It's the media filter that is the difference.  Even as the sexism and Clinton Rules continue to be applied, I think more of Hillary the candidate is getting through lately.  To a lesser extent, I think the core, grassroots support for Hillary has intensified, and is getting some visibility.

That being said, it still causes me great cognitive dissonance to imagine Obama on the top of the ticket and Clinton as VP.    

I keep thinking of the Lily Tomlin character in 9 to 5, who works her butt off for the company only to be passed over for a promotion in favor of the young guy she trained.

But seriously, HRC cannot make up for his shortcomings. She can't make him a good debater. She can't take away Wright, Ayers and Reszko. She is not going to bring a majority of voters to his side, especially not after the 527's get through with him. She can't make him stronger on the issues.

I think the only reason that Obama supporters want her on the ticket is to cover up all of his flaws. That way, he doesn't have to change at all and the Party will be magically unified despite his horrible and divisive campaign.

It's a thankless job and unworthy of her, and not only that, she will fail, because he is too arrogant to admit he needs to do anything differently.

Hillary won't be able to help Obama even if she is the VP. People vote for the top of the ticket and Hillary can't solve Obama's electoral problems. Besides, Obama's supporters would have a fit and he would look like even more of a wuss than he already does after whining about how bad the Clinton years were.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qggO5yY7RAo

Which I think was utterly pathetic and despicable.

Now.  There's a reason why this Unity Now crap isn't working.

She's a great campaigner now that she can no longer win, and we can shrug our shoulders about the irony of it all?  

Whatever.  Could be, she wasn't a bad campaigner then, no way!!!! Even a good campaigner then!!!  And saying so while she had a chance to win would have been too risky, even for a tepid Obama supporter.

This is getting too funny, really.

She's aces now that she can't win.  Now why would Edwards say that?  Does he really believe it?

My advice to Clinton supporters.  Compliments may start coming fast and furious now.

Oh.  And they'll seat Florida too.  Now that that doesn't matter either.

Obama hasn't exactly been doing the bidding of the bloggers, now has he.  So I don't think he cares what they think about his VP choice.

I think that it is best for Hillary Clinton to listen to her #1 campaign advisor:  Bill Clinton.  He knows how to win elections.  HE changed the electoral landscape.  HE actually managed to CHANGE things for the better while in office.

Edwards and allllllllllll those other attention seekers getting in on the "wtf is Hillary doing/omg voters are VOTING for her" bandwagon can just sit back and let a woman show them how it is done.

Folks, this is going to the convention... I want Hillary at the top of the ticket... if she says o.k. to Barack I will follow her lead but there is no way otherwise I want this guy near the white house.

Let everyone finish voting for gosh sakes.  She'll be ahead in the popular vote and be better able to defeat McCain in the fall.  

She and I grew up in a world where a woman had to check the female section of the help wanted ads if she wanted a job.  She and I grew up in a world where the phrase "pretty little head" was spoken in earnest.  She and I grew up required to wear dresses to school, no matter what the weather.  She and I were told in high school that teacher or nurse were the best we could hope for if we had any brains.  

I honestly have no clue how it would feel to be her today, but I can't imagine second in line to the toughest job in the world -- and nearly having won it outright -- is some kind of booby prize, meant to keep the girl in her place.

Whatever else happens, she's pushed through a barrier here that seemed rock solid for most of my life.  I still think she would be the better candidate and the better president, but so frakin' what?  I'm a grown up and so is she.  This isn't high school, and life is so unbelievably not fair most of the time.

As I was reading it, I knew he was going to suggest the latter model for Obama, because the OFB can under no circumstances admit Obama has any weaknesses. I don't think Obama or Michelle will allow that either.  He is not going to pick Clinton, no matter what. No one can make him - the DNC wants his donor structure too badly.  They are under the illusion it will survive after he is no longer in politics.  He'll pick someone who has been fawning all over him for at least the last 3 months.

Bowers ended up predicting Kathleen Sebelious. At which point I went to my happy place in my mind and practiced saying President McCain.  Sebelious would do nothing but remind people Clinton should be on the ticket.

Actually though,  I don't see anyone on the scene that would make a huge difference in Obama winning.  Strickland is as good a choice as any - no one knows him except Ohio, and that is all he would be there for.

And even if I think that claim has some truth in it (even if not something to be swallowed whole), isn't it clear to all that this selling point has in fact reached its sell-by date? It's not getting him a single additional vote at this point, it's time to pivot. Obama cannot pick a VP based on change. That's over. That's done with.

He could, potentially pick a "transcedent" VP, and try to appear above the game that way, but realistically no acceptable VP candidate of that type exists right now. None. The closest might be Colin Powell, and let's just all think about how far away from ideal that would be. Maybe the Dalai Lama, alas, not a US citizen.

As a staunch Hillary supporter I was outraged at the suggestion of her being VP, then I thought, well, I could either have 4 or maybe 8 years of no Hillary and the annoying Obama presidency and team, or I can have Hillary in with some power.  

Hillary "hit her stride" as a candidate because we've reached a period in the primary calendar which features states that favor her demographically, just as most of February favored Obama. If Ohio, PA, and WV and Kentucky had been during the month of February, and Illinois, Wisconsin, NC, and Mississippi were coming up now, would we be having this discussion? Would Obama even still be in the race?

And he is right.  Hillary has become the candidate she should have been 6 months ago.  And yes, I blame Mark Penn and others who took their attitude and built a campaign on  arrogance and the idea inevitability and didn't recognize the changing scene and the attacks against Hillary until it was too late (Kerry made the same mistake).

Hillary was the only one who took Edward's causes and concerns to heart.  She been the only one talking about real policies to deal with poverty and health care.

Clinton obviously has been stronger than Obama with white working class voters in most states, but that's in a Democratic primary contest.  Viewed from a general election perspective, however, I think a unity ticket would widely be perceived as two liberal elite senators from safe democratic states.  Is that really a complimentary ticket?  If Obama gets the nomination, would Clinton really attract more white working class voters than, say, Rendell, Bayh, Webb or Strickland?  

Also, let's not forget that, as impressive as the 34 million turnout has been, there were more than 100 million votes cast in the 2004 general election.  So simply consolidating the Obama/Clinton votes, while important, is not enough to get it done.

There really is no argument against Hillary Clinton as the VP candidate for Obama, other than petty nonsense.

Big Tent Democrat, 1/30/08:

For Obama, the [VP] choice is murkier. I do not think Clinton would be a good choice but you can not rule it out.

She chose the wrong campaign strategy, so now she's losing the nomination. If she's doing better now, it's only after being forced to readjust to face the current realities. It's pretty much just like her Iraq vote. She chose wrong to start, and as the years went on and the war turned to a disaster, only then did she decide to readjust to deal with the current realities. I'm sure I'll get pounced on for this analogy, but it fits. Both examples illustrate how she's the 20/20 hindsight politician.

The preview was Teddy's comment earlier this week.

I really don't want her to run with him.  I'd like nothing better than to have no reason at all to vote for someone I think is an emptysuit.  I really don't think he could win without her.  But, yeah, you know what, I sense she wants at least that, and damn it, she has earned it.  The Party had better grow a pair and force him into it if need be.  Kennedy and Johnson hated eachother, but this is the result of close races.

So, BTD, you called it long ago.  And, since I sense she wants it, and because I think the working poor absolutely needs her, I say fine.  He had better do it.