The Irony

John Edwards was just on Larry King and let me tell you I am so impressed with the way he is handling himself. Here is a Democrat that realizes how important having a unified Democratic Party is for November. He has been gracious and complimentary to both candidates. Just what all the Party Elders should be doing.

But Edwards said something that really struck me - Hillary Clinton has become a terrific candidate, just about the time that her chances for winning the nomination are dimming. The irony hurts, especially for Clinton supporters I imagine. A candidate is responsible for his or her campaign of course and Hillary Clinton is responsible for hiring Mark Penn, clearly her biggest mistake. But there can be no doubt that Hillary Clinton is now a terrific candidate, much better than I ever imagined she could be.

More . . .

And to bring it back to my favorite subject, a Unity Ticket, one other reason Hillary Clinton has to be at the top of Obama's VP list, is her finely honed campaigning skills. Just for a moment imagine the VP debate, for instance. Does anyone imagine Hillary Clinton will not clean the clock of the Republican VP candidate? Does anyone imagine Clinton will not be a huge benefit to Obama on the campaign trail? There really is no argument against Hillary Clinton as the VP candidate for Obama, other than petty nonsense. I hope and expect Barack Obama will rise above the nonsense we see from some of his supporters and choose a unity ticket that will guarantee a big Democratic win in November.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

Comments closed

< ABC/Wash. Post Poll: 64% of Dems Say Hillary Should Stay in Race | On West VA, Kentucky and a Joint Ticket >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • I believe that he said essentially the (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by andgarden on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:21:38 PM EST
    same thing on FTN this weekend.

    Why should the more qualified candidate be VP (5.00 / 9) (#162)
    by Ellie on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:10:36 PM EST
    And to bring it back to my favorite subject, a Unity Ticket, one other reason Hillary Clinton has to be at the top of Obama's VP list, is her finely honed campaigning skills

    Say what now?

    This is a terrible first brick to lay down when building an argument for her to fold on (May 20?) I have no doubt she could debate any VP candidate running with McCain.

    I have every confidence she could offset an Obama disaster, too. But she's way overqualified to be a green, unprepared, undeserving man's safety net.

    Suely that office considerably lower down than continuing to pursue for job that she wants and for which she's qualified. I hope she continues her campaign and isn't diverted by these wheezing shopworn ploys.


    Because I'm not caught up (5.00 / 4) (#177)
    by andgarden on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:17:10 PM EST
    in what my perfect vision of reality is. I am in complete agreement with Hillary Clinton that our #1 goal must be to have a Democrat in the White House come January.

    I don't care if you think Hillary is more qualified. I happen to agree, but I just don't care. We need to win in November, and if Obama is in a position to choose Hillary for VP, he should because the joint ticket offers our best shot at winning.

    I don't want to hear about perceived slights or what "should be." Purity fanatics and perfectionists piss me off just as much now as they always have, and I'm not going to get a silly question about "qualifications" put a Republican in the White House next year. Full stop.  


    Well I've heard that urgent rationale before too (5.00 / 7) (#214)
    by Ellie on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:38:04 PM EST
    The "lie back and think of the Election" one. The thing is, it doesn't really work when all signs have HRC doing better head to head against McCain.

    I think Obama would be the disaster and should head back to the Senate and get some cred under his belt. I wouldn't want him as President.

    (I'm speaking just for me but I'll bet that most women aren't going to view it well if HRC is muscled out of a position she's earned and deserves by any of these lame ploys.)


    Fortunately (none / 0) (#201)
    by RalphB on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:31:38 PM EST
    it's not your choice to make.

    I can assure you (none / 0) (#205)
    by andgarden on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:33:24 PM EST
    that the feeling is mutual.

    I won't participate in screwing up the Supreme Court for feelings of personal hurt. I'm bigger than that.


    I understand your fury, Ellie (5.00 / 6) (#202)
    by Kathy on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:31:46 PM EST
    A lot of folks here (and out there) didn't live through what Carter's perceived weaknesses did to the dem party, how it set back gay rights, women's rights, etc, for so many years.  Bill Clinton was able to win back the White House simply because he wasn't the typical weak, elitist dem.  And here we are again, set to send another one to the chopping block?  And Hillary Clinton is expected to be the good little girl and try to save us all (because, miraculously, she is somehow now qualified to be VP)

    I suppose if you never held a dying friend's hand as he suffocated from the AIDS-induced internal hemorrhaging or got your face beat in during an ACT-UP rally, all while your republican president would not even acknowledge that AIDS even existed, you might have the luxury of a cold eye.  If you didn't have family being shot at (and hit) in Afghanistan and Iraq, it'd be so much easier to look at this in black and white.  If you hadn't heard dig after misogynist dig against Clinton week after week and been reminded of the myriad times you had to take that same amount of crap with a smile, you might have the luxury of castigating others for taking this too personally.

    But, women know that nothing ever comes easy for them, which is why I am not going to stop fighting for Clinton.  Politics is always personal, and we need a strong dem leader to carry the dem brand well into this century, not someone who will cripple us for the next 20 years.  Either she wins or she doesn't; either she offers Obama the VP slot or she goes back to the senate or she takes the VP mantle herself.  It's up to Clinton, and no one else.


    Ever notice that Edwards makes cat-like (none / 0) (#184)
    by Exeter on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:20:08 PM EST
    facial expressions? Especially his lips and the way he moves his eyes without moving his head. A friend pointed that out to me, and now I can't watch him anymore without cracking up.

    Clinton (5.00 / 22) (#2)
    by Emma on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:22:31 PM EST
    Can't save Obama from himself.  That's really the only reason anybody wants her as VP, to help Obama with the hard work of repairing bridges he burned with Hillary's voters.  I say tough cookies -- he broke it, he bought it, it's not up to Hillary to bail him or the Dems out.

    I very respectfully disagree (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by Lou Grinzo on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:29:24 PM EST
    If he tries to fix it on his own, and fails, then the whole country is stuck with McCain for four years and his Supreme Court nominations and their decisions for decades.

    That's an awfully high price to pay for seeing one candidate get his comeuppance, no matter how deserved one thinks it is.


    Work for a Senate that won't confirm bad guys! (none / 0) (#131)
    by itsadryheat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:03:12 PM EST
    I hate that kind of loose talk ... (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Demi Moaned on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:32:53 PM EST
    whether it comes from Obama supporters or others. Hillary has not been above reproach in this campaign, but so what. Do we want to nurse our grievances, or would we like to win the White House?

    Yes, she has. (5.00 / 7) (#86)
    by pie on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:48:12 PM EST
    Save Obama; Elect Clinton! (5.00 / 1) (#219)
    by itsadryheat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:43:22 PM EST
    I have an idea. I have been reading so many comments on this diary about how all of the choices left to us are all so bad.  People are in such torment about whether or not to vote McCain, leave it blank, work down ticket, stay home.  Many people will be breaking habits of democratic activism formed 20 or 40 years ago.  Their is a lot of worrying about Unity Ticket.  I hope she won't take it. I would hate it if she took it.  It would be terrible to watch how he would treat her and how tainted with his "values" she would become.  I would much rather her run against him in 2012.

    But I can see a solution to all of this pain and a choice much more attractive than the ones discussed here tonight.  Why don't we get really busy, motivated by having imagined the future, and elect Hillary the Nominee and the President.  We all know she would be the best president we have had in living memory.  Even the haters know that.

    The vote has not happened.  What can we do to let Hillary know we want her to keep fighting.?  What can we do to turn the media around?  What can we do to reach and convince the superdelegates of their self interest and our support for their standing for Hillary?

    Now that we can see that letting Obama win this leaves us with untenable choices, let's stop him from declaring himself the winner and elect Hillary!


    Both candidates have had their high and low (none / 0) (#228)
    by independent thinker on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:30:25 PM EST
    moments. Hillary's campaign has certainly had its moments that have bothered Obama supporters as well. But the time is coming to move past all that for the good of the country...unless, of course, one believes that a McCain presidency (and his likely SCOTUS nominations) is the way to go. Personally, I believe both Clinton and Obama are strong candidates. Both also have flaws.

    If a unity ticket ends up being the direction they go, then I will enthusiastically support it. But we should also explore all the possible VP options. The ideal VP candidate is the one who will deliver at least one key battleground state. This could be Clinton, but it also might be Ted Strickland or Jim Webb or Kathleen Sebelius or Bill Richardson or Ed Rendell or Jenefer Granholm. I personally think Strickland or Webb are the strongest choices if not Clinton.


    She is a good candidate. (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by lilburro on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:23:34 PM EST
    People laughed when she said she found her voice in NH, but since then it's been questions, a back and forth, and town halls.  She got town halls before Obama did and has utilized them as part of her image.  She is doing a fantastic job.  As VP she would have to actively ground Obama in Dem politics and Dem identity - isn't that the objection?  That she brings down the Unity Shtick?  Good on her for doing so.  If they work together, bringing down the Unity Shtick will be a great thing.  We will transcend the transcendence of partisanship!

    SUSA Kentucky: Hillary 62 - Obama 30 (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Josey on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:24:12 PM EST
    I guess Obama will be campaigning for votes in Utah next Tuesday.
    Gotta make Hillary's wins appear more irrelevant.

    OT Josey (none / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:24:51 PM EST
    I agree Mark Penn was a problem. But I think (5.00 / 15) (#10)
    by Joelarama on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:27:15 PM EST
    Hillary, especially on the stump, is the same gifted candidate she has been since at least January.

    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.

    It's the media -- they still dislike and bash Hillary, but there is some boredom with Obama at the moment.

    i for one am sick and tired of the (5.00 / 4) (#190)
    by hellothere on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:23:05 PM EST
    media attempting to tell me how the things are, what i should think, what i should buy. heck they report so called new i see on the internet days before they try and act like here is the news.

    now they are telling me the primary is over. take a look at convention history. i resent their slant or bias. i don't turn them on. i won't turn them on. if we all did that, they wouldn't be there for long.


    I think the Unity Ticket will Happen (5.00 / 10) (#12)
    by Lysis on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:27:39 PM EST
    I think it's a necessity and despite the complaints from some of the supporters on both sides, it will happen.  It pretty much has to.

    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.

    Putting Hillary on the ticket sends a message to women, but I'm not sure it's one they'll appreciate. Lord knows it annoys the heck out of me.

    9-5 (5.00 / 12) (#41)
    by Kathy on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:37:16 PM EST
    They let your dream /Just a' watch 'em shatter /You're just a step
    On the boss man's ladder

    How appropriate that now some folks think she's not going to get the nom, they're all on board with her taking the number two slot.

    "Oh, she can't be president, but she's certainly smart and competent enough to be vp."


    Like that lame 'offer' hasn't been heard before (5.00 / 6) (#196)
    by Ellie on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:27:57 PM EST
    "You're way too valuable to the firm in this support role to move you from here ever!"

    What a slap in the face to women voters and other HRC supporters; all of who deserve competent leadership.

    Hope HRC sees this through. I'm still writing her name in through. I was inspired by the women who tore up their reg's and declared their independence from the Dems.

    I've been a Free Range Liberal since '04. If this Unity Ticket is forced on everyone, I think I'll just send copies of my old donations and say they'll begin again during HRC's next run for President.


    I know I don't appreciate it. (5.00 / 4) (#54)
    by davnee on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:40:14 PM EST
    Of course I have the luxury of living in a state that will be blood red if BO is the nom - even with HRC on the ticket.  She's going to make no difference as VP here even though she might compete if she was at the top.  So there is no need for me to deal with the cognitive dissonance.  I will probably leave the top slot blank and then vote selectively down ticket.  And of course not a dime of money to the Dems this cycle.  That's clear.  Of course, my protest will be irrelevant to the outcome, so I will gladly and unabshedly engage in the protest.  But what will women do who have a vote that won't be irrelevant?

    I live in a swing state, WI (5.00 / 4) (#135)
    by Mari on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:04:46 PM EST
    I won't vote for Obama under any circumstances. It would just validate the misogny. I'm seriously considering voting for McCain.

    I do not know yet (5.00 / 2) (#174)
    by oldpro on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:15:43 PM EST
    what I will do.

    I haven't lit the match yet, but the brush is piled up pretty high under the bridge.


    The bumper sticker will be good either way. (none / 0) (#165)
    by davnee on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:11:55 PM EST
    Whether HRC is VP or not on the ticket, the t-shirt/sticker will still be good.  "Not my fault.  I voted for Hillary."  Or, "What do you expect?  The wrong one is in charge."  Or if I wanted to be really cruel and unevolved, "The wrong girl is in charge."  

    He'd lose votes ... (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Demi Moaned on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:28:12 PM EST
    among some Obama supporters over at DailyKos, who seem to delight in specifying the conditions under which they won't vote for Obama in the GE.

    WATBs (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by andgarden on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:30:27 PM EST
    Of course, we have a few of those in our neck of the woods too.

    Stop paying attention to (5.00 / 7) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:30:51 PM EST
    ridiculous people.

    I need to learn the same lesson. I ignore John Aravosis now.


    Wise (5.00 / 5) (#24)
    by andgarden on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:31:24 PM EST
    but the shrill ones are hard to ignore--that's why they do it.

    the delusion (5.00 / 8) (#80)
    by Josey on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:45:47 PM EST
    is Obama supporters at DK think Obama is reflecting their positions on the issues and aren't aware how far they've moved right to support him.
    Guess that's why there are few diaries there on Obama's positions and votes.

    I'm not following that link. But if I had to (none / 0) (#35)
    by Joelarama on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:36:03 PM EST
    guess . . . Geekesque?  

    He's more pragmatic than that (none / 0) (#42)
    by andgarden on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:37:22 PM EST
    The G'esque I used to respect was more pragmatic (none / 0) (#74)
    by Joelarama on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:44:42 PM EST
    than that.  Right after Obama lost New Hampshire, he said he would consider Obama a complete sell-out if he chose her as a running mate.  It's there if you want to do a search.

    Just one of many Kool-Aid-drenched posts from people that used to be shrewd.


    The benefit of being steeped in the kool aid (5.00 / 4) (#84)
    by andgarden on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:46:52 PM EST
    is that you can go back on things you said before without absolutely no compunction.

    No compunction = no cred. nt (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Joelarama on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:49:01 PM EST
    It's the IACF! memory eraser. (none / 0) (#101)
    by madamab on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:51:38 PM EST
    Just blame whatever you said before on Hillary. Works like a charm!

    Cocoa Love ... (none / 0) (#57)
    by Demi Moaned on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:40:37 PM EST
    who has been around for some time I think. The individual sentiment didn't surprise me so much as that it got rec'd and defended by others.

    It was not many months ago when talk of not supporting the nominee would have been roundly denounced.


    Talk of not supporting the nominee was prevalent (5.00 / 4) (#85)
    by Joelarama on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:47:59 PM EST
    long before that.  Walt Starr made a comment to that effect that got 71 uprates in November.  (Yes, I remember things like that.)

    Hillary has certainly carried Edwards message (5.00 / 9) (#17)
    by Josey on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:28:40 PM EST
    much more than Obama.

    I have to agree with that. (none / 0) (#111)
    by Joelarama on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:57:17 PM EST
    Of course, he is a blank slate and both Hillary and Obama supporters can see what that they want, as evidenced by reactions to his recent remark that he "voted for 'em."

    I respect what Gore and Edwards are doing.  I may be doing some projecting myself, but if there is a true breakdown at or before the Convention, there have to be party grandees who are untainted by endorsements who can step in.  Gore and Edwards are holding back in case that happens.

    Howard Dean (et al at the DNC), Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy -- none of them can be an honest broker, and someone has to be available.


    How could Gore (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by oldpro on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:19:35 PM EST
    or Edwards be 'honest brokers' when both of them want to be president themselves...?

    Why would a politician's desire to be president (none / 0) (#204)
    by Joelarama on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:32:11 PM EST
    himself mean that person could not be an honest broker, when he has no chance of it.

    This is not like Dick Cheney on the VP selection committee; Gore and Edwards could not choose themselves.

    (And, I do not think either of them would trade influence for a VP slot -- I do not believe them capable of that, and I so not see the candidates tying their own hands that way.)


    I think they have learned the same lesson (5.00 / 3) (#191)
    by ghost2 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:24:22 PM EST
    I really like that Edwards seems to have fun now.  If I had to guess, I'd say he's got his life back, he can be with his family, and is enjoying it.  

    I have watched his appearance on the Morning Joe a few times now, and fail to see him endorsing anyone.   Agree completely with BTD that he is a class act, and a role model to other annoying democrats, who love to hug a microphone and WHINE.

    Is Edwards a superdelegate?  

    I can even see him and Gore letting the process play out, and just cast their own votes at the convention.  

    As Riverdaughter calls it, all these talk of chaos, blah blah, ... is just haka to take Hillary out.  It's usual political game, except that it's now taken to a new level, and media LOVES to join play it, because they just HATE Hillary Clinton.  

    I get the sense that Gore (and Edwards) see the BS for what it is.  Gore didn't seem worried at all.  Neither did Edwards. Both could think, sure, we have faced worse and survived.


    And no doubt John Edwards is ejoying this (none / 0) (#209)
    by Joelarama on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:34:38 PM EST
    time with Elizabeth.

    Oh, BTD. (5.00 / 18) (#19)
    by madamab on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:29:49 PM EST
    Obama cannot win the GE! It doesn't matter who is the VP. Maybe Jesus could help him, I don't know.

    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.

    I hope to goodness that she doesn't do it.

    Rezko is the dog that didn't bark (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by andgarden on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:30:57 PM EST
    Get back (5.00 / 6) (#28)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:32:38 PM EST
    to us on that one. With the help buying the mansion I'm sure that the GOP will use it in a 527 ad.

    Come on. (5.00 / 7) (#30)
    by madamab on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:32:59 PM EST
    You think the Republicans will let Rezko die?

    They made Whitewater into something and there was absolutely nothing there.


    The dog is muzzled. The right wing will come (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by Joelarama on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:02:09 PM EST
    out swinging on that, when the time is right.  And the media will swallow it whole.

    But the dog that didn't bark (5.00 / 3) (#129)
    by Steve M on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:02:50 PM EST
    was the key to the entire case!  Bad analogy, counselor.

    the dog is growling and tearing the (none / 0) (#194)
    by hellothere on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:26:13 PM EST
    gate down. soon he'll be free and then he bites. don't under estimate the republicans. kerry did.

    Rezko is the GOP's ace in the hole n/t (none / 0) (#97)
    by angie on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:51:01 PM EST
    Me, too. (5.00 / 6) (#96)
    by pie on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:50:25 PM EST
    She has to be at the top of the ticket.

    It's odd (5.00 / 15) (#25)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:31:24 PM EST
    how we always manage to mess things up. Hillary is the stronger candidate yet the party wants to nominate the weaker candidate for a general election. It seems so.

    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.

    Obama's problems are worse than just unifying the party. He's going to have a hard time getting the center.

    perhaps (none / 0) (#189)
    by DFLer on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:22:32 PM EST
    People vote for the top of the ticket and Hillary can't solve Obama's electoral problems

    perhaps the help would come more to the area of party unity and healing wounds


    That will happen (none / 0) (#208)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:34:35 PM EST
    better, to the extent that it can happen at all, if she campaigns for him than if she's on the ticket, imho.

    Unimpressed (5.00 / 16) (#36)
    by Edgar08 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:36:04 PM EST
    First of all, John Edwards, sigh, listen I know a lot of Edwards supporters migrated to Clinton and that's fine, but I can still say I'll never forgive Edwards for being one of the leaders of the Russert/Olbermann assault on Clinton during that debate.  And then there was this Ad:


    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.

    Was Edwards smiling when he said it?  I bet he was smiling.

    Exactly (5.00 / 9) (#53)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:40:02 PM EST
    She's been doing fantastically for quite some time.  Now suddenly Edwards is saying nice things about her, because she can't win.  Does anyone think he's trying to do anything other than help his candidate? (Obama).  He obviously thinks we're stupid.



    The Repubs were out in front (5.00 / 9) (#87)
    by waldenpond on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:48:15 PM EST
    on being positive to Clinton and her supporters.  Fox beat CNN and MSNBC.  I think the Dems waited too long to have much effect on grabbing back votes that have been lost because of the smearing and identity politics.  They were silent while Repubs spoke out. Now they look sad and desperate.

    Dems love their candidates best (5.00 / 4) (#116)
    by ruffian on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:59:55 PM EST
    after they have lost.  If Al Gore had been as beloved in October 2000 as he was in January 2001 we would not be having this conversation.  

    Edwards was never as popular as on the day he announced his withdrawal.

    Apparently not even Edwards is immune to that sentiment.

    I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and agree with him.  Hillary did get better with the practice of campaigning.  I'm sure she would say so herself.


    If he was saying (5.00 / 4) (#140)
    by Edgar08 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:06:21 PM EST
    "Wow, she's a great campaigner who just keeps getting better and better," then more power to him.

    Right.  I just think it's funny if there are any Edwards supporters now supporting Clinton and worried about an Obama Administration.

    If it wasn't for Edwards going negative, Obama never would have been able to go negative himself splitting the difference.  Maintaining the appearance that at least he's not as negative as Edwards.

    So if we want to be discussing some real Irony, it's that we now have Obama because of Edwards.


    Ironies abound (5.00 / 2) (#167)
    by ruffian on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:12:29 PM EST
    Very true about Obama and Edwards in the debates.   They certainly did feed off each other to attack her.

    Maybe the unity ticket should be Obama-Edwards.


    If I never hear from John Edwards again it can't (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by bridget on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:17:46 PM EST
    be soon enough. I still have enough from witnessing every moment of his 2004 campaign and then some.

    He ran a lame campaign in 2004 - then disappeared. Then came back "redeemed" w. the grandest apology of the century (Spare me!) and began his 2008 campaign which was a complete disgrace IMO. He concentrated on one thing only: appealing to the Clinton-hating media/blogs by trashing Hillary Clinton and nothing but. While hoping people would ignore his own questionable political career and forget campaign 2004. It worked with some who either enjoy living in denial or simply had no sense of history.

    Essentially Edwards didn't do much more than  tag-team w. Obama (did he ever run against Obama at all? No) and attacked Hillary Clinton's politics and character in every debate until the audience in Las Vegas had enough of it and put a stop to it to his/their great surprise ... not that Edwards completely stopped trashing her after that  ...

    I already stated my opinion about JE in another thread. His chances to win this campaign were always zero from the start and I bet my last $ that he knew that as well. Of course, I won't watch him on Larry King.


    My favorite moment (5.00 / 1) (#211)
    by Edgar08 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:35:54 PM EST
    Edwards talking about how spineless Democrats were too busy listening to their consultants to fight for defunding, and then when Shrum said Edwards co-sponsored and voted for the Iraq AUMF against his better judgment because his consultants told him to, Edwards denied it of course.

    Anyone tripping over themselves for the support of bloggers earns decades of scorn.


    If Edwards was as serious about Health Care (none / 0) (#221)
    by bridget on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:45:31 PM EST
    for all - and we are talking about 40+ million people who need it badly - as he wants the voters to believe

    he should have endorsed Hillary immediately after he dropped out - when it still made a difference.

    With Obama there will never be Health Care for US citizens IMHO.

    But AFAIR the Edwards fans on the blogs thought it was just fine that he did what was best for his own political career. The suggestions when to endorse came flying all over the net. So Forget principle. Ambition your name is Edwards.

    (Hillary Clinton, of course, must have true convictions, priciples, etc. and act accordingly Always).

    The Clinton Derangement Syndrome in full force IMO.


    Yes to a unity ticket (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by IndiDemGirl on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:37:07 PM EST
    from this Obama supporter.   And most of the Obama/Hillary supporters I've talked to here in the "real world" of Indiana think it is a great idea.  

    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.

    HOwever, BTD, maybe you need to convince some Hillary supporters on this site.  

    I'm working on it (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:40:02 PM EST
    It will have to be forced down his throat (5.00 / 8) (#70)
    by Kathy on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:44:16 PM EST
    like I have to do when I pill my cat.  

    On the other hand, if (when!) Clinton wins the nomination, do any of us doubt for a second that she'll bit the bullet and ask Obama to be her nominee?  She won't have to think twice about it.

    To me, that tells me far more than anything else who is more interested in preserving the democratic brand.

    I have felt since IN that this has been about who gets the top of the ticket--and it ain't over.


    heh (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by andgarden on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:45:24 PM EST
    I have felt since IN that this has been about who gets the top of the ticket
    That's what I've been saying since Super Tuesday.

    LOL! (5.00 / 1) (#215)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:38:10 PM EST
    Yeah, pill the cat is right.  And my cats are absolute geniuses at pretending to swallow the pill but then spitting it out when I let them go.  Perfect metaphor, IMHO, for the whole concept of Obama asking Hillary to be VP.

    As I keep saying... (5.00 / 3) (#100)
    by lambert on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:51:23 PM EST
    ... this May 20 thing is a big deal. If he coronates himself without even a vote and before the convention, all bets are off for me. Alternatively, we could see some reaching out and real Unity, not not just with rhetoric, but with policy. Or, heck, a unity ticket.  I'm not holding my breath -- I expect more blogger triumphalism and wankery.

    The (5.00 / 7) (#125)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:02:08 PM EST
    May 20th thing is a disaster waiting to happen. If he goes ahead and does that 1/2 of the party automatically walks away. He will have to do it without MI and FL and the rest of the states voting. He won't be seen as legitimate until MI and FL are resolved and he's not likely to do that.

    The GOP is even celebrating the fact that Obama wants to claim victory. They know the party will split immediately and give McCain the opportunity to grab a huge bloc of voters in the general election. It's something that the rank and file WILL NOT get over before Nov.


    I won't go that far -- I'm supporting whoever the (none / 0) (#142)
    by Joelarama on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:06:26 PM EST

    But I have to agree with the thrust of your point.  It will be a "mission accomplished" moment.

    He can't call it over that way and win Hillary's supporters.  He needs to go to WVa., Michigan, Florida, etc., and ask for their votes.  

    He doesn't have to be humble.  He just can be triumphalist.


    "Can't be triumphalist." (none / 0) (#149)
    by Joelarama on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:07:39 PM EST
    oops.  Big difference.

    he'll declare victory whether it is (none / 0) (#197)
    by hellothere on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:28:58 PM EST
    a for sure or not. he has an ego and his supporters expect it. what do you think the media spin would be he is doesn't. now long term i think it will bite him, but that's me.

    I'm tired of your unity ticket idea (5.00 / 11) (#152)
    by nycvoter on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:08:03 PM EST
    if I have to suck it up and realize that obama will be our candidate, then he will have to do it alone with his new coalition.  He will have to reach out to Hillary supporters on his own.  Hillary should steer clear of this train wreck.  It's not his problem he's unelectable, but if the SDs are too stupid to get it, then let them all get out there and build the new coalition to get him elected.

    Hillary has done all she can do, she has made her arguement and the people/primaries post "bitter" remarks, Reverand Wright and his terrible debate performance (especially the second half on policy) had sunk him.  NOT Hillary.  She should stay as far away from his ticket as possible.


    I meant it's not HER problem he's unelectable (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by nycvoter on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:08:43 PM EST
    I'm not convinced (none / 0) (#216)
    by Rainsong on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:39:39 PM EST
    whether Hillary supporters on any website are the ones that need convincing.

    Its the Hillary voters out there in the real world who need convincing. I'm just guessing, that most will fall into line like good dems anyway, same as they always have, regardless of whether Hillary is on the ticket or not.


    LOL, he needs to convince Obama. (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:44:22 PM EST
    Every Hillary supporter on TalkLeft could wake up tomorrow thinking that Hillary as VP is the greatest thing since sliced bread but it wouldn't matter if Obama doesn't come to the same conclusion.

    I won't vote for a Unity Ticket (5.00 / 10) (#72)
    by dissenter on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:44:30 PM EST
    With Clinton as a VP. In fact, I would lose total respect for her if she took it. If she is gonna lose, she should go for the Majority Leader job.

    Just the idea of her answering to BO makes we want to throw up. There is not way I will vote for that scenario ever. It is insulting to assume that all Hillary supporters will jump on the bandwagon of an unqualified candidate.


    same here... VOMIT (5.00 / 3) (#160)
    by nycvoter on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:10:21 PM EST
    I'm tired of talented women doing the jobs of their incompetant bosses in the background while the men get all the credit.

    just call my a typical bitter white woman!


    my feeling exactly. (5.00 / 4) (#218)
    by ghost2 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:40:15 PM EST
    However, Hillary has always put her country first.  All her life, she has done it.  

    There is NOTHING for her in a VP spot.  Nothing.  Already, vomit-inducing pundits talk of her being like a Cheney to his Bush.  Great.  Let's look at the parallels.  They are reay to cast her as the Darth Vader, and him as the genial, likable Bush.  He can screw up all he wants and they won't call him on it.  

    Do you think after being First Lady for 8 years, her ambition is to attend the funeral of foreign dictators?  Not to mention doing all the work for Obama and letting him cruise along and take the credit.  


    Unity Ticket (5.00 / 8) (#67)
    by Missblu on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:42:58 PM EST
    Time is running out for my support of any unity anything.  In suspending Florida and Michigan and keeping her looking like she was behind when in reality she wasn't, it said everything I needed to know about him and his campaign.  The Democratic Party has a lot to explain to all the Hillary women who worked so hard through the years for them only to be treated as sorry sisters in this campaign. Think Richardson might be the answer for him as VP

    It's about 2 weeks too late for me too. (5.00 / 7) (#75)
    by madamab on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:44:42 PM EST
    HRC or bust, baby!

    Yep (5.00 / 7) (#78)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:45:12 PM EST
    and in the ABC poll quoted before, only 42% of women want this unity ticket.  So sorry, but it doesn't work for us, even if Edwards tries to unruffle our little feathers.

    Yes (none / 0) (#69)
    by Edgar08 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:43:59 PM EST
    Richardson would be a great choice.

    Anything but that. Seriously. (none / 0) (#121)
    by ruffian on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:01:17 PM EST
    No really (5.00 / 2) (#151)
    by Edgar08 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:07:47 PM EST
    We need more "I don't know what it is, but he sure is special."

    Heh (none / 0) (#222)
    by RalphB on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:46:27 PM EST
    Can never get enough of that  :-)

    Hillary's Too Good For 2nd Place (5.00 / 20) (#76)
    by mystic4hill on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:44:47 PM EST
    As a new commenter at this site, I know what I'm about to say isn't going to be popular, but chalk it up to my demographics - over 50 female. I spent too many years in the corporate world, losing promotions to men who were less qualified than me because I was a woman. I can't tell you how many times I had to train men to take the positions I was fully qualified for but didn't get for no other reason than "employees aren't going to want to take orders from a woman" or "clients feel more comfortable with a man in a position of authority". I believe that Hillary Clinton is the more qualified of the two Democratic candidates, so it just burns me that she should be pushed to take 2nd place to make Obama look better. I don't know if I can support that ticket!

    It's amazing to me (5.00 / 13) (#104)
    by Kathy on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:53:15 PM EST
    how many pundits and blowhards suddenly have good things to say about Clinton now that they think she's out of the race.  In college, we called it a pity f-.

    It really is egregious.  Time will tell, but I am still pulling for my girl.  Rise, Hillary, rise!


    guys just don't get how visceral this is to us (5.00 / 4) (#169)
    by nycvoter on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:13:21 PM EST
    they really don't (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by Kathy on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:20:04 PM EST
    they have so many more opportunities to compete and win or lose than we do.  They underestimate how damaging all of this nastiness against Clinton has been, how personal it is to us all.

    That's why she has to be at the top of the ticket.  A Clinton win will be a victory for all women.

    And there are more of us than there are of them.


    Actually (none / 0) (#193)
    by Korha on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:24:48 PM EST
    Your opinion seems to be quite popular here.

    John Edwards (5.00 / 9) (#92)
    by txpolitico67 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:49:27 PM EST
    Shoulda. Woulda. Coulda.

    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.

    I see Hillary taking all the contests left except for Oregon.  With those string of victories, and her going nuclear with MI and FL, she will be the nominee.  She needs to show Camp Obama what an Annie Oakley really is.

    And nuclear with TX affidavits on caucuses (5.00 / 6) (#103)
    by lambert on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:52:37 PM EST
    I think she should do it. I want a party, not a movement.

    Believe me when I tell you (5.00 / 5) (#137)
    by txpolitico67 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:05:49 PM EST
    I had been active in Democratic politics until HRC's campaign left TX.  Been so for 18 years.  Not no more with this Dem party.  

    BUT, I still have PLENTY of contacts.  The Tx state convention will be a bloodbath.  All the old-school politicians from the valley throughout S Texas cannot wait to get to Austin to challenge all those newbie Obama supporters.

    They barely knew how to caucus.  All those old school cats are going to have them for breakfast.  They know ALL about gaming the system here.

    There's a superdelegate out in Sherman, Texas.  Mr. Bob Slagle. I had the pleasure of getting drunk with him at the 2004 convention.   Between him and the Tejano Democrats, I can guess that all those delegates Barack supposedly won here will be hotly contested.  The Tejano Dems have a lot of power...and they will yield it to get more HRC delegates to Denver.  

    It ain't over until Austin.  


    when is the TX convention? (none / 0) (#203)
    by DFLer on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:32:08 PM EST
    Oh come On! (5.00 / 4) (#99)
    by hummingbirdv on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:51:21 PM EST
    Obama could sit Hillary in a corner?? LOL

    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.  

    I like a Clinton/Edwards ticket.  How about if BO gracefully exits now so we can get on with it and support real winners.

    I don't want her as vp. It's beneath her. (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by WillBFair on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:02:35 PM EST
    And there's no reason for it. Obama will probably win the ge because of the political capital we have, and I don't think Hillary would have much impact on the election either way.
    But Obama doesn't have the brains to fix the massive problems we face. And why should the Clintons step in to fix things, after the shamefull way they've been treated?
    Face it. We've been swindeled out of years of progress for the progressive agenda, by the sleazoid msm and Obama's dingbat supporters.
    So let Mr. Agent of Change try to run the country, with his empty rhetoric, dated liberal cliches, and hopeless ignorance. And let his supporters try to understand our policy challenges, when the haven't yet learned the art of adult conversation.

    Amen to that! (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by abfabdem on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:20:32 PM EST
    Barack wants to be the President.  Hillary wants to do the work of the President.  What a difference.  So here we go again, choosing personality over ability!

    Is it just me (5.00 / 4) (#132)
    by hitchhiker on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:03:30 PM EST
    who thinks that we assign all sorts of motives and feelings to these people that are pure imagination?  Sometimes when I read these comments about how humiliating it would be for HRC to be asked to be a VP, I think . . . wtf??

    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.

    I'll give her the respect to say that whatever she decides is fine with me.

    maybe it's generational (5.00 / 5) (#173)
    by Kathy on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:15:01 PM EST
    some of us feel second place is not good enough, especially when you're more qualified, better prepared and just plain d*mn sharper. When I was 23 years old and told I wasn't getting a promotion because I was too pushy, I went out and started my own company.  It never occurred to me to sit back and let the world pass me by.

    I know what you're saying and I respect where you are coming from, but I don't want Clinton to get a pat on the head.

    But, you are right-she will do whatever she thinks is best, and right now, she sees a shot at winning the top spot and she's pushing to make it happen.  I'm going to support her until the very end because I was raised to never quit until you've lost.  I am not going to let the same media who told me Al Gore was a woman, Bush was a winner, the war was solid, Kerry was an idiot and the Plame leak was not treasonous now tell me that Clinton has lost the nomination.


    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by hitchhiker on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:34:32 PM EST
    And I wrote perfect SAT's in 1969, only to be asked whether I planned to go into nursing or teaching . . . those were the bad old days.

    The thing I was trying to say is that I've seen enough of the world to know that some things are really, really unfair.  Little African kids with AIDS, my husband's spinal cord injury, the cancer that got my boyfriend when I was 23 and he was 27 -- the list is long.

    On the scale of injustice, being a very close second for the presidency just doesn't seem that awful.  

    Is is of course infuriating to listen to the smugfest, but I guess I can turn away any time I want to.  They're pathetically misinformed and too many of them are reflexively vicious, but really, so what?  Hillary Clinton is more of a human being than any dozen of them combined.  She knows it, and I know it.

    I want the Republican party to be crushed into little smithereens, so that all the slugs and vermin inside it have nothing left to feed on.  I want the MSM to be exposed as the hollow noise machine that it is.  I want to know that my girls are going to have something left to build on after we're gone.  These things would be enough for me.


    She'll do what is best for her. (none / 0) (#153)
    by pie on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:08:17 PM EST
    That's as it should be.

    She won't be saving Obama from himself.


    Amen !! (none / 0) (#154)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:08:24 PM EST
    Whatever she wants.  If she wants it I will go along, if she does not, I will go along.  Whatever it is, if anyone can make it work, it's HIllary.  I guess I am greedy, I want her skills somewhere in the power structure.  

    If VP is such a great prize (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:16:39 PM EST
    I'd say they should give it to Reid and have her run for "mere" majority leader.

    Obama admit faults? Never. (5.00 / 4) (#199)
    by ruffian on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:30:44 PM EST
    Chris Bowers had a post about two of the schools of thought in VP selection - one idea is to shore up the presidential candidates weaknesses (Kerry-Edwards model) , and the other is to accentuate his positives (Clinton-Gore model).  

    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.

    The thought of someone who is so obviously VP material himself picking a VP is just laughable to me.

    This is what I mean when I say (5.00 / 2) (#200)
    by kayla on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:31:34 PM EST
    I'll really miss her.  She's gotten so much better in the last couple months.  It would be disappointing to see this end now.  I love seeing her campaign and debate.  I want to see her clean more clocks in the months ahead.

    personally i want this to go to (5.00 / 2) (#206)
    by hellothere on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:33:28 PM EST
    the convention. let them slug it out there. we won't die for it. i miss the conventions of old. this ongoing lovefest commercial bores me. just what did the convention really accomplish in 04? the answer is nothing.

    let it go there and let's have some real compaigning. let's have some arm twisting. let's fight for what we care about instead of letting those know nothing on tv tell us is. if you listen to them, 99% of the posters on here are smarter and better informed than they are.

    She has to be at the top of the ticket (5.00 / 1) (#230)
    by goldberry on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:29:11 AM EST
    I actually hate the idea of a unity ticket but recognize that the division in the party is so severe that one may be unavoidable.  But if that's the way it has to be, Hillary has to be at the top.  To put the weaker candidate on top would be stoopid and would negate the intended effect.

    It's been more than that (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:25:21 PM EST
    She has become much better.

    It's true (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by andgarden on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:27:35 PM EST
    Her debate performances have always been solid, but I think her message has become solid over the past few months.

    And on the stump she's been great. She surrounds herself with the best campaigners in America (Bill Clinton, Ed Rendell, etc.), which helps


    She has become much better (5.00 / 14) (#27)
    by Kathy on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:31:37 PM EST
    she's more focused and she's back in touch with the dem values that matter most to her.  Maybe feeling like she was losing for a while there made her realize how important it is that she wins.  The fact is that now she is the stronger candidate, and it's not too late to nominate her.  She reached the largest base of voters and she has changed peoples minds about who she is and what she can do for them.  I have been talking to lots of people in WVA and KY who admire that attitude and want her to win.

    And she still has a chance.  I am not a stupid person; I know the math.  I also know that I and many here on TL (and around the country) have been phone banking for hours on end and sending in donations and doing whatever we can to help our girl.  I know some folks think this is over, and they are entitled to their opinion, but so are we.  You go tell that little boy who sold his bike and video games and donated the money to Clinton that it's over.  You go tell my 100 year old neighbor across the street who has been phone banking three hours a day that it's over.  These people are, respectively, the past and the future of the dem party and I will not accept defeat for them when there is still a chance.

    I am still fighting to win just like Hillary is.


    More power to you (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:36:08 PM EST
    As you know Kathy, I never had a dog in this hunt except what I thought was best for the Dem Party, winning in November.

    I thought Obama had the best chance because of the treatment he gets from the Media and the treatment Clinton gets from the Media.

    I have come to see that Hillary had some advantages that probably balance that out. They are likely equal on the electability issue now.

    But Obama is going to be the nominee. inmo of course.

    I am willing to wait for the results.


    Thank you for that (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by Kathy on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:40:30 PM EST
    I know you better than to say that we'll have to agree to disagree, and possibly you haven't noticed that my ego is even larger than yours, so I'll say: we'll just have to agree to politely think to ourselves that the other is wrong.  :-)

    Come on BTD admit she's more electable now. (5.00 / 7) (#91)
    by davnee on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:49:07 PM EST
    Just do it.  Just once.  You are almost there.  You know you want to do it.  Then you can hop on the unity pony and point out that there is no point in dealing in what-ifs.  But just give the what-if donkey a ride one time before you kick her back to the barn.  You know it will feel good.  ;-)

    He's clearly better in the West (none / 0) (#143)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:06:35 PM EST
    Boo. Hiss. (none / 0) (#175)
    by davnee on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:16:20 PM EST
    Alright.  I'll let you go with that.  For now!

    he may have some chance out west but let's go with (none / 0) (#187)
    by nycvoter on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:21:24 PM EST
    what's certain.  You may hold on to new states we can take out west, but if we hold the regulary blue states, plus Arkansas, West Virginia and Kentucky (bill won both and if it's a dems year it's better chance to think HRC can take it), Pennsylvania (which is a swing State and the cities we can count true blue and HRC has shown a better propensity to get swing rural voters), and now Florida and Ohio as swing states that she has a better chance of taking than Obama....... who cares about potential wins out West.  In the Southwest, she'll be much more competative with McCain with Hispanics/Latinos then Obama.

    Who's more electable?


    She's more intuitive now (5.00 / 5) (#77)
    by Demi Moaned on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:44:52 PM EST
    Since 2000 at least, Democratic Presidential candidates have been suppressing their natural responses on the campaign trail and it's been ruinous.

    Hillary actually has a fine, wry sense of humor that she's starting to let out more.


    The argument... (none / 0) (#8)
    by Addison on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:26:16 PM EST
    ...(other than petty nonsense) that is most used in the press -- and by some in the blogosphere -- is that VP Clinton would counteract Obama's claim to change, his claim to represent something new. That would sabotage one of his major selling points. And so he can't choose her for that reason.

    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.

    So if he shouldn't pick based on "change," well, why not winning?  

    She's a woman...................... (5.00 / 4) (#45)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:37:50 PM EST
    .....there's never been a female VP. Whoever doesn't see the "change" in that is just being dense.

    Now you understand the point (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by andgarden on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:39:01 PM EST
    of every Maureen Dowd column this year.

    The point of every MoDo column: (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by madamab on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:41:02 PM EST
    "Democrats suck!

    Aren't I clever?"

    Lather, rinse, repeat.


    So what VP candidate means change? (none / 0) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:28:38 PM EST
    Strickland? Are you kidding me?

    Who will that choice be that means CHANGE? This is so ridiculous.

    I know it is not your view.

    HE is the change.

    Now he needs a little gravitas and credibility.


    Strickland scores 30% by NARAL on pro-choice (5.00 / 8) (#144)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:06:41 PM EST
    voting. Strickland as VP.  That should  really do the trick. I can just see all the women who are reluctant to vote for Obama rushing to join his bandwagon based on that pick.

    I think you misunderstood me... (none / 0) (#33)
    by Addison on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:33:11 PM EST
    ...he CANNOT pick a candidate based on "change."

    He's never, ever going to get an additional vote doing that.

    The "change" thing is maxed out. It's over.

    He needs to pick a VP on something else entirely. And, like I said, why not "winning?"


    Which means Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:36:45 PM EST
    If it means someone else... (none / 0) (#43)
    by Addison on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:37:34 PM EST
    ...I'm not sure who.

    Strickland is the only person (none / 0) (#61)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:41:52 PM EST
    I can think of and I have no idea if he actually can deliver Ohio.

    If Obama needs Rendell in PA, he is doomed anyway.


    I think he might (none / 0) (#73)
    by andgarden on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:44:39 PM EST
    But Hillary would add about as much as Rendell for PA.

    The old people in PA are just not predisposed to vote for him, and that's a problem.


    The "old" people in Pa (none / 0) (#161)
    by MichaelGale on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:10:27 PM EST
    ....the women, want to see a female president in their life time.

    That is a powerful incentive for older women and guess what?  They also identify with her.


    who the hell is Strickland? (none / 0) (#148)
    by DFLer on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:07:29 PM EST
    Ya, I know who he is. But I'm saying: low name recognition outside of Ohio...doncha think?

    Chuck Hagel being talked about on MSNB this evening.



    The Vice Presidency (none / 0) (#9)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:27:13 PM EST
    Like it or not, Cheney has proven that it's time we change the VPs job.  The president's job is impossible.  Cheney had to do it cause, baby Bush could not do any heavy lifting.  

    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, with her skills can take any job an do miracles with it.  Finally, she goes for 8 years then we get her as president.  How lame of the leadership to let Obama, their "precious" waste his you know what and not get the 16 years.  On this account, I hold the leadership responsible,  They should have worked out a deal after Super Tuesday, with Hillary/Obama.  But, they are what they are, lame.  

    I'm sorry Stellaaa (5.00 / 5) (#31)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:33:02 PM EST
    but I think it's quite unlikely that Obama would give Hillary any power in the VP role.

    You do realize... (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Addison on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:34:44 PM EST
    ...that the reason some Obama supporters are horrified at the thought of Clinton as VP -- and the truth of the matter -- is that Clinton wouldn't wait for power to be given to her, right?

    And what exactly would she do? (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by madamab on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:37:36 PM EST
    The entire Dem leadership, with very few exceptions, is squarely behind Obama. She would never be let anywhere near anything important.

    It would be humiliating.


    I trust Hillary... (none / 0) (#55)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:40:23 PM EST
    she has the experience, the street smarts, the smarts, the gumption to make it happen, that is all I am saying.  I also think, because of what she believes, she knows she can do some good in any capacity.  If I am wrong and she does not want it, I am also fine but would be heartbroken not to have her in a prominent position with some power and input.  

    oh, Stellaaa (5.00 / 8) (#89)
    by Kathy on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:48:54 PM EST
    I also think, because of what she believes, she knows she can do some good in any capacity.

    the familiar women's lament.  Just so long as she gets a good job and is able to do good work, then we'll deal with it.  All the labor, none of the glory.  Why are women always eventually content with this?  We would not celebrate second place for our sons.  Why do we always accept it for our daughters?

    I won't give up until Clinton gives up.  All the way, together.


    Look, I agree...it's not my choice (none / 0) (#106)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:53:42 PM EST
    but I also cannot stand the possibility of having to wait for years to see her in power.  She can rewrite the rules.  In no way will she be second fiddle.  Who thinks Bush has more power than Cheney.  Obama will get bored after the first term anyway.  

    Look, it's Hillary first for me all the way.  I am not waffling, I just need some possibility of something or I will have to go back on the heavy meds.  


    I hear you, sister (5.00 / 4) (#114)
    by Kathy on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:59:07 PM EST
    I'm just tired of it being the women's responsibility to take one for the team when it's time to "compromise."

    Keep phone banking.  It's not over by a longshot.  If I had a dollar for every time I was told to shut up and be nice or polite and to cross my legs when I sit down...oh, wait, actually, I've got about ten dollars for each time.  Screw 'em--Clinton's not quitting and neither am I.  We'll talk about consolation prizes when and if the time comes.  For now, we just need to help our girl keep winning.


    Heh... (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:02:36 PM EST
    I never sat  down and was quiet.  Like you I had a dad who never expected me to sit and be good.  So, I know, but I also need some friggin hope here.  

    I don't know what is worse, Obama or the team he would bring along, a bunch of academics and the losers who were not loyal to the Clintons.  I hate disloyalty.  And the amateur he is, he lets them in.  I would not let a disloyal person near me in this or any other reincarnation.  Richardson, is damaged goods.  


    I thought you were a kindred spirit (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by Kathy on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:06:48 PM EST
    and not just because you obviously have about as much free time as I do to post on this dang thing.

    The math isn't good, but it's not shutting her down, either.  I've always been the type to keep pushing until I found a path to success.  Keep your chin up, old girl.  It's not over by a longshot.


    You got it. (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:13:19 PM EST
    All my chins stay up.  

    Yes, you have noticed my free time.  But, I use it for good things, except for this obsession.  


    honey, this is the internet (5.00 / 1) (#213)
    by Kathy on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:37:05 PM EST
    you're thin and tall and beautiful, just like everybody else!

    Well behaved women (5.00 / 2) (#155)
    by txpolitico67 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:08:27 PM EST
    rarely make history

    Sorry. (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by pie on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:02:07 PM EST
    She can do much more good for New York State as its senator.  Much more power.

    I have no interest in seeing her take the VP slot.


    That is absurd (5.00 / 4) (#47)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:38:44 PM EST
    A VP only has the amount of power a President grant the VP. there is no power a V can grab that a President does not allow him to grab.

    Obama COULD sit Hillary in a corner if that is what he wants to do.

    Heck, that is what JFK did to LBJ.


    That's an administration that I think (none / 0) (#58)
    by andgarden on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:40:40 PM EST
    still hasn't been fully unpacked.

    It was, in many ways, our finest hour. We would be lucky to reproduce it. (Avoiding an Obama assassination would be good, though. . .)


    I disagree... (none / 0) (#62)
    by Addison on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:42:03 PM EST
    ...the VP's office is a separate entity, with a separate power structure, and potentially a separate loyalty. She would still speak how she wanted. She would influence every debate there was, inside and outside. Obama's only recourse would be to snipe at her (unpresidential and useless) or try to force her resignation (politically unfeasible).

    Well really (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by andgarden on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:42:57 PM EST
    where are the huge policy disagreements that they would brawl over? There aren't any.

    Hillary would only take it (none / 0) (#64)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:42:25 PM EST
    if she redefines  the role.  Well, everyone is talking change, well it's time to change the jobs.  Cheney and Bush did it.  

    But what would Michelle say? (none / 0) (#105)
    by nycstray on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:53:25 PM EST
    Exactly... (none / 0) (#38)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:36:33 PM EST
    she will never do "sir may I"  she will see what is needed and do it, succeed and we all benefit.  I learned one thing at all levels of government.  No one gives you power and no one ever tells you don't do something.  If you want to change government, you do it.  That is how change happens.  Everything else is delusion.  

    LOL (none / 0) (#46)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:38:10 PM EST
    If Hillary tries and "steal" power, the media would have her for lunch.

    She's fared pretty well... (none / 0) (#49)
    by Addison on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:38:58 PM EST
    ...as the main course so far, hasn't she?

    If Obama can't keep his VP on the same page (none / 0) (#51)
    by Joelarama on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:39:10 PM EST
    and in line, then he should  not be President. cf. Cheney/Bush.

    I agree (none / 0) (#138)
    by MichaelGale on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:06:03 PM EST
    and if this would ever, in a million years, happen, I would expect her to.

    There is country to repair and run you know.


    I see the reason, but why would any one trust him? (none / 0) (#88)
    by lambert on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:48:46 PM EST
    And fine, trust, but verify, and how would you verify the deal?

    And look at it from Obama's standpoint --  Cheney wasn't going to run again. If Hillary wanted to, what then?


    Well, I can't imagine that it will happen, (none / 0) (#82)
    by derridog on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:46:19 PM EST
    but if it does I would be disappointed. I think she'd be demeaning herself and Obama's going to lose the GE anyway. Why should she want to go with him?

    Both these candidates (none / 0) (#14)
    by mg7505 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:28:06 PM EST
    used to be strong before the bickering and before the media got involved. Who cast the first stone? As a Clinton supporter, I'm inclined to say Obama and The Media did; but frankly that doesn't matter. I agree with Edwards that Hillary is a great candidate now, but no greater than she ever was before, and certainly not out of the realm of the imagination.

    Let him sink, they have slimed her, (none / 0) (#23)
    by Mrwirez on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:31:20 PM EST
    Chicago style....She will be back in 2012

    The irony (none / 0) (#26)
    by Coldblue on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:31:30 PM EST
    is that Hillary took a page from the Edwards campaign playbook and went populist with the gas tax holiday.

    It stalled her momentum post-Pennsylvania, and effectively ended her chances of winning the nomination.

    Not clear that it had any impact at all (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by andgarden on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:33:08 PM EST
    Maybe not in (none / 0) (#59)
    by Coldblue on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:40:56 PM EST
    the exit polls, but she veered off message leading up to Indiana by defending her position.

    She finished where she needed to (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by andgarden on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:42:14 PM EST
    except that more AAs turned out than anyone expected.

    The whole pander was probably completely unnecessary, IMO.


    She was supposed to lose IN (5.00 / 4) (#68)
    by madamab on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:43:45 PM EST
    but she won it instead.

    She was supposed to lose by 25-30 in NC, but she lost by 14 instead. Her lead among working-class voters is increasing, not declining.

    Sorry, the spin is not working.


    I'm not spinning (none / 0) (#94)
    by Coldblue on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:49:43 PM EST
    I am a Hillary supporter, and the last public polls from the 'worlds greatest pollster' were waaay off. Was it their AA model in Indiana? I don't think so.

    Totaly due to A-A turnout (5.00 / 2) (#157)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:09:12 PM EST
    They predicted 11% and it was 17%.

    47 vote increase in AA (none / 0) (#198)
    by Coldblue on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:30:18 PM EST
    of 675 likely is roughly 7%

    Yes it was. (none / 0) (#110)
    by madamab on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:56:57 PM EST
    They were off by 15% in the AA turnout.

    The model was 10% (none / 0) (#147)
    by Coldblue on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:07:26 PM EST
    the exit polls were 17%

    SUSA had it 54/42 Clinton based upon 10%

    The numbers don't add up.


    It completely adds up (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:10:19 PM EST
    +1 for Obama with A-Aturnout was minus 1 for clinton.

    notice - (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Josey on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:38:51 PM EST
    as soon as Hillary won the Indiana "tie-breaker", the media immediately began calling for her to GET OUT!
    Taking on their oil company sponsors is a no-no.

    It's not over till it's over. (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by derridog on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:42:30 PM EST
    I remember when Bill Clinton won and prior to his taking office the MSM went on and on about his "failed presidency," because he didn't appoint his cabinet members fast enough.  It was so absurd that Dave Barry spoofed it.

    I, for one, am not parroting the MSM mantra that Clinton has lost and it's all over.  If it's all over, why is Obama still campaigning?

    He has a lot of baggage that hasn't been aired yet.   I, for one, think it's a very good idea to have it aired now rather than later. I don't care if the Obamamaniacs say it is damaging to the party.  If it's so damaging to the party to reveal any facts about Obama, then maybe we should reconsider nominating him.    


    IIRC, the exit polling (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by lambert on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:49:33 PM EST
    said it swung last minute deciders toward her.

    that is correct, sir (none / 0) (#192)
    by DFLer on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:24:23 PM EST
    nah (none / 0) (#158)
    by Salo on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:09:54 PM EST
    they were expecting a depressed black vote.

    After Obama rebuked wright.


    Irony (none / 0) (#81)
    by neoliberal on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:45:59 PM EST
    That you, BTD, would agree with this. It was you, after all, who pushed the "demographics is destiny" meme, once which I still find to be true.

    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?

    Obama would fare worse in Arkansas, methinks, if the primary was tomorrow, and Clinton would fare worse in DC, if that primary happened now. That has nothing to do with how Hillary's "improved".

    Not sure what you mean (none / 0) (#133)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:03:46 PM EST
    Demography is destiny of cpourse but Hillary has been extremely effective in maximizing her advantages.

    Her work in PA was masterful. My gawd, she was outspent 3-1.


    Edwards should have been our nominee (none / 0) (#83)
    by stefystef on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:46:22 PM EST
    I know he's really supporting the party more than Obama, but I really enjoy listening to him.  He's the only one who has made sense this entire primary season.

    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.

    With Edwards out of the picture and Hillary almost out, once again the Democratic Party is grasping Victory from the grip of Failure.

    No (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Edgar08 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:00:38 PM EST
    Inevitability was a meme pushed by the CDS inspired MSM, and Clinton's political opponents.

    Wanting to put away your opponent early can be a strategy that backfires, but what you're saying about the Clinton campaign, in terms of attitude, is wrong.

    No votes were ever taken for granted.


    Yep (none / 0) (#108)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:54:28 PM EST
    with all the information we have now Obama will lose the GE, Hillary or no Hillary on the ticket. Too late smart I guess.

    OT: (none / 0) (#95)
    by andgarden on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:50:00 PM EST
    On the, "it's over" front, Obama is walking away with Oregon.

    Horace Greeley (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:51:01 PM EST
    Told you so.

    49/48 (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Coldblue on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:56:16 PM EST
    with 43% reporting 'actually voted' is not walking away.

    Or did I miss the sarcasm?


    I believe the topline (none / 0) (#112)
    by andgarden on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:58:05 PM EST
    Betting against SUSA has been a bad choice this season. And in a state with no ethnic surprises, I think this is probably right.

    Oregon cannot be trusted (none / 0) (#115)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:59:08 PM EST
    it's the creative class on steroids.  

    See Indiana (none / 0) (#164)
    by Coldblue on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:11:41 PM EST
    topline and get back to me about betting against SUSA

    Look at the whole panoply of their (none / 0) (#181)
    by andgarden on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:19:07 PM EST
    polling and get back to ME.

    They are very good, and have had very few misses this year--or ever.


    Sure (none / 0) (#217)
    by Coldblue on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:39:46 PM EST
    I'm only reporting what they reported in the tabs.

    You want to believe topline, fine. I believed them on IA and NC and was disappointed.


    One factor in clinton's favor (none / 0) (#117)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:00:02 PM EST
    Since Obama is calling ballgame, his voters might be less likely to vote.

    But when/if he wins Oregon, it will be effectively over.


    Oregon has only 7 electoral votes (none / 0) (#163)
    by LHinSeattle on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:11:23 PM EST
    Not much help in the GE.

    But looks like it'll help perceptions of BHO's electability in the primaries.


    This is what I don't understand (5.00 / 3) (#146)
    by angie on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:07:07 PM EST
    Is Oregon considered a swing state? I didn't think it was.  But WV is (or was until Obama decided he couldn't win it in Nov). Oregon has 7 electoral college votes; WV 5 -- why is winning in Oregon more important then winning in WV? Furthermore, I really think Hillary could also carry KY -- Bill did twice, and KY has 8 electoral college votes.
    This is a serious question -- why is Oregon so much more important then WV & KY?

    It's not. (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by madamab on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:13:25 PM EST
    Supposedly it would "confirm" Obama's electoral map in the GE.

    Like it matters if he loses Appalachia. Snort.


    Because Obama is winning it (5.00 / 3) (#212)
    by ruffian on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:36:25 PM EST
    therefore it is more important.  

    I'm only half snarking.  It is the only late primary victory he will have, and the SDs will use it as an excuse to climb on the bandwagon, as they have been wanting to do for months. It doesn't really matter that it is Oregon per se, or any other one of the 57 states.

    They don't want to nominate Hillary, and they won't.


    Unity ticket (none / 0) (#102)
    by Dax on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:52:26 PM EST
    The real value of a unity ticket, which shouldn't be disregarded, is that it's a somewhat quick fix for the divisions and hard feelings within the Democratic party (and there's also the not insignificant notion that they've both "earned it"), but I'm not sure that's enough to make it a good idea.

    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.

    As an Obama supporter, I have absolutely no objection to the concept of a unity ticket, but I think we also need to be clear-eyed about how the two candidates do, or don't, compliment each other.  It's the same set of considerations that probably led Clinton to view Bayh or Strickland as her potential VP picks -- the type of VP pick that would best compliment her is the same kind of pick that would best compliment Obama.  If this race went to the convention, a unity ticket would probably be necessary.  But if it ends in June, that should leave enough time for healing that, whichever one of them gets the nomination, they could pick their VP according to their own needs and preferences.

    Ha! One more reason for Hillary not to quit! (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by lambert on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:53:44 PM EST
    And from an Obama supporter, no less.

    What is it with Obama Supporters? (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by dissenter on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:05:34 PM EST
     I don't vote on my emotions. Why do all the Obama people talk about hurt feelings.... like this election is about someone's kid who didn't make the honor roll or become prom queen.

    Barack Obama is not qualified. I'm not trying to be an a$$ but I will never vote for him. He isn't qualified and his inexperience, naivety and willingness to sell anyone down the river terrifies me enough that I will vote for McCain even with Hillary on the ticket.


    Hmmm (5.00 / 1) (#210)
    by Dax on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:35:45 PM EST
    You would vote for McCain over Obama, even though that would be a vote against pretty much every substantive thing Clinton stands for?  That doesn't doesn't sound like a vote based on emotion.  Not at all.

    Look In The Mirror (none / 0) (#195)
    by squeaky on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:27:20 PM EST
    You sound quite emotional, at least as emotional as a Obamamaniac.

    Wrong (5.00 / 4) (#220)
    by dissenter on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:44:53 PM EST
    You are up here worrying about party unity. Do you know what Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan worry about - a stupid president that lacks experience, has surrounded himself with amateur advisers and who knows so little about what is really going on that he inadvertently puts us on alert cuz he doesn't know what he is talking about.

    No, it isn't emotion. It is looking at someone in the cold hard light of day and seeing they are unfit for duty.

    As I head back to Afghanistan this week I won't be worrying about party unity. I will be worrying about a Democratic nominee that might get me killed because he has NO EXPERIENCE.


    I'm not sold on the unity pony ticket but (none / 0) (#139)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:06:12 PM EST
    If I were Obama, I'd rather start with 34 million votes than 17 million.

    Again, I'm not sold, but there is simply no other potential VP candidate who "fixes" most of Obama's problems like Clinton does.

    But I lament that we seem about to nominate a candidate who has so very many problems that need fixing.


    BTD vs. BTD (none / 0) (#113)
    by joejoejoe on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:58:18 PM EST
    Big Tent Democrat, 5/12/08:
    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.

    Why don't you share your concerns about Clinton as VP circa January '08 and then explain what she has done in the interim to address those doubts. I think that would be more productive then accusing Obama supporters with doubts about Clinton as VP of being petty and nonsensical when in fact they share a view you held only 5 short months ago.

    Come now Joseph (none / 0) (#120)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:01:13 PM EST
    A LOT has happened since 1/30. you cannot seriously think that the situation is what it was on 1/30 can you?

    In fact (none / 0) (#123)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:01:55 PM EST
    I am positive I wrote something to that effect right after Super Tuesday.

    joejoejoe (none / 0) (#134)
    by Salo on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:04:35 PM EST
    very Russertian.

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:07:40 PM EST
    Joe is an old friend of mine.

    He's cool.


    that's what it must feel like (none / 0) (#172)
    by Salo on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:14:26 PM EST
    of course in a thought bubble:

    "Where did that quote come from?"


    If I were Tim Russert (none / 0) (#178)
    by joejoejoe on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:17:11 PM EST
    I'd pull a quote from 1986, not a quote 5 contests into the current election.

    1/30 is after IA,NH, NV, SC & FL (none / 0) (#171)
    by joejoejoe on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:14:03 PM EST
    I'm trying to figure out what your concerns were at the end of January and I'm curious what you've seen since that addressed those concerns and made you change your view. 1/30 was after IA, NH, NV, SC, and FL. That's more than 20% into the '08 calendar and over a year after the campaigning began. Sure a lot has happened since 1/30 but a lot happened before 1/30 as well.

    Super Tuesday happened (none / 0) (#180)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:18:32 PM EST
    Go find my post on this very subject after Super Tuesday.

    You mean when you were saying (none / 0) (#185)
    by andgarden on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:20:13 PM EST
    that if Obama couldn't win one of three (OH, TX, PA), he was finished? ;-)

    Not finished (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:22:01 PM EST
    But in serious trouble for November.

    and he is in some trouble for November.

    there is a problem to be addressed.


    Here it is (none / 0) (#224)
    by joejoejoe on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:56:34 PM EST
    BTD, 2/8/08:
    This is a new position for me. Before I believed Clinton would definitely choose Obama as her running mate because he can help her keep the excitement he has engendered, provide some of the Media Darling status he holds, emphasize the historic nature of the Democratic ticket and energize the Obama parts of the Democratic coalition. But I did not believe Obama need choose Clinton. I now believe that Obama will need Clinton as well. Most, including me, have completely misunderstood how Hillary Clinton has energized her part of the Democratic coalition, especially women.

    I understand why you changed your mind but I still don't know what made you have concerns on 1/30. More of your Obama VP thoughts here (actually about Kennedy and WV in 1960 but the point you make is the same) and here for your own reference. You may get asked about it one day on MTP.


    "you cannot rule it out" (none / 0) (#130)
    by s5 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:02:59 PM EST
    I'm calling foul here.

    BTD clearly didn't rule it out, and now thinks it's a smart choice. Fair enough. I disagree with him, but the campaign has changed quite a lot since January, and he gets to reassess his opinion based on the current facts.


    OMG (none / 0) (#166)
    by Steve M on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:12:05 PM EST
    Let's all give Tim Russert a hearty TL welcome!

    Not ironic at all (none / 0) (#119)
    by s5 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:01:03 PM EST
    In fact, this statement from Edwards says everything there is to say about Hillary's approach to strategy.

    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.

    I have no doubt that this approach to strategy would follow her to the general election campaign. She'd choose the wrong strategy, lose her advantage in the polls against McCain, then start to regain right before election day. In other words, after it's too late.

    Wow. (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by pie on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:06:26 PM EST
    Yet you're choosing someone who has never made a tough political decision in his life.

    Go away.


    unity ticket (none / 0) (#122)
    by confloyd on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:01:31 PM EST
    The only reason they want to put Hillary as VP so she can take on Romney! They know Obama would fail miserably. He may be able to take on McCain, because by the time Obama finally gets a whole sentence out McCain will have forgotten the question! Obama could never debate a Romney, Hillary can make hay out of him! Hillary and McCain, I think Hillary would slaughter him, poor thing, senior citizen that he is! Obama might be able to not look sooo ignorant, but he will even against McCain!

    Sorry (none / 0) (#223)
    by BellinKY on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:47:04 PM EST
    There will never be a "unity ticket" wether it's Obama on top or Hillary on top for one single reason: Michelle would never allow it. This is supposed to be her moment in the light and she will not let Hillary steal her thunder

    No unity ticket. (none / 0) (#225)
    by oldpro on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:31:32 PM EST
    Obama's handlers will never allow it and they will make the decision.

    The preview was Teddy's comment earlier this week.

    Forget it.

    I am going to finally give it to you (none / 0) (#226)
    by masslib on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:58:00 PM EST
    BTD.  A) Yes, it took her long enough, but she's found her voice.  B)Penn was her biggest mistake because he didn't have a caucus strategy, and those of us who get the process will replay February in our heads for the rest of our lives.  C) Yeah, they should run together, and it will be the first time in modern history that the VP draws as many voters as the top of the ticket.  He'd be lucky to get her.  Funny, the great unifier seems to be signaling she doesn't have a chance in hell to be his Veep.  What an extreme idiot.

    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.

    Not to mention this Party needs Bill Clinton.  He's the reason this Party has the edge on the economy.  Trashing and disposing of a guy who is probably the best campaigner on the planet is pretty dumb.

    Edwards self-imposed Hiatus over (none / 0) (#227)
    by fctchekr on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:16:08 PM EST

    Edwards endorses Obama after he told Larry King he wasn't going to endorse anyone..

    "better campaigner" (none / 0) (#229)
    by diogenes on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:02:59 AM EST
    She's better since lately Obama has pulled back on some attacks (when did you last hear about the Rodham brothers and the pardons?) and since she and McCain have been tagteaming Obama.  Also, people see her as part of history and feel relieved that she won't be the nominee-sort of like the Craig Biggio farewell tour.  So her appearances turn into pleasant women's rights celebrations.

    Goldberry is right. (none / 0) (#231)
    by masslib on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:56:16 AM EST
    I woke realizing what I have said for months is still true.  BO peaked in February.  He's a loser.  She needs to take this to the convention.

    On this, you were very wrong BTD.  Hill is and has always been the strongest candidate the Dems could nominate.  I'd argue she is the strongest in a generation.  And, BO is a weak one.  He peaked in february.  And, as I said, if you think he will win the Mountain West in a GE, I have a nice bridge to sell you.  If we want to win, it's Hill.  It's as simple as that.  

    Edwards (none / 0) (#232)
    by tek on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:21:24 AM EST
    The egregious thing that Edwards is saying is that Hillary has every right to illuminate the American people on why she is the stronger candidate, but the more she does so, the more she damages Obama and the Democratic "cause."  Does this make logical sense?  If Obama is a strong candidate can he not defend himself to the people and make his own case?  If Obama is not the strongest candidate, then why is the Party pushing him on the ticket?  People should be thinking about the framing.

    It's as if the DNC knows they have a weak candidate and they keep trying to shut up the Clintons so no one will look behind the curtain.  Very sad, just very sad.  And BTW, Hillary has always been a strong candidate she was just so demonized it took this long for her voice to be heard.

    VP (none / 0) (#233)
    by tedsim on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:52:15 AM EST
    Michele obama said she does not want hillary on the ticket,what arrogance mybe she will be running the white huse.Who knows!

    copresidents? (none / 0) (#234)
    by diogenes on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:38:37 AM EST
    Surely you have no objection to a strong wife of a president having a role in how the White House is run/staffed?  Maybe Obama will even let Michele design health care-at least she has some experience in the field.