not make it actually real.  Only in the pointy heads of the "creative class".

    Parent
    It seems very unlikely. (none / 0) (#1)
    by Salo on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:08:27 PM EST
    Is this Pseudo-buyers remorse?

    i am very torn (none / 0) (#57)
    by debbie f on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:51:14 PM EST
    i say this as a lifelong democrat,i am not sure that i could buy into the unity of the party if hllary is not on the ticket. i think fighting against the right for the last eight years made me think  was more liberal than i actually am. i think that is my true gut check. i think she is the most centrist. i cant see me voting for obama just as i couldnt vote for nader

    I am much more in favor of the (none / 0) (#82)
    by oculus on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:08:19 PM EST
    Unity Ticket after reading about this poll response.  Clinton could accept with grace and feel good about why she is doing so.  

    That's a fine poll but does Obama want it (none / 0) (#85)
    by Saul on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:09:15 PM EST
    That's the key question.  I find very hard to believe that he will offer it to her although he should. They offered it to him thinking she would be the nominee.  He also ridicule her and Bill for doing that.  

    Remember it was the old ways, the Clinton's, the 90's, that was so evil that had to be  exorcised from the past.   That's what his campign was all about to get rid of the old and ring in the newness of me, the big hope, the saviour of how politics should be now and I am going to show you how to do it.  

    He would have to eat crow now if he had to offer it to her and she accepted it.  Kennedy and Johnson hated each others
    guts but were able to unite.  Who knows.

    Well... (5.00 / 0) (#125)
    by Blue Jean on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:25:28 PM EST
    Obama's going to have to do a lot of things he doesn't want to do if he wants to win this election.  That's what being a leader is about.

    Parent
    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:29:48 PM EST
    but so far Obama has shown exactly zero leadership qualities.

    Parent
    A difference... (1.00 / 2) (#134)
    by icebergslim on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:28:12 PM EST
    the Clintons were playing dog whistle politics, and to Black Americans that is how they feel.  The only hope to get the AA vote back, and she saw how she lost it by SC, and on Super Tuesday they knew it was gone, is to offer Obama the VP.  Other reasons, many are coming into the party because of him.  Also, the ground roots organization he put together is stellar.  Finally, the real golden ticket, that database of donors, which on the market is worth 200M.

    Obama does not need Clinton.  She needed him, and she was told to put him on the ticket for VP to bring the AA vote along.

    Don't underestimate the anger in this community at the Clintons.  They are hot.  And the threat to stay at home is not false, but real.

    At this point, strategically, Obama needs the same type of person who want CHANGE.  He also need someone to bring a state to the table and flip it.  Clinton does not fit in the Obama metric.

    Parent

    Are you underestimating (5.00 / 4) (#144)
    by Edgar08 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:31:22 PM EST
    The anger and threats of the other side?

    Parent
    Your problem (5.00 / 7) (#145)
    by andgarden on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:31:23 PM EST
    is that you are unable to imagine how angry some people are with Obama.

    It was easy to sweep the problem under the rug when he was just gay baiting, but now he's got many white women quite angry with him.

    You might think this is not a problem, but it is. The question is, do you want to solve the problem, or do you want to deny it exists?

    Parent

    Gays need to get over identity (5.00 / 1) (#213)
    by lilburro on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:01:21 PM EST
    politics.  Don't you know?

    I think Obama's stance towards gay issues has been very interesting this entire campaign.  He takes a considered NON-proactive stance towards gay issues.  I think he views gays as ideally non-partisan; I don't think he understands the level of emotion that comes from old Dem blocs winning over Republicans.  Be they working class or gay (his support among African Americans excepted as far as old Dem blocs go - but he isn't campaigning in the old let's us Dems win for once way).  Republicans get a lot of mileage out of being "the party of Lincoln;" to me, Obama doesn't get how the party of FDR and JFK inflames hearts across this nation.  Rousing the rabble, even "taking back the White House" - this is not an Obama line.  But it's one of my lines.  

    Obama might lose if he doesn't get somebody to say that - and maybe he'll just get Clinton to do it.

    Parent

    Don't underestimate the anger (5.00 / 5) (#151)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:32:59 PM EST
    that women feel at Sen. Obama and his supporters. We vote too, remember?

    Parent
    BO's "plan" is to "play the (5.00 / 4) (#177)
    by vicsan on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:41:25 PM EST
    Roe v. Wade" card to get the women to flock back to him. That's a quote from Chuck Todd, MSNBO. Little does BO know that playing the Roe v. Wade card isn't going to cut this time. That wedge issue is dead.

    Parent
    Agree, that dog won't hunt anymore (5.00 / 3) (#205)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:55:58 PM EST
    First, a Dem Senate can block SC appointments, and there are lots of GOP Senators up in 2008 so lots of opportunities to have a real Dem majority.  Second, I don't have any particular faith in Sen. Obama that he wouldn't appoint an anti-choice Supreme. What are his core values, other than compromising and getting himself elected?

    Parent
    SO stellar (5.00 / 2) (#204)
    by Evie on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:55:29 PM EST
    that with all that money, Obama can still only win red caucus states and 90% of the AA vote.

    Obama needs help holding onto BLUE states. He also needs help appealing to the working class, women, Latinos, Asians, Catholics, Jews, seniors, long-time Dems, Florida/Michigan, etc.

    Parent

    kennedy, johnson (none / 0) (#163)
    by tek on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:36:39 PM EST
    maybe best not to dwell too long on the fact that Lyndon Johnson hated the assassinated Kennedy.

    Parent
    unity (none / 0) (#155)
    by tek on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:34:11 PM EST
    It appears the current so-called leaders of the Democratic Party just want to get rid of the Clintons altogether.  Harry Reid scoffed today at the suggestion of Hillary as Senate Majority Leader.

    Why would he give up his (none / 0) (#216)
    by waldenpond on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:04:06 PM EST
    position?  I keep hearing the suggestion she become majority leader.  Many people have seniority so it doesn't seem to me she would be in the running.  Also, why would he hand over his position as majority leader to Clinton?

    Parent
    Comments now closed (none / 0) (#208)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:57:18 PM EST


    If Obama isn't the nominee (none / 0) (#209)
    by mikesan on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:57:44 PM EST
    Ok everyone, as an Obama supporter, let me just ask a question.  Let's say, as some of you believe, that HRC can convince the rest of the superdelegates that Obama can't win blue collar whites.  (BTW, I live in Minnesota, lots of blue collar whites here, and Obama beats McCain far better than Clinton in every poll I have seen.)

    What do you think the other side of the party will do after Clinton is nominated?  Just a question. And please, please when you answer, do not think that Obama's coalition is only made up of African-Americans, college eggheads, and people with a blogspot account; it is far more substantial than that.  

    Also, let's assume (as some comments I have seen) that Obama isn't on the ticket.  I have this sense that if he isn't the nominee he wouldn't be on the ticket after this long campaign.  What does November look like to you?

    Wishful Thinking On Your Part (none / 0) (#221)
    by Jade Jordan on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:19:35 PM EST
    I don't know how many black people you know.  But this in not the sentiment of any black people I know.  

    If you listen to black radio you will understand how wrong this poll is.

    I personally would not vote for Obama if he put Hillary on the Ticket.

    I would pray for his survival hard each day.

    of course having (none / 0) (#222)
    by cpinva on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:56:01 PM EST
    sen. clinton on the ticket, as VP, would help. not enough to save sen. obama from his own ineptitude, or from losing to mccain in the GE, should he be the dem. nominee. why should she, the better candidate, be second to the inferior one?

    sen. clinton has been the better candidate from day one, anyone who just recently noticed this was either intentionally blind or a fool, take your pick.

    Glitzy candidate limps to the finish line... (none / 0) (#223)
    by fctchekr on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:04:50 PM EST
       

    Obama, "glitzy, not enough subtance," women not impressed with the poster boy of the far left; white working class voters certainly can't be impressed that he's donned a flag pin (just in the last couple days) to show that he's patriotic, after being very clear that a flag pin does not represent the type of patriotism he feels... that's credible?

    Now that's he is closer to being nominated, all of a sudden, the media is waking up and seeing that he may be close to the nomination, but he can never win the election without Hillary's base, and Hillary, though they won't say it...

    The media discounted Hillary, discounted her support and now it looks like we have the winner limping to finish the race, disgruntled, tired, not competing in 50 states, while the loser is on pace to sprint across the finish line...the loser is calling the shots, keeping the media guessing what she's going to do next...

    I think you get the picture...
     

    Media gets their vote (none / 0) (#224)
    by fctchekr on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:07:01 AM EST
    Today in the WashPost and MSNBC, two pro-Obama media outlets, there are articles on racist slurs and attacks on Obama supporters..this is only half the story.

    The anti-white racism on blogs has been rampant. Not an Obama supporter? Than you were inflicted with unreasoned hate speech, bullying threats...and accusations that you were racist because you wouldn't support their candidate.

    Where's the reporting on that issue? Why come out with the race card NOW, at this point in the election? It's just the liberal media getting the vote out for their candidate...

    When's the media backlash going to happen. When are we going to turn them off and stop listening to biased news, when are we going to stop letting them decide elections?

    NOW is a good time to start!

     

    Strong Majority Of African Americans Want Unity Ticket | 220 comments (220 topical)