On West VA, Kentucky and a Joint Ticket

A new Survey USA Poll in Kentucky came out today. It's Hillary 62%, Barack Obama 30%.

If West Virginia is a convincing win tomorrow and Kentucky goes big for Hillary, the media says it won't matter. I'm hoping they are wrong. So are millions of other Democrats who believe Hillary Clinton is the best candidate.

While Big Tent Democrat has been sold on a unity ticket for months, I am not, regardless of who is on top of the ticket. I don't think they have a better chance of retaking the White House in November together. I think together they will drive Republicans and conservatives out in force. It's not a balanced ticket.

I also don't want to see a joint ticket because I think Hillary Clinton would make a great President, and I don't think she ever will get the chance if she starts off as Vice President under Obama for 8 years. [More...]

As for the speculation that Obama would convince Hillary's supporters to vote for him if he picks another female VP candidate like Napolitano or McCaskill, I highly doubt it. There is only one Hillary Clinton. Women are not interchangeable. In fact, it would be rubbing salt in the wounds of her already disappointed supporters. Like showing off the new girlfriend to the jilted one. I think millions would stay home.

If Obama wins the nomination, let him go forth against McCain in November without leaning on Hillary or choosing another female VP candidate just because he wants the female vote. Let him pick his best candidate for a VP and go the distance. I plan on voting for him. I believe a Democrat as President is always better for the country than a Republican. Particularly for social justice and the judiciary.

West Virginia, Kentucky and Puerto Rico are important primaries. If she wins them convincingly, and the party does the right thing by counting the 2.3 million votes in Florida and Michigan, she might well be ahead in the popular vote and within 100 to 150 of the pledged delegate total. She might convince the remaining uncommitted superdelegates and change the minds of others. Superdelegates can change their mind any time up until the convention in August.

I agree with the 65% of Democrats today who said she should stay in the race until the last votes are counted. It's not over yet. And it's too early, and in my view undesirable, to be advocating a joint ticket before all the votes are in.

So long as Hillary remains fighting to win, her supporters should stand with her.

Comments now closed.

< The Irony | Late Night: Open Thread: Baby Boomers and Vietnam >


Should There Be a Joint Ticket If Obama is the Nominee?
Absolutely Not 70%
Yes 15%
Unsure 14%

Votes: 191
Results | Other Polls
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Bravo! (5.00 / 11) (#1)
    by Angel on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:08:06 PM EST

    You said it all. (5.00 / 10) (#2)
    by madamab on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:08:47 PM EST
    Thank you, Jeralyn!

    I don't want HRC on a Unity ticket... (5.00 / 17) (#3)
    by Shainzona on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:11:57 PM EST
    if she is VP.  It will look like the older "mom" taking care of the idiot son.

    And I will FREAK OUT if Obama wins the nomination and selects another woman as VP.  I mean, WHAT A SLAP IN OUR FACES - to have his supporters reject the most qualified candidate for POTUS and then pander to us by putting any other woman in as VP.

    Question? (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by samtaylor2 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:19:03 PM EST
    What if the best VP candidate is a women?  Why would this be a slap in the face or even pandering?  There are many qualified female politicians in the US.

    If Hiliary won, and she selected a black running mate (though I am not sure who that is- they don't seem to let many of us get that far or high) I would think that is great, assuming he or she was qualified.


    what woman is better suited (5.00 / 3) (#94)
    by Kathy on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:43:35 PM EST
    or more qualified than Hillary Clinton?  And wants the job, I might add.  Some of them won't put up with the sheer and utter b-s it entails.

    Please name all these (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by angie on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:16:05 PM EST
    women candidates who would in fact be the best choice for Obama's VP.

    Are we talking about women who (none / 0) (#257)
    by independent thinker on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:52:41 PM EST
    would make great POTUSes or VPs or ones who bring something to the political mix that can win the election? The two are not always the same thing. Personally, I love Carol Mosely Braun (spelling). I still remember her well thought out and insiteful debates four years ago, though I don't think she would bring anything politically to enhance a ticket. Clinton certainly brings many fine skills to the ticket, though I must confess that I worry that the fundies will come out in droves to vote against her.

    It's A WOMAN, not "a women"... (none / 0) (#191)
    by NO2WONDERBOY on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:45:19 PM EST
    also, you're 'showing' your inability to "transcend racism" as your candidate is suggesting by saying (though I am not sure who that is- they don't seem to let many of us get that far or high) is lamentable. Besides, it seems to me you're trolling.

    Mayor Nutter (none / 0) (#280)
    by ramasan on Tue May 13, 2008 at 05:34:08 PM EST
    as Hill's VP?  He's great - or seems so.

    I agree complety -- Both need an older, white male (5.00 / 5) (#4)
    by Exeter on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:13:59 PM EST
     Preferably with a long national security resume. For Obama, somebody experienced in economic stimulus would do alot as well.  

    For Obama (5.00 / 5) (#126)
    by Foxx on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:02:35 PM EST
    someone experienced in everything is necessary!

    But not Hillary. What Jeralyn said.


    Obama was always last (5.00 / 7) (#152)
    by Josey on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:18:27 PM EST
    to release a major policy proposal after Hillary or Edwards, including policies addressing the Economy. About a month ago a media panel was discussing the election and the economy and one pundit said Obama wasn't so good on the economy. Another panelist responded "but he's doing better."
    Doesn't that make you feel "better" and eager for Obama to tackle our Economic crisis?!

    us to get our information...puh-leez.

    Great Post Jeralyn. (5.00 / 8) (#6)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:15:30 PM EST
    First of all, it seems the talking heads really aren't influencing that many people according to the polls. If 2/3 want the race to continue, that means that they don't think it's over.

    Since so many women don't want Hillary on the bottom of the ticket, I think it's because of Obamaq being less qualified. If she was running against someone like McCain in the Dem primary who has more experience, then they, or at least I would, be amenable to it.

    qualifications (5.00 / 8) (#105)
    by Kathy on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:47:07 PM EST
    people tend to forget that.  If Clinton was forced to play second fiddle to a candidate who was as qualified or more qualified, I imagine not many women would complain so loudly about her not getting the top spot (that is, if Obama was perceived to have won that slot fairly).  

    Honestly, if this was two white men battling out, and their credentials were the same, it would be no contest.  Look at the serious crisis our country is in at home and abroad.  Jeebus pete.  It's infuriating.


    Let me try to convince you (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:16:07 PM EST
    Let's assume you believe Obama can not win - then Hillary will be the presumptive nominee in 2012 if she is the VP candidate.

    No one will challenge her.

    But if she does not run as the VP candidate, then if Obama wins, his VP will be the presumptive nominee in 8 years and if Obama loses then Hillary faces a stiff challenge from the VP nominee.

    The funny thing about the silly conspiracy theory about Hillary wanting to run in 2012, it only makes sense if she is the VP candidate and does a bang up job and the loss is laid at Obama's feet.

    and if Obama wins. she is the presumptive nominee in 8 years. She looks great. 68 will not be too old, especially for a woman, who have greater life spans than men.

    so if you are only considering what is best for Hillary's chances to be President, the Unity ticket is clearly the best way to go.

    How valuable (5.00 / 13) (#16)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:19:31 PM EST
    is being a VP on a losing ticket? Not much I would say. Edwards anyone? Mondale anyone? Even Gore had a hard time and he was on a successul ticket.

    If she was really interested in 2012 then she would be better off NOT running with Obama.


    Gore and Kerry were both (5.00 / 7) (#50)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:26:34 PM EST
    wrong to distance themselves from Clinton and the high approval rating he left office with.

    and they're still distancing themselves (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by Josey on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:24:05 PM EST
    That's why I believe the Obama establishment would never allow Hillary on the ticket.

    Very true (5.00 / 0) (#197)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:48:15 PM EST
    and, no one has put more distance between his run and the Clinton administration than Obama has. To listen to him, we haven't had a democratic administration since 1960.

    I have two words for you, (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by dk on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:20:36 PM EST
    John Edwards.

    Hillary Clinton is no John Edwards (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by andgarden on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:23:02 PM EST
    Her brand transcends her place on a national ticket.

    he got effed over (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Salo on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:24:38 PM EST
    he's got insane diplomatic skills.

    What I mean (5.00 / 4) (#55)
    by dk on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:27:44 PM EST
    is that being the vice-presidential nominee does not translate into having no one challenge you for the Presidential nomination 4 years later, and it certainly doesn't guarantee you the nomination.

    BTD's argument is simply historically innacurate.


    Who will challenge her (none / 0) (#74)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:33:15 PM EST
    Fair question, but (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by dk on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:42:44 PM EST
    I can't provide a specific answer.  After all, this time four years ago, do you think anyone would have guessed that Obama would run?  No, no one, probably even Obama, thought about it until after his convention speech.

    The reality is that anything can happen in four years.  Political fortunes rise and fall.  I'm not saying that I know whether Hillary's chances in 2012 would be better or worse if she was the VP nominee this time around.  But you can't know either.

    I just have a hard time seeing Hillary as a VP nominee, because those who support her consider her overqualified for the position.  Hillary supporters like her because she has good ideas and the experience to make a good at implementing some of them.  Obama wouldn't let her have any actual authority in his administration, so what's the point?  I think we all know that she had more policy sway in Bill's administratin than she would ever be allowed to have in Obama's.


    x (5.00 / 6) (#109)
    by Mary Mary on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:51:09 PM EST
    The same cabal that challenged her this time.

    A New "Star" (5.00 / 2) (#243)
    by cal1942 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:29:21 PM EST
    with limited experience as that seems to be all the rage.  Possibly someone like Mark Warner or Jim Webb or maybe one of the Udalls.

    Of course, any one of those four have vast experience compared to Obama.

    They'd be championed by the press, the a-list Kool-Aid club and the party establishment.


    How about (none / 0) (#117)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:57:16 PM EST
    Mark Warner.  

    michelle? snark (none / 0) (#245)
    by hellothere on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:30:56 PM EST
    Who did (none / 0) (#134)
    by Emma on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:08:28 PM EST
    anybody think would run against her this time?  Certainly, four years ago nobody was able to foresee what is happening now.

    barack obama's (none / 0) (#279)
    by cpinva on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:48:17 PM EST
    younger, smarter brother!

    Who will challenge her

    sorry, low-hanging fruit! :)


    I'm taking him at his word (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:25:16 PM EST
    he's done with politics. I think he would be a bad choice, and I doubt Elizabeth would be on board with it.

    If Obama loses with Hillary on the ticket (5.00 / 14) (#22)
    by felizarte on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:21:40 PM EST
    Hillary will be blamed and the conspiracy theory lives on.  Obama will not win the GE not without Florida and Michigan resolved to make a difference.  But it will not be resolved because it will make a difference and Hillary will be the nominee.

    Hillary will be blamed by certain Democrats (5.00 / 8) (#100)
    by Joelarama on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:45:45 PM EST
    and pundits for an Obama loss whether she is on the ticket or not.

    We have already seen the set-up for that argument.


    Hillary will be blamed (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:52:10 PM EST
    if Obama is the nominee and he loses in November no matter what. The media will make that their mantra for 2012 and they will begin the chant on Nov 5th, 2008 to make sure she can't run again in four years.

    Good theory but (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:22:38 PM EST
    so far, I haven't heard of any prospective Obama VP who could make a serious run for pres. against Hillary in 2012 or any other time.  And I'm not convinced that unsuccessful VP candidates carry any luster to speak of anyway into the next election.  Seems to me a big part of Edwards's problem was his inability to shake the aura of loser.

    I agree with you (none / 0) (#241)
    by RalphB on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:28:06 PM EST
    that Edward's run as VP hurt more than helped.  When you are on a losing ticket, it doesn't do much for you.

    You realize (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:23:19 PM EST
    she'll by 69 years of age in 8 years.  If you look at the ABC poll, people are more bothered by McCain's age than they are about Clinton and Obama's race and sex.

    A 69 year old woman running for president?  If that would work, it truly would be the American dream.


    Nope (5.00 / 18) (#35)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:23:39 PM EST
    I disagree. If Obama wins, Hillary won't be interested in running in 2016. She'll be almost as old as McCain is now. Her time is now, or in 2012.

    If Obama runs with someone else now and loses, that's her best shot in 2012. If she's on the ticket now as VP and they lose, she'll have as little chance of getting the nomination in 2012 as John Edwards did this year.

    Losing VP candidates are unlikely to get the presidential nomination the next time around. If she's on the ticket as VP and they lose, she's done.


    Ha Ha Ha (5.00 / 10) (#38)
    by dissenter on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:24:29 PM EST
    Look at the crap she has gone through now....you think it is gonna better when she is 68 friggin years old. You can't be serious here.

    I am perfectly willing to watch Obama lose and support her again in 08. If she is the VP candidate and he loses she can't run again and win anyway. Look how well that strategy worked for Edwards.

    He would only be using her. If by some miracle he got elected he would send her out to read to children. No thanks. And more importantly, no sell.


    Sorry 2012 (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by dissenter on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:25:50 PM EST
    BTD - they have already labeled her as old (5.00 / 7) (#39)
    by Shainzona on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:24:33 PM EST
    in this campaign (and the rest of us women who support her).  She will be the "walking dead" in 8 years as far as the Blogger Boyz and MSM are concerned.

    Now is her time.  And not as VP - as POTUS.

    Why not?

    If she turns out to be more electable after tomorrow, would you not change your mind and support her over BO?


    I don't understand the basis of your ... (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by dwmorris on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:27:31 PM EST
    thesis that no one will challenge Clinton in 2012 if an Obama/Clinton ticket loses in 2008. Edwards was in the same position 4 years ago and it didn't work out for him this cycle. What's to stop the residual Obama machine from morphing into an insurgency campaign for another new candidate?

    If Obama loses in 2008, he's running again in 2012 (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by Exeter on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:31:40 PM EST
    That's only another reason why he would not want Hillary on the ticket-- why give her his blessing to his followers?  That's the bottom line here, Obama would NEVER in a million years have Hillary on the ticket, even if she had pics of McCain with a dead girl AND a naked boy!

    I saw Chuck Todd share a Michelle quote on (5.00 / 0) (#143)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:13:07 PM EST
    that subject. He said Michelle has already said that they will only do this once because in four years they will be so wealthy they won't be able to relate to the people's issues.

    No kidding. He said that on Hardball about a week ago.


    Ugh (none / 0) (#84)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:39:11 PM EST
    If Obama's the nominee and he loses, then certainly he would have zero chance in 2012.

    Hey I heard a rumor that all this is really about Kerry wanting to run again. He figured that 2008 was too soon so he found a fundraising machine to attach to that he knew would lose in 2008 and make his run in 2012. It all kind of makes sense in a way.


    Just shoot me (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by ruffian on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:43:19 PM EST
    Kerry never had the committed followers (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Exeter on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:44:56 PM EST
    like Obama has, though. It's a movement.

    "Movement"? As in civil rights? (5.00 / 2) (#253)
    by lambert on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:45:20 PM EST
    That OFB talking point is so inane.

    Unless, of course, we're talking about movements whose only reason for being is a charismatic leader who makes great speeches in stadiums. That sort of movement has always worked out well, right?


    I am almost positive (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:32:20 PM EST
    I'll be the only yes vote in the poll.

    Wrong (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by andgarden on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:34:47 PM EST
    Hey (5.00 / 3) (#133)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:08:14 PM EST
    I am doing almost as well as Obama will tomorrow.

    heh (none / 0) (#148)
    by andgarden on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:15:09 PM EST
    Me too... (none / 0) (#209)
    by znosaro on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:58:00 PM EST
    I don't want to spend another four years as despondent as I have been the past 8.  As long as Hillary is on the ticket, one way or another, I will be able to make myself care.  If she is not... ugh.  If we want to win this year, with Obama as our nominee, no VP choice makes nearly as much sense as HRC.

    I gave you a "5" for self-deprecating (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by chancellor on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:45:13 PM EST
    sense of humor. I hope that's allowed, because your response contained flawless comedy timing and gave me a good laugh.

    Ah, I'm starting to feel (5.00 / 9) (#110)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:51:16 PM EST
    badly for you. I know you really believe in a joint ticket, and maybe on your thread they agree with you, but this thread so far is on my side.

    I think you are trying to throw Hillary a crumb but her supporters don't want her to have the crumb role when they know she's the whole loaf.


    I like Hillary (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:58:38 PM EST
    but she is a pol like all the rest. Frankly, I could not care less if she ever becomes President. Just as I could not care less if Obama became President.

    What I DO care about is a DEMOCRAT winning in November.

    I am about Democratic values and issues and how to forward them.

    I want the candidates who can do that and the ticket that can do that. I think the unity ticket is the best way to get it done.


    See, I guess I care (5.00 / 10) (#131)
    by dk on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:05:11 PM EST
    less about a DEMOCRAT winning in November as I do about effectively advancing Democratic policies and principles over the medium and long term.  Now often those two goals overlap, but I'm not convinced they do in the case of Obama.

    Note:  Unlike the accusations of many Obama supporters in the left blogosphere (cough, Kos, cough), I am not accusing Obama of being a Republican.  But, I am truly not convinced that Democratic policies and principles will be advanced by an Obama presidency.  I think I'm not alone here in thinking that.


    Nailed it! (5.00 / 0) (#210)
    by chancellor on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:58:05 PM EST
    This is exactly my problem with Obama. Hillary and Edwards are traditional Dems with values I support. Even having Obama as my senator, I still don't know where he really is on the issues. Durbin, on the other hand--a true progressive--well, I can predict his vote 99% of the time, and he's always in that hard-core group of Dems that votes against insane Repub legislation. My kind of guy.

    She votes most often in line with Durbin (none / 0) (#247)
    by nycstray on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:37:39 PM EST

    Democratic values (5.00 / 5) (#137)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:10:45 PM EST
    I am about Democratic values and issues and how to forward them.

    Me too! Including support for the working class! The current DNC has no interest in that.


    BTW (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:59:26 PM EST
    Very few agreed with me in my thread.

    She's the whole loaf. (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by ruffian on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:03:09 PM EST
    Does that fit on a bumper sticker?

    I like it!!!


    Jeralyn, I really do wonder (none / 0) (#116)
    by Kathy on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:55:52 PM EST
    since you and BTD are so simpatico on most things, if this is a man's vs woman's perspective thing.  We should have a poll about that!

    I agree it's a crumb role and I would never (none / 0) (#177)
    by Joelarama on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:35:30 PM EST
    ask her to settle earlier than she wants.

    By instinct about Hillary however is that she would take it.  I may be wrong, but I think her her worst critics and even her supporters have her wrong.  She is a team player, a person who has so much strength that she can accept a lesser role if she believes it is the right thing to do.  She kept her head down and worked hard in the Senate, without letting her personal notoriety ruffle the men's feathers.  I am reluctant to add this, but I believe she did what was right in response to the Monica thing by staying with her husband, because she believed it was teh right thing to do in her circumstance (and not primarily politically) -- despite whatever anyone might think.

    I think Hillary would accept a VP post if she thought it was the right thing to do -- if she felt it might be necessary to ensure a Democratic president -- and avoid the humiliation.

    I might be a Pollyanna, but I believe this woman is the real deal, as much as any politician can be.  I don't think she's ultimately in it for herself.


    I agree with you (5.00 / 2) (#190)
    by angie on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:44:49 PM EST
    on just about everything you said (team player, real deal, right to stay with Bill -- imo, forgiving is easier said then done, and she proved she can do it) except for her willingness to take the VP slot -- she would have more influence on getting legislation passed as the Senator from NY then as the VP -- so I think she would see that as being the "right thing" to do for her Dem. values.

    Perhaps, and perhaps I am injecting my own (none / 0) (#207)
    by Joelarama on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:53:31 PM EST
    opinion, which is that a unity candidacy is what needs to happen in order to win in November.  Not that we cant win without it, but my pessimism is such that I am almost there.  (see my comment on this thread).

    My point is, if Hillary believes she must run for VP in order to ensure a Democrat is president, she'd do it despite any prideful misgivings.  And, she's the kind of person who will make a pretty shrewd judgment on what's necessary for a Dem to win.

    Others would have us believe she would want Obama to lose, to serve her ambition.  That view, I think, is grounded in sexism and a misunderstanding of what drives most (or many) feminists.


    Everything is forgetting one Person (none / 0) (#222)
    by dissenter on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:07:00 PM EST
    I don't think there is a snowballs chance in hell Bill Clinton would tell her it is politically smart to  accept an invitation to be Obama's VP. Furthermore, while Hillary is a loyal dem, she has proven she is an equally loyal wife.

    I seriously doubt she is going to join a campaign that has done everything in its power to destroy her husband's legacy. A political fight is one thing but the attacks on Bill Clinton go way beyond simple politics. Obama has tried to destroy her husband's legacy, legitimacy and accomplishments. And then as a bonus, he has painted BC as a racist. That isn't going to just blow over in the name of party unity. It is personal now.  

    That VP spot has loser written all over it -  politically, professionally and personally for her. I think she will cut a deal for majority leader. In return, she will campaign a bit for Obama. That's it.

    He will then lose and it will be the memory of Obama everyone will be trying to erase. As they say, revenge is best served cold.


    I can't disagree more. (none / 0) (#232)
    by Joelarama on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:14:25 PM EST
    We're really getting into speculative (and chatty) territory here, so this is the last I'll say.  

    Hillary has been through so much and been dissed by so many people that if she wanted to get revenge, it would leave her no time for anything else.

    If anyone can get over it, she can.  In fact, I doubt she holds any grudge.  She's a pro.

    But, speculation.


    Wrong (none / 0) (#187)
    by wasabi on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:43:28 PM EST
    I've been saying it since early February.

    Of course she'll be challenged (5.00 / 0) (#113)
    by Nadai on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:53:21 PM EST
    John Edwards was challenged this time around and he's not the target of a national hatefest.  If she's a losing VP candidate in 2008, that'll just be a point of mockery come 2012 - look at the loser, she's why Obama lost, best candidate we ever had and she torpedoed him.

    What if Hillary (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by Mrwirez on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:00:05 PM EST
    is the reason he wins. My family is supporting HRC. We do not want Obama at all. If she would accept a VP spot and Obama wins... She is screwed. Barack Obama is TOO liberal for my likings. My wife and I make $125,000/year but I am a blue collar worker. Do you see my dilemma. I want a MODERATE democrat that will pay down debt, and REALLY support organized labor, similar to Bill Clinton policies. I fear BO and his policies.... we know nothing about, and therefor I say to Hillary, DO NOT do it. HE WILL LOSE/SHE CAN WIN. He will be the Mondale/Dukakis/McGovern candidate. CNN just showed the maps for winning the GE. Hillary Clinton,s maps are so much easier to win the big prize.

    The bottom line is we just don't like Barack Obama.


    The Loss Will Not Be Laid At Obama's (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:11:34 PM EST
    feet if Hillary is the VP candidate. The MSM and Obama's supporters, including political supporters, will hang the defeat around the Clinton's neck. The feeding frenzy that has been occurring the last several months will look mild in comparison.

    BTD -- so close to perfect (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by angie on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:33:50 PM EST
    except on this point.
    Trust the women on this one.  

    Time for a sex change operation (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by wasabi on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:49:10 PM EST
    I'm female and I think UNITY would work to get a Dem in office.  Clinton would do what is best for the party.  Obama however will do what he thinks is best for Obama, unfortunately.  I don't think Michelle would ever approve of that union.  Never.

    Sex change? (5.00 / 1) (#254)
    by RalphB on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:48:15 PM EST
    Well I'm a man and I'm totally against it.  If she wants it fine, but normally people don't vote for the VP candidate.

    If Obama Loses (5.00 / 3) (#215)
    by cal1942 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:00:31 PM EST
    "she is the VP candidate and does a bang up job and the loss is laid at Obama's feet."

    No offense but, apparently you've been sound asleep the last 16 years. Clintons, any Clinton, are blamed for any failing. Your candidate has attacked the efficacy of the Clinton administration, the press does not acknowledge a successful Clinton Presidency.  The press (and your candidate) routinely demonize Hillary Clinton and have, in the case of press, for the past sixteen years.  

    If an Obama/Clinton ticket were to lose, the press would crucify Hillary Clinton as the poison pill in spite of any polling or studies to the contrary and if for no other reason than to build animus for 2012.  

    Don't you get it yet that the press and the Village establishment hate all things Clinton.

    And what makes you think the party establishment would tolerate a Clinton candidacy in 2012?  A burning desire to win the White House? Haven't you seen enough already? This is the crew that joyously savages its own in the mistaken belief that they're performing some act of cleansing that the public will reward.

    I can't believe you haven't noticed what's happening underneath.

    If Hillary Clinton has a shot at 2012 it would be continuing in the US Senate, untainted by a defeat in 2008 for which the press and her own party establishment will gladly throw in her face.


    That is assuming that Obama's (5.00 / 2) (#240)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:27:48 PM EST
    administration is not a disaster. That is a huge assumption to make, given his lack of experience, his dislike for policy work, his boredom with his Senate work, and his waffling on every subject he has been asked about. If he, by some amazing fluke, wins the Presidency, he will be lost and floundering. This is not how Hillary can get a good start on 2012. She can do that by staying in the Senate and trying to minimize the damage, not tying her political wagon to a falling "star". He is starting to tank now, what is he going to do in November when McCain and the GOP eviscerate him with his Chicago record and associates?? Go down in flames, that's what. And Hillary doesn't need that on her resume. The one she has now is just fine, thank you.

    not if it's rendell (4.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Salo on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:18:55 PM EST
    And is she didn't "look great"? (none / 0) (#144)
    by oculus on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:13:07 PM EST
    OK. Let's say you (none / 0) (#203)
    by oldpro on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:51:58 PM EST
    made the sale


    How are you gonna talk Kennedy, Kerry, Daschle into letting her on the ticket?


    I wrote to you in your last thread (none / 0) (#237)
    by masslib on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:25:16 PM EST
    that I have finally come to agree with you.  I have no interest in Obama.  I think he's an empty suit.  But, I get the feeling that if Hill doesn't get the nom she at least wants the second spot.  And, because she wants it, I want it.  It will be the first time in modern history that the second on the ticket will draw as many(maybe more) than the first.  I am still holding out for the reverse.  Hill is so much more prepared to be president.  But, either way, she at least should get the second spot.  If this man who speaks of unity doesn't sincerely offer it to her, I won't vote for him.  I'll write-in. Again, since I detest Obama and think he has done nothing in his professional life to warrent the highest office in the land, it's not what I want.  But, the working poor need Hill, IMO.  And, again my impression is she wants it, so if she does...I think BO's ONLY chance is with Hill on the ticket, so I disagree with Jaryln that somehow she is not what he needs. There is no way on God's green earth this ticket, whatever the order,  with Bill Clinton crisscrossing the country campaigning for it, could lose.

    My comment was in response to BTD but didn't (none / 0) (#238)
    by masslib on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:26:07 PM EST
    get posted that way.

    I don't buy all your (none / 0) (#278)
    by 0 politico on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:52:53 AM EST
    arguments here.

    On point 1 - HC does not have to be the VP condidate on a losing ticket to be the presumptive nominee in 2012.  It might help, but could hurt if this turns into a massive loss with her on the VP slot.  Someone could challenge her then.

    On point 2 - The VP condidate, should the ticket lose, might be a stiff challenge to HC in 2012.  The party has got to find someone with some real backbone first, but not enough charisma to outshine their candidate.  If the ticket wins, you are presuming this would be asuccessful administration and not Carter Part II.  I don't have that faith in the "presumed candidate".  In that case it won't matter in 2012, as the party would have a snowball's chance of holding the WH.

    On point 3 - No matter how bang up a job HC did in campaigning as the VP candidate, a loss this year will somehow get blamed on her, the party "elites" won't learn their lessons, and she would have to step on their necks to get the party nomination in 2012.  Actually, I kind of like the sound of that last part.

    On point 4 - If she actually had to sit as the VP for 8 years (again, I feel that is unlikely), then I respectfully disagree that the age would not be a factor.  Just because the Reps can get away with it does not mean a Dem female cadidate could.  By the time the election would occur, she would be 69.  After 8 years of BO, I am sure that there would be cries for change coming from the other side, and having a grnadmother running for the big chair is not likely to fit many American's view of whom they want in that chair.  Maybe I am being cynical, but I don't see it.

    My suggestion to her would be to decline the VP slot if offered.  Campaign for the ticket like a good Dem.  But, let the Boys sink on their own.  Then maybe in 2012, the party will be ready for some adult supervision.  And perhaps, Dems can actually grow some other worthy candidates by then.  Who konws?  She could decide she could be more effective outside politics if the party leadership is just not worth working with.

    My worst fear?  That the party pushes a candidate who is not ready for the job (it won't matter who the VP is then as they can't really tell him -POTUS- what to do) and we get Carter Part II.  And remember, Carter had bright people in his administration.  Then we get stuck with Reps in the WH for the following 12-20 years!  For those who argue about SCOTUS selections for the next four years, think of longer term consequences in this scenario.

    BTW - I have not changed my registration to independent, yet.  I am waiting for the convention first.


    What does (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:17:32 PM EST
    everyone think about the fact that McCain might pick Christine Todd Whitman as his running mate? I think that it would pull women away from Obama and into his camp.

    No I think (5.00 / 4) (#44)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:25:32 PM EST
    Kay Bailey Hutchinson is more likely. I also think it will be seen for the sleaze move it is, a cheap ploy to get women voters. We're not that dumb.

    KBH could work (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by andgarden on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:30:28 PM EST
    if not for making a dent in the advantage Democrats have with women, then at least with the conservative base (except for on immigration, where she toes the Texas line).

    Kay Bay (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by txpolitico67 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:40:58 PM EST
    is actually more moderate than one thinks:  She is pro-choice and it sponsoring legislation right now on the challenges of biofuels and how it is affecting food prices.

    She also called for the banning of the gas tax when gas got to $2+ a gallon.

    I know a lot of conservative Dems who voted for her when she ran last time for Senate.  Kay Bay (what we call her here in TX) has worked her way up thru the ranks and is quite likeable.

    McCain would do well by picking her.  I doubt she'd do it.  Talk around these parts is she's after Governor Goodhair's job (pet name for Rick Perry bestowed by the great Molly Ivins).


    I like the pro-choice part (none / 0) (#108)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:49:51 PM EST
    but the biofuels/food prices thing and the gas tax thing are quite helpful to her main constituency -- big oil.

    Of course she agrees with Nader's runningmate that ethanol is not the way to go. Of course, you'll have to tell me if she offers any alternatives.


    She's not really pro-choice (none / 0) (#115)
    by andgarden on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:55:05 PM EST
    She gets 0s from NARAL.

    hmmmmm (none / 0) (#136)
    by txpolitico67 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:10:33 PM EST
    sorry about that then.  I should have fact checked that before I posted the pro-choice line.  I could have SWORN she was.  She voted against the appt of Leon Holmes, to the US District Court on his pro-life views.

    She is pro choice and supports embryonic stem cell research.

    Here are some links for the reading:




    My quick search is (none / 0) (#139)
    by andgarden on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:12:23 PM EST

    Kay Bailey Hutchison (R)
    U.S. Senate
    Pro-Choice Score: 0%

    She wants to be governor. (none / 0) (#154)
    by davnee on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:19:37 PM EST
    And she has already said no to being VP.  Now that is not to say that she wouldn't change her mind if she was actually asked, but I think McCain should go for a governor.  Contrast against the senate experience.  But no doubt that KBH would be a solid choice.  Probably the best woman the R's could put on the ticket.

    I can imagine McCain picking KBH for VP (5.00 / 1) (#208)
    by wasabi on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:54:49 PM EST
    KBH is not known for being brilliant.  Whether women will flock to the Republican ticket with a woman in the VP slot, who knows?  At least their party doesn't eat their own.  

    She's older than Hillary, too. I think she really (none / 0) (#68)
    by Angel on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:32:03 PM EST
    wants to be governor of Texas but she's arrogant enough to think she's qualified to be president.  And she's too connected to Bush.  A liability in my book since people are looking for "change."  

    Kay Bailey might unite women on the (none / 0) (#80)
    by bjorn on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:36:05 PM EST
    dem side to vote for Obama!

    LOL... (none / 0) (#82)
    by madamab on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:38:22 PM EST
    she's pretty odious.

    Nothing could get me to vote for Obama at this point though. ;-)


    Somehow the image of the campaign (none / 0) (#125)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:01:30 PM EST
    doesn't strike me as energizing.

    We're NOT? (none / 0) (#206)
    by oldpro on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:53:15 PM EST
    SOME of us are...

    If McCain were sincere with this concept... (none / 0) (#217)
    by AX10 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:02:25 PM EST
    he would take Sarah Palin (Alaska Governor) as his VP.  She is moderate enough to attract many women to the McCain ticket.  She also has a moderate record and is truly working for reform.

    Hutchinson would be but a token on his ticket.


    Kay Hutchinson would be a good VP (none / 0) (#259)
    by RalphB on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:54:13 PM EST
    for McCain.  I disagree that it would be only about getting women voters.  She's been mentioned in GOP circles as a Presidential candidate before.  I'm fairly confident that she will run someday, barring unforeseen circumstances.

    Kay Bailey Hutchison (none / 0) (#274)
    by cmugirl on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:01:13 AM EST
    I believe has plans to run for governor of Texas,although she would be a good addition to McCain's ticket.

    He could do "better" (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by andgarden on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:26:35 PM EST
    Kay Bailey Hutchison.



    I am going to hear and feel (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by ruffian on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:05:46 PM EST
    a rush of cold air, and maybe a howling wolf,  whenever I hear that name now.  Honestly, it is scary.  They would make great campaign partners too.

    I think Whitman is a great choice (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by Josey on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:32:02 PM EST
    especially since she's a former disgruntled employee of the Bush administration and McCain needs distancing from him.
    McCain won't select anyone from Texas!

    There's an image of her (none / 0) (#29)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:23:09 PM EST
    stating the air was perfectly fine for the 9/11 first responders and clean up crews that can't be shaken.

    Women are perceived differently in such matters.


    She is not well-regarded in the NYC area (none / 0) (#34)
    by ineedalife on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:23:28 PM EST
    anymore after her EPA said ground zero was safe for rescue and clean-up workers and it wasn't.

    I seriously doubt that she could take NJ over to the dark side for McCain.

    She may keep Republican women in-line if Hillary is on the ticket though.


    Well (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:29:22 PM EST
    I don't think McCain is going to carry NY so that's not where I was coming from. I was thinking more about states like PA and NJ where Obama is only a few points ahead or losing already.

    NJ is the NYC area (none / 0) (#66)
    by ineedalife on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:31:47 PM EST
    Whitman would be a drag in NJ, NY and Conn. I think.

    Speaking as a woman? (none / 0) (#36)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:24:02 PM EST
    Whitman-- bleaaccchhhh.

    that is the party's lookout (none / 0) (#53)
    by Salo on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:27:01 PM EST
    Whitman would be interesting.

    Christine Todd Whitman? (none / 0) (#59)
    by pie on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:29:15 PM EST
    Mrs. EPA, who declared the air at Ground Zero safe?

    Um, no.


    Yeah (none / 0) (#67)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:31:54 PM EST
    but how much does this matter outside of NY? I'm thinking places like PA where there are lots of suburban soccer moms that she might be able to pull in for McCain. The right wingnuts are going to vote for McCain so he might have to worry about securing the center of the electorate.

    Just my thoughts.


    As we all breathed it and said (none / 0) (#258)
    by nycstray on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:54:01 PM EST
    "No way in HE!! is this air safe!" Common freakin' sense was all that took.

    McCain-Swartenegger Ticket... would be (none / 0) (#86)
    by Exeter on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:40:48 PM EST
    interesting. I know, I know Swartenegger is not a "naturally born" citizen, but neither is McCain. Maybe the whole thing would force a Supreme Court decision that would examine the intent and meaning of "naturally born" and throw it out. Then we coud have Jenifer Granholm in 2012!

    Are you repeating spin? (none / 0) (#121)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:59:06 PM EST
    McCain was born to Americans stationed in Panama while on military service. He doesn't have dual citizenship from what I know.

    that's right (none / 0) (#202)
    by angie on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:51:47 PM EST
    Being born abroad to a US citizen who is in the service of his country is the same as being born on American soil. I myself was born in Athens, Greece as my father, a US citizen, was in the military & stationed there at the time. I am a natural born US citizen, and so is McCain.

    Ya, there's a winning strategy (none / 0) (#127)
    by dissenter on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:02:41 PM EST
    Let's put a bona fide war hero on trial over his citizenship. That should get some votes for the dems.

    You mean the woman who (none / 0) (#248)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:38:16 PM EST
    kowtowed to Bush and put out incorrect information about the air in NYC after 9/11? The woman whose lack of guts caused untold illness among the firefighters and police who worked at Ground Zero?? The woman who thinks it's ok to have 10 ppm of arsenic in our drinking water?? Oh yeah, she'll do fine. No woman I know would switch to McCain because he put Whitman on the ticket. She lied to the American public about their air, their water and the safety of their first responders. Even the judge agreed..
    U.S. District Court Judge Deborah A. Batts issued a ruling that rejected Whitman's request for immunity in a 2004 class action lawsuit brought by a group who claimed exposure to hazardous debris from the collapse of the World Trade Center. The judge stated that "No reasonable person would have thought that telling thousands of people that it was safe to return to lower Manhattan, while knowing that such return could pose long-term health risks and other dire consequences, was conduct sanctioned by our laws," and called Whitman's actions "conscience-shocking."
    (from Wikipedia)

    This is not what anyone would consider a good resume for higher office.


    Best Post Ever! (5.00 / 8) (#10)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:17:41 PM EST
    I so agree that if Obama selects a different woman for the ticket, the slap across Hillary's face would make it impossible for many, many voters to forgive him in time for a GE vote. I also think it would be a huge mistake for him to select a solid Hillary supporter (i.e., Rendell, Clark).

    A speculation this afternoon on Fox was Chuck Hagel. Interesting to select a Republican, but I take Hagel at his word that he is truly retiring completely from politics this year.

    I continue to believe that Hillary will be our eventual presidential candidate.

    Should Obama surprise us with the nom, whoever joins the ticket will be a one-term VP and go down with a less than stellar administration. I can't remember who Carter's VP was. I don't think Hillary could save him from himself. His arrogance has no boundaries.

    Walter Mondale (5.00 / 6) (#26)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:22:55 PM EST
    was his name. And he went down in flames in 1984. Like I said upthread, being a VP on a losing ticket is worse than not being on the ticket at all. I think Obama should offer it if he's the nominee but I would hope that she turns it down.

    I had to laugh at this tip of the hat for Obama (5.00 / 1) (#213)
    by Ellie on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:59:31 PM EST
    (I posted this quote in another thread but it's relevant here, too.)

    Technically, the thumbs up was for both candidates but given how Obama gamed the primary and HRC's numbers against McCain, maybe this is what got the Dems and (allegedly) Obama skittishly reconsidering a Unity Ticket after screaming at HRC for weeks to fold.

    The endorsement to end all endorsements:

    While Dukakis says he expects Obama will win the nomination, he does not believe Clinton should withdraw until after the last primary. In fact, the former Massachusetts governor says this long tough battle for the nomination may have made Obama better prepared to face John McCain. Dukakis went from a huge lead to a crushing defeat against George Bush Sr. [...] (Dukakis: Obama more prepared for McCain NECN TV, May 12, 2008)

    I expect when TeamObama read that, someone had to hold back his ears while he hurled his eyeballs out and waited a good long while before his stomach settled.


    lol@someone had to hold back his ears ;-) (5.00 / 2) (#261)
    by bridget on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:55:34 PM EST
    you know, I almost fell from my chair when I read Dukasis had not been ready for the attacks. Amazingly naive.

    And someone hold back my ears, too (if possible ;-) ... Kerry wasn't prepared to get attacked either? He didn't expect to get swiftboated? Well, he certainly didn't find it nec. to defend himself all those months. But where has he been the last two decades? He must have missed the hunting of Bill Clinton.

    So acc. to Dukakis we will not let that happen again? Somehow he doesn't convince me. He and his fellow Dems should have practiced fighting back a bit now during the primary when the media swiftboated Hillary nonstop.  


    Carter's VP was Mondale, another landslide loser (none / 0) (#71)
    by Xeno on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:32:45 PM EST
    Mondale ran for president against reagan in 1984. He was actually a very decent man and a great Democrat. Unfortunately, he ended up going down to epic defeat in the 1984 presidential election. He won only his home state of Minnesota and the District of Columbia. Mondale deserved better, but any Democrat would have been crushed by the reagan juggernaut that year.

    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by txpolitico67 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:12:29 PM EST
    Landslide Loser!  Great moniker.  I am sure that will apply to Obama if he's the nominee.  Guaranteed.

    especially with the list of liberal losers (5.00 / 0) (#180)
    by Josey on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:36:20 PM EST
    supporting him -- McGovern, Kennedy, Dukakis, Kerry...

    Other than FDR ... (none / 0) (#98)
    by Robot Porter on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:45:05 PM EST
    I cannot think of another losing VP candidate who went on to win the Presidency.  A lot have tried.

    And even FDR had to wait 12 years before he got his shot at the Presidency.


    I really don't get (5.00 / 6) (#11)
    by Lil on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:17:49 PM EST
    why a huge blow out in 2 states in a row is not relevant. I also don't get how last week coronated Obama. I ask earnestly if someone could explain this? I'm not asking for snarky responese about Obama. I just really don't understand how it has been neck and neck for all these months and now it is over in a lot of people's/pundit's minds. Anybody?

    It's all about the math (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by ChuckieTomato on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:19:31 PM EST
    The talking heads say it's over, so it must be true

    And with what is going on in Oregon?? (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by ineedalife on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:29:22 PM EST
    SUSA new poll says that 45% of the vote is in and they are tied. Of course they say that Obama is going to blow her out in the half of the vote yet to be cast but that margin is similar to what they said before any votes were cast. Both can't be true. Oregon may be really close in the end. If so the KY blowout news should dominate IMO.

    I thought latest SUSA had him up 11? (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by davnee on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:38:28 PM EST
    Is the tied on submitted votes thing for real?  That'd be some nice hope to motivate me on Wednesday phone calls to OR.  I want to use the WV result as a talking point for calls.  If she gets close in OR, this really could be a whole new ballgame.

    Keep calling all you can (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Kathy on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:54:35 PM EST
    I've been doing it every day for three weeks now.

    I doubt, however, that anyone knows for sure what the submitted votes are.  The official count doesn't get tallied until election night.  Pollsters can pretend they know by sampling X number of voters who report that they voted a certain way, but we really have no way of knowing.  Unless OR does it differently, if someone wants to correct me?

    Just remember what BTD said: If Obama loses TX, OH and PA, he's in big trouble.  And then Tim Russert: If Obama loses IN, he's in trouble.

    Listen to the folks who know.


    They do have him up 11 (none / 0) (#106)
    by ineedalife on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:48:28 PM EST
    but to get to that 11, he is projected to blow her out in the 57% of vote that is still out according to SUSA. So either most of Hillary voters ran right to the mail box with their ballots immediately, or there are a lot of "likely" voters who will not turn out to be real voters.

    This is counter-intuitive because it usually Obama that has the big early mail-in enthusiasm advantage. Of course, since OR is 100% mail-in it may be different there.


    Well, you just don't understand!! (5.00 / 3) (#262)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:56:24 PM EST
    He is the ONE!! He is going to save us from ourselves. Help us to be better people. He is going to give everyone a unity pony. He is the answer to everyone's prayers(thank God I don't pray!!) He is all things to all people. He is the Precious.

    That being said..Here is my theory...The DNC and the rest of the Dem Congresscritters don't want to actually have to DO ANYTHING in the next administration. So they want Obama who won't ask them to work. Hillary will.

    They also don't like the Clintons, who were the original outsiders. So anything to beat Hillary, including driving away a good chunk of the Democratic Party. Of course, all the new voters that Obama will bring into the party will make up for that. Those new voters who have only voted for Obama and not the down-ticket Dems. The DNC also wants to tap into that fundraising ability he has. He is going to share with them. Nice of him, don't you think?? Sounds to me like buying the Presidency, but hey, what do I know??

    They think that they can control Obama, they know they can't control Hillary.

    So, they and all the pundits are scared, she is doing very well and may end up with the popular vote majority at the end of the primaries. So they are saying it's over, and hoping we will believe them. We don't.


    The nomination process (none / 0) (#149)
    by digdugboy on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:15:14 PM EST
    counts delegates. There are two kinds -- pledged delegates and PLEOs (party leaders/elected officials), also known as superdelegates.

    Currently a candidate needs 2025 total delegates to vote for him or her in order to secure the party's nomination. That number may change if delegations from Florida and Michigan are seated before the convention.

    Pledged delegates are earned by the votes in a state's primary or its caucuses. Delegates are "proportionally allocated" to a candidate based on the number of votes that candidate received in each state. For example, in Ohio, Clinton won the popular vote by approximately a 9% margin. She received 75 pledged 75 and Obama received 66.

    Only six contests remain:

    West Virginia (28)
    Kentucky (51)
    Oregon (52)
    Montana (16)
    South Dakota (15)
    Puerto Rico (55)

    If you add these, you'll find 217 pledged delegates remain to be apportioned. There are 245 superdelegates who have not yet endorsed either candidate. Thus, 462 total delegates remain.

    Obama needs only 155 of these to secure his nomination. Clinton needs 327. Because of the way proportional allocation works, the best reasonable case scenario for Clinton is that she may get 60% of remaining pledged delegates, with big wins in WV and KY, which are predicted, and substantial wins everywhere else, which is less likely. That would give Hillary another 130 pledged delegates and Obama 86 more, bringing Obama's total delegate count to 1938, leaving him only 87 short of securing the nomination.

    To get to 2025 he needs 35% of the remaining uncommitted superdelegates to endorse him. Some political insiders believe he already has received commitments from enough superdelegates to take him over the top, and that these endorsements haven't been announced yet for political reasons. I tend to agree with this theory.

    Even if this is not correct, if you examine the superdelegate endorsement trend for the past several weeks, Obama has been receiving about 8 endorsements for every endorsement Hillary receives. The reasons for this are several, but suffice it to say that absent some kind of catastrophic, cataclysmic scandal implicating Obama, it's unlikely that this trend will reverse sharply enough to get Hillary to the magic number.

    In short answer to your question, resounding victories in WV and KY will not make a substantial difference in the pledged delegate count and are unlikely to provide any significant reason for superdelegates to migrate en masse to Clinton.


    Then what are the poitical reasons (none / 0) (#162)
    by Lil on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:23:48 PM EST
    for supers to hold back. On another note, I don't always agree with you (often, actually), but  appreciate your explanation. If what you're saying is the case then why did Pa. seem to matter at all?

    because before PA Obama (none / 0) (#184)
    by Josey on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:41:44 PM EST
    had not yet claimed himself the nominee.

    List of reasons (none / 0) (#223)
    by digdugboy on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:07:13 PM EST
    Here are some possible reasons why PLEOs might be holding back on their endorsements:

    1. Allowing the contest to continue, or to appear to continue, anyway, has been good for voter registration. Hopefully that will translate into greater turnout for democratic candidates from the top of the ticket on down. As BTD pointed out after NC and Indiana, there is no real downside to this so long as Senator Clinton campaigns for herself and against McCain, and not against Obama. I think superdelegates are aware of this calculus and are willing to allow Hillary to continue so long as she doesn't do any more of this 3 am phone call/CIC threshold campaigning.

    2. Party leadership is probably keenly aware of how angry some democrats, particularly Clinton supporters, are about the state of Florida and Michigan. I'm not going to debate the rightness of that. I'm just acknowledging it's a given. Thus, party leadership is probably loathe to risk inciting even more anger by having PLEOs decide the election before all states and territories have voted.

    This year is particularly delicate because, again as BTD has repeatedly pointed out, the election is mainly about demographics. There is a diarist at DKos named Poblana (who also runs FiveThirtyEight.com) who bested pollsters on outcomes for Indiana and North Carolina withoug doing a whit of polling. Instead, he predicted the vote based on statistical regressions with demographic data as input variables. My own sense is that when demographics so clearly define the outcome, there is even more emotion invested in supporting one's candidate. Thus, the added delicacy, and the even more worrisome nature of the Florida and Michigan controversy.

    3. Some PLEOs might still be waiting to see who they believe is the most electable. There are several factors that they can take into account, but they aren't required to consider all, or any. Some can endorse based on which candidate promises them the most.

    There must be other reasons as well.

    Your questionh about why PA seemed to matter?

    You may recall that two months ago my tagline said "It's over. Concede." Jeralyn demanded that I remove it or suffer banishment. But now, some Clinton campaign insiders acknowledge that the campaign really was over after Super Tuesday in February.

    The reason Pennsylvania seemed to matter so much was, in my opinion, a combination of (1) the media wanting it to matter, so they'd have a bigger story and (2) passion and hope of Clinton supporters overwhelming rationality of the delegate numbers.

    The importance of all contests after Super Tuesday has been a lot narrower than the media narrative has explained. The only real importance in those contests derived from the possibility that either candidate might do significantly better or worse than predicted based on the demographics of the state. That would have been a strong signal to superdelegates to look at the results more closely.


    That's the math, the high probabilities (none / 0) (#229)
    by Cream City on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:11:54 PM EST
    And then there's the possibilities.  Super-delegates can switch, as we have seen.  Unlikely that they will do so based on the electoral map (much as they ought to do so).  

    But other unlikely things can happen, as we certainly have seen in only the last month or so -- and there are many, many months to go.

    That is why "teh math" is not a certainty, except as reported by the media, because (a) they are not good at math, as is evident in so many stories from local school board budgets to the national economy, and (b) they have the attention span of gnats and are bored.  It is a long primary season and those on the road are hearing the same speeches over and over, and they want to come home to go on summer vacation before the Olympics.  


    I think we largely agree (none / 0) (#233)
    by digdugboy on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:19:00 PM EST
    although I would probably put it more simply: barring some unforeseen event that causes superdelegates to migrate en masse to Clinton, Obama will be the nominee.

    i have two words for you: (none / 0) (#185)
    by kangeroo on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:42:31 PM EST
    media corruption.

    p.s. here's a relevant (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by kangeroo on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:46:40 PM EST
    post by eric boehlert.  as boehlert says, it's unprecedented.  i'll add that it's also corrupt, wrong, and undemocratic.

    Because Oregon is a reliably (none / 0) (#211)
    by angie on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:58:46 PM EST
    blue state in the GE with 7 electoral college votes. WV & KY are "swing states" with 5 & 8 electoral college votes respectively that Hillary has a good chance to carry in the GE, and Obama has no chance to carry in the GE. This might not make too much sense because you have to use the Obama ROOLZ to see it.

    Oregon SEEMS reliable, (none / 0) (#271)
    by seeker on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:38:23 AM EST
    but there is a growing contingent of voters outside Portland (about 1/3 of the state's population, very "liberal")and 2 or 3 other cities who are independents, Republicans or "moderate" Democrats.

    This group could easily go to McCain and might be enough to turn the state red.


    Appalachia? (none / 0) (#250)
    by diogenes on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:41:32 PM EST
    Why is a huge blow out in two appalachian states relevant to much of anything?

    "and the loss is laid at Obama's feet." (5.00 / 9) (#17)
    by Angel on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:19:46 PM EST
    Not in a million years will the media lay this at Obama's feet.  It will be Hillary's fault, you know.  They will always blame her.  Sorry, BTD, but I disagree with you.  If Obama is the nominee then Hillary needs to stay as far away as possible from him lest she get hit by all the crap the republicans will throw at him in the general election.  

    I'm with you, Jeralyn (5.00 / 9) (#19)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:20:38 PM EST
    As I said in another thread, if VP is such a prize, give it to Harry Reid so that Hillary can run for majority leader.

    The notion that putting her on the bottom of the ticket will bring unity is IM(NS)HO, a pipe dream.

    Democrats would have to retain Majority (none / 0) (#87)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:40:52 PM EST
    in the Senate. Considering the way the democrats have managed the past two years, and the current nomination embarrassment, that could be quite a challenge.

    The state senator who is running for re-election in my state this year was a first term representative who lost her seat in the great purge of democrats mid-90's. I'm sure she's very concerned about her run for re-election during this fiasco.


    I agree with all the points you made, save one. (5.00 / 15) (#21)
    by Xeno on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:21:30 PM EST
    I will not vote for Obama in the fall if he is the nominee. Nor would I vote for any ticket that includes him.

    For years I thought of republicans who voted for Bush as fools for choosing to support someone so ill-prepared for the presidency. Obama is, in my opinion, just as unprepared as was Bush in 2000. How, then, can I justify voting for a man who is Bush's mirror image when I derided others who made the same choice? It would be rank hypocrisy, not to mention potentially as bad for the country electing Bush.

    Perhaps Obama will win the nomination. Perhaps he can even win in the fall, though I highly doubt that. However things shake out, he can do it without me. Since his supporters (online and off) have assured me that he can do without my support, I will take them at their word. The top of my ballot will be empty, which is the perfect metaphor for the empty suit the party leaders seem determined to nominate.

    Totally agree with you Xeno (5.00 / 11) (#37)
    by felizarte on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:24:20 PM EST
    I will be an independent if Obama wins the nomination, but until then, I am a democrat for Hillary.

    I'm changing to Indy, too, after 29 years (5.00 / 10) (#103)
    by Xeno on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:45:57 PM EST
    I first registered as a Democrat when I was 18, and I never imagined anything that could make me change my affiliation. The term "Yellow-dog Democrat" described me perfectly. But this primary season has forced me to reevaluate my long-held beliefs. Is every Democrat worth fighting for and voting for? Is there anything a Democratic presidential contender could do that would so disgust me that I could not in good conscience vote for him or her? Am I willing to set aside my principles in order to vote for someone whose policy positions I cannot support (insofar as he has articulated any) and whose campaign tactics I abhor?

    Once I answered those questions honestly, my course of action was set. It is only serendipity that the MVA sent me a voter registration form in the mail on Saturday. What should have been a wrenching decision is actually far easier than I would have believed.


    Thank you Xeno (5.00 / 8) (#70)
    by txpolitico67 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:32:20 PM EST
    you have summed up my EXACT feelings regarding BHO.  And these so called political experts don't see the parallels?  Unity? Change? The religion angle? Little if ANY political experience?

    America deserves what it gets if it elects yet another unprepared political neophyte.  I bet the media leaders LAUGH at the utter ignorance of the American voter.

    They are all saying, "Look ,we sold them on George Bush, let's see them get flim-flammed again with Obama!"  Har-de-har-fu****g-har-har.

    Nobama for me man.  He can do without my support, too.


    ''Win Without Me!'' is my slogan (5.00 / 8) (#129)
    by Xeno on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:04:05 PM EST
    Obama and some of his more pernicious supporters (Brazile comes to mind) have written off Clinton's supporters and viciously smeared us throughout the campaign. Well, I say let them win with the millions of newer, supposedly better voters they claim to have lined up to replace those of us who formed the party's base. If they find that there aren't as many of those morally superior "obamacans" voting in the GE, it'll be too damned late for him and the party he's leading to ruin.

    And think of the upside for us newly-minted independents. We're highly sought after by politicians of all stripes. Political consultants try to find ways of enticing elusive independent voters to vote for their candidates. Now that's we're such a hot commodity, maybe we can use our newfound clout to influence politicians to cater to our issues and priorities. That's way better than being so completely taken for granted by political hacks like Obama, Brazile and Dean that they feel comfortable insulting us and spurning our votes.


    Better yet (none / 0) (#151)
    by txpolitico67 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:16:29 PM EST
    a viable, third, INDEPENDENT political party.

    I am thinking of starting one.. (5.00 / 1) (#264)
    by FlaDemFem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:05:15 AM EST
    called The American Women's Party. The platform would be the issues important to American women. No more wars to kill our children. Heath care for everyone. Poverty programs to help people get out of poverty. Women's rights. Taxing the big corporations to pay for it all. Higher education for everyone who wants it. Men would be welcome if they supported the platform, but the party itself would be run by women. No more "don't worry your pretty little head about it" crap. And if a woman is referred to as "the little woman", it's because she is the shortest one in the room.

    I agree with you. (5.00 / 6) (#147)
    by AX10 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:14:07 PM EST
    Obama just reminds me too much of Bush.
    We cannot afford anymore of this.

    I'll take McCain with a Democratic congress.
    It's far from ideal, but most politicians are so.


    Carter was ruinous (5.00 / 5) (#160)
    by Kathy on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:23:45 PM EST
    and the reputation of dems as weak on just about everything was cemented.  A lot of younger folks can be quite attitudinal about their crystal clear vision of the party they've been a part of for about five years, but they do not realize how damaging a weak dem is, and how far-reaching are the consequences.  If Gore had been more of a fighter, and used Clinton, then we would not have Bush.  If Kerry hadn't been seen as basically man in name only, we would not still be in this useless war and our economy would not be in the toilet.  And here we are again, contemplating giving the nomination to someone who is battling those same negative perceptions, and whose surrogates are now saying we do not need the working class, which has been the core of the dem party for as long as I can recall.

    I will not stop fighting for Clinton.  The stakes are too high.


    No to a "unity ticket!" (5.00 / 11) (#23)
    by Radiowalla on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:21:53 PM EST
    I've been a strong HRC supporter ever since I realized Gore would not run.  I would not be placated by a "unity ticket," and I don't think it would help elect a Democrat in November.

    Obama is too much of a neophyte to national politics to run with Hillary Clinton at his side.   He needs an experienced male as VP to reassure voters that there is a grown-up in charge.  Hillary, for all her qualities, does not do enough to shore up Obama's considerable liabilities in the general.

    I really don't know who that VP choice should be, but it shouldn't be Hillary.

    Needs to reassue (5.00 / 8) (#45)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:25:42 PM EST
    voters there's a grown up in charge. Hmm where have I heard that one before. More and more the Obama situation sounds like Bush.

    No wonder 1/2 of the voters think McCain represents change.


    "experience" (none / 0) (#252)
    by diogenes on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:45:00 PM EST
    All of you have managed to forget that Hillary only has seven years of Senate experience, never ran anything either (like a state), and had only one major policy initiative (national health)in 1993 which was mucked up royally.
    How does balance a ticket in any way?

    Well, Obama doesn't even have that.. (5.00 / 2) (#268)
    by FlaDemFem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:16:01 AM EST
    He hasn't even had one term in the Senate. And his seven "years" in the Ill. senate turns out to be a grand total of 28 months. The Ill. legislature only meets four months a year. And for most of those years he didn't do much except try to get up the ladder. The elections he did win, he won by eliminating the competition before the race started.  And his opponent in the Senate race was Alan Keyes, who is just short of certifiable. The bills he claims were not his, he was put on as sponsor to "give him credibility". Credibility isn't something someone can give, it has to be earned. He associated with questionable people, and was part and parcel of one of the most corrupt political machines in the country. Hillary doesn't need that sort of baggage. Let Obama carry his own bags. He loaded them, after all.

    I nominate Teddy Kennedy as Obama's VP (5.00 / 5) (#25)
    by Angel on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:22:45 PM EST
    choice should he get the nomination.  /snark

    Awesome!! (5.00 / 9) (#32)
    by txpolitico67 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:23:23 PM EST
    Jeralyn, YOU should be on HRC's campaign.  That line about her remaining in to win and her supporters standing with her, is amazing.

    I for one do NOT want to see a unity ticket.  I think it would wreak of hypocrisy.  I am hoping that she does very well in the next string of elections and changes the minds of superdelegates.

    I want her to take this to the convention floor.  If BHO is the nom we are doomed.  If Rezko is convicted that's just more fuel to the fire considering what that atty said that he was a BHO backer (or something to that affect).

    No Clinton Dynasty="change" (5.00 / 4) (#33)
    by Salo on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:23:26 PM EST
    what gets me mad about it--is that Clinton is going to get blamed if he loses. Even though the Dem voters led the lamb to the slaughter.

    She's simply illustrated his flaws.

    She didn't drive anyone to vote for him because they wanted "change".  

    It's not Hillary's fault (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by ChuckieTomato on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:44:07 PM EST
    Change only works if you can explain what kind of change you want to bring...

    Change is so abstract


    Good thoughts on this whole (5.00 / 8) (#41)
    by hummingbirdv on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:24:47 PM EST
    VP thing.  IT'S NOT OVER YET.  Let everyone vote for gosh sakes.  How many times do we have to say it....  EVERYONE gets to vote and this is going all the way to the convention.  

    Senator Clinton knows what she is doing and she's in it to win.  Millions of voters want her as our 44th President and that is still possible.  By the end of the primaries it is very likely she will be ahead in popular vote and even now it is obvious that she can win against McCain in electoral votes.

    I like a Clinton/Edwards ticket.  How about speculating on that for a change.  Now there's a winning ticket!

    Go Hill Go!

    I like Edwards, but he wasn't qualified to be (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Exeter on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:48:49 PM EST
    President. He's arguably less qualified than Obama, who, if nominated will be have the thinnest resume of any major party candidate.

    As long as that Edwards (none / 0) (#79)
    by txpolitico67 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:35:18 PM EST
    is Elizabeth.  I LOVE Mrs. Edwards as much as I do HRC.  

    I would LOVE to see a debate where she takes on the GOP VP nominee on healthcare.


    That would be a great ticket (none / 0) (#85)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:40:01 PM EST
    He's morphed from losing candidate to party elder, like Gore. The real winners with that ticket would be the American people.  I don't know if he'd take it though. She probably needs someone who can cement a win in Ohio or PA.

    Hmmmm (none / 0) (#102)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:45:53 PM EST
    he can't bring in his own state, and I'm not sure he was a great help to Kerry. I like him a lot, but I would guess Elizabeth would have campaigned for his run at the presidency, but not VP. He has only been a 1 term Senator, right? I'd like to see him on the Supreme Court.

    Include me out. (none / 0) (#246)
    by oldpro on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:35:01 PM EST
    No to Edwards.



    Jeralyn, (5.00 / 12) (#42)
    by pie on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:24:54 PM EST
    I agree completely.

    She needs to do whatever she can to remain influential and powerful.

    She has surprised many Americans and has gained a lot of respect in her run for the presidency.  Many of the old smears and misconceptions have faded.  Whatever happens, she'll come out ahead.

    Go Hillary.

    What a fabulous role model she is.

    First And Foremost (5.00 / 6) (#46)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:25:43 PM EST
    I don't see any indication that Obama wants Hillary to be VP. In fact, based on all his surrogates coming out against it, I think Obama is strongly against the idea.

    Which is O.K. by me since I don't want her in the VP slot. I'm now an independent voter and Obama will have to win my vote. No VP can win it for him but a pro-life VP like Strickland would make it even more likely that I use the write in option in November.

    Strickland (5.00 / 5) (#56)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:28:26 PM EST
    Yep, he would certainly negate the "you have to vote for Obama because of Roe!" argument, wouldn't he.

    I stand with Hillary as long as she wants to fight (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by Joelarama on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:29:10 PM EST
    for the nomination.  She is truly neck-and-neck with Obama, and I have never seen such demands for withdrawal from Democrats (did we see this for Bradley or Kennedy? No.)

    And I do not desire to talk about a "unity" ticket if the motive is to get Hillary out of the race before she wants to.

    I do want a unity candidate because I believe there is no other way for a Democrat to be elected, which must happen this year.  

    I believe the party is split, and it's because we have two candidates who, to varying extents, excite support because of them, personally.  Many voters will vote for either Democrat, but there are enough voters with a personal stake in their candidate winning that there must be a "personal union" (can't think of a better term) rather than the usual geographic one (e.g. North/South), or policy one (e.g. liberal/centrist).

    The disunity is personal.

    Great point on "picking another woman," BTW.  I agree it would be offensive tokenism.

    Agree with Jeralyn (5.00 / 10) (#62)
    by just victory on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:30:08 PM EST
    let him go forth against McCain in November without leaning on Hillary or choosing another female VP candidate just because he wants the female vote.

    Read your entire post out loud to my household, Jeralyn. Everybody cheered.

    Wow, thanks (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:41:15 PM EST
    I just smiled from ear to ear as I read that.

    I should read that aloud to my family (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by txpolitico67 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:23:46 PM EST
    too.  All I could offer to you though Jeralyn is two barking pups and wagging tails.  That darn cat isn't home...as usual!

    3 AM call (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by CSTAR on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:33:15 PM EST
    It is all too frequent that women that report to men end up doing all the work. My expectation would be that the infamous 3AM call would be from Obama to Hillary: "what do I do now?"

    SNL (none / 0) (#96)
    by txpolitico67 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:44:54 PM EST
    actually spoofed that very scenario.  Quite funny too

    I cringe at that reference (none / 0) (#112)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:52:24 PM EST
    to 3 am. Even emailed Hillary's campaign HQ to beg them never to use it again. If you've ever seen the movie "Exocism of Emily Rose" that is the hour referenced. Not sure I had anything to do with it, but when they reworked that ad, the clock section was removed.

    Obama will have to earn my vote (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by indy woman on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:34:28 PM EST
    whether or not Hillary is on the ticket.  If Obama is the nominee he will have to convince me that he deserves my vote. He and his campaign are currently giving out signs that they think they can win by turning out huge nos. of the AA vote and the white liberal vote.  I think that will be a mistake similar to the mistake that Bush turned out to be.
    IF elected President, he needs to remember that he is president for the whole country, not just a select few.

    Hillary Deserves The Top Spot For Sure. I (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:43:25 PM EST
    think someone needs to remind the msm that IN was the tie-breaker per obama and HIllary won.  I don't think they will be able to push her back into the background with back-to-back huge wins in WVA and KY.  It looks too like the race is tightening in OR and if she blows out PR...whooooeeee!!

    And don't forget that if she was the VP (5.00 / 0) (#230)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:11:56 PM EST
    in Obama's administration, she would have all the baggage accumulated during his sure-to-be-incompetent administration to worry about in 2012. She shouldn't be stuck with his failures. She should go back to the Senate and make sure he keeps his promises. And if anyone thinks that Michelle is going to allow Obama to pick Hillary as a VP, or allow him to accept VP in her administration, they are nuts. I want someone to ask Obama why he thinks he can run the country when he can't even control his wife's mouth on the campaign trail. If I ever meet him, I sure will.

    I just looked at the SUSA site and it has Oregon: (none / 0) (#101)
    by Angel on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:45:47 PM EST
    Obama 54 to Hillary 43...that's tightening???  Or is there something out there that I've missed?

    I Said That Based On Another Post On Here (none / 0) (#119)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:58:31 PM EST
    ...and 11 points is better than it was.

    Go back and look (none / 0) (#124)
    by ineedalife on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:01:03 PM EST
    at the part with actual votes cast versus "likely voters".  According to them 43% of the vote has actually been cast and the race is close, Obama by 1 point. This is just their polling so it may be far off. I have no idea if a person is more forthcoming about how they actually voted versus how they plan to vote.

    Jeralyn, you have my absolute respect and (5.00 / 0) (#104)
    by TN Dem on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:46:30 PM EST
    I appreciate your take on this subject, and I agree that this amazing woman would make an excellent President and therefore I would be disappointed with a VP slot. I have to note though, that I don't think I could vote against Hillary should she take a VP spot on Obama's ticket, but I am not sure at all that I can go pull the trigger for Obama this fall without her there.

    This quandary leads me to not know what to wish for as far as a unity ticket is concerned.

    I will go nuclear if he puts another woman on. (5.00 / 3) (#118)
    by davnee on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:57:55 PM EST
    That's clear.  That would be a tremendous slap.  Especially since there isn't really any woman out there in HRC's league that would be a fair trade.  I'm definitely voting for McCain then just for the face-spiting pleasure of it all.

    I don't personally want Hillary on the ticket, mainly because I want her inoculated from the BO train wreck.  Even if he won somehow in November, I think he will be a failed president, so that will tarnish her if she's stuck in office with him.  How could she run against him in 2012 then?  Besides I think she can do more for the country in the Senate.  But on that point I defer to her judgment.  If she wants to be VP instead then I support that for her.  And since I live in a state that will be red regardless with BO up top, I have no Lily Tomlin style cognitive dissonance problem in just leaving the slot blank or begrudgingly voting BO if HRC can somehow convince me during the campaign that it isn't all absolute farce.

    But putting aside my own feelings, I'm not sold that she is the best choice for him.  And not because of the insult to women.  She might win him just enough in a state like OH or PA to get him over the top, and maybe she keeps CA from defaulting to competitive.  But that may really depend on how much he embraces and empowers her and her agenda.  But to be honest, she might also hurt him at the margins with indies who are rabidly anti-Clinton courtesy of the 90's and she might be an extra dose of red meat for the Republican base when it comes to turn out.  But seriously, I don't think anyone can really help BO.  Either the structural factors like the economy and Bush fatigue are going to be enough to combat his weaknesses, or the R's are going to sink him outright with the 1,000 page dossier of anti-Americanism, hypocrisy, liberalism, inexperience and angry blackness they've got waiting for him.  Hillary Clinton, heck Uncle Sam himself, isn't going to combat that if the slime sticks to him.

    Hillary should never (5.00 / 4) (#130)
    by Coldblue on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:05:03 PM EST
    accept a VP position to Obama.

    If the AA's and the 'Creative Class' can't pull it off with their candidate alone, so be it.

    Democrats have weathered worse storms than losing the presidency in 2008.

    I don't care about Democrats (none / 0) (#135)
    by ruffian on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:09:34 PM EST
    As much as I do the country and getting out of Iraq.

    As Hillary and Edwards have both said, they will be just fine after this election, either way.  It is the rest of us that need to be worried.


    I'm not convinced (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by Coldblue on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:20:03 PM EST
    that Obama is the country's best choice, so while I would prefer a Democrat and will not vote for McCain I'm not ready to follow in lock step like I thought I would.

    100% agree. (none / 0) (#167)
    by Lil on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:25:48 PM EST
    Here's How This is Going to Work (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by Edgar08 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:12:42 PM EST
    x = number of Clinton supporters who will vote for Obama regardless of his running mate.

    y = number of Clinton supporters who will vote for Obama if he chooses Clinton as his running mate.

    y - x = n

    My opinion is "n" is a very low number.  

    Not ready to give up and not ready to make nice. (5.00 / 6) (#142)
    by Anne on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:12:51 PM EST
    It's not over.

    Should each consider the other for the VP spot?  Had Obama not spent months using one wedge after another to court voters who seem less progressive the more I look at them, had every comment directed at her not been of the same tone and tenor as "you're likeable enough, Hillary," had he not, on every occasion when he forced himself to declare her an admirable candidate, smirked or grinned in derision, had he not demonized two of the most dedicated public servants we have - well, maybe we might be feeling better about this so-called Unity Ticket.

    I see Obama as Democratic Party poison.  I see him setting back race relations decades.  He has been bad on gender issues.  One GOP talking point after another; paging Joe Lieberman, anyone?

    She's smarter, more mature - which has nothing to do with her age - she works harder and longer, she's not afraid of anything.

    If she's willing to keep going, I'm willing to keep going.

    And the latest, that the anti-war movement... (5.00 / 2) (#256)
    by lambert on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:51:06 PM EST
    ... attacked the troops: That's as vicious a right wing smear as there is. That's the dolchstosslegende from Germany after WW I. "The __ s stabbed the troops in the back!"

    I'm gotten used to right wing talking points from Obama, but that takes things to a whole new low.


    My son was married this past week-end... (5.00 / 9) (#145)
    by Shainzona on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:13:12 PM EST
    (yup, I'm happy and proud!) and I met a women at the reception (God,m we were like sisters in two minutes!!) who worked in the Kennedy/Johnson WH for 7 years....she is beside herself that BO would even think he was qualified to be POTUS.  As she said - many times - we do not need another Carter lightweight to solve the problems that we face after 8 years of the most stupid POTUS ever.

    Your New Friend (5.00 / 8) (#157)
    by cal1942 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:21:02 PM EST
    is not the only who's beside themselves that Obama imagines that he's even remotely qualified to be President.

    But I have to say also that Obama doesn't come close to Carter.

    By comparison Carter was a towering giant.


    Yes, Carter at least ran a state (5.00 / 3) (#168)
    by Kathy on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:25:52 PM EST
    and knew government inside and out.

    Unfortunately, he makes a better ex-president than a president.

    We need a fighter.  We need a Clinton.


    It's interesting that the first time I saw this (5.00 / 10) (#166)
    by Joelarama on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:25:29 PM EST
    comparison to Jimmy Carter made effectively was in an interview with Cher, of all people.

    She answered a question about her support for Hillary by telling a story.  She said she had dinner at the White House just after a very good man had been elected president.  She listened with admiration as he talked about how he had come to Washington to do great things for America -- very high-minded and idealistic things.   That man, Cher said, was then torn apart by the DC establishment and the media.  

    The interviewer at that point asked a question that implied Cher was talking about Clinton.  Cher said, no, it was Jimmy Carter, whom she still believes is a great man, but who was not cut out to be President.

    She said she supports Hillary because she will knee-cap the media and Washington people right back when they go after her, whereas Obama will be slaughtered.

    Yes, it's Cher.  But that pretty much sums up why my gut made me go for Hillary.


    God, I love Cher (5.00 / 5) (#170)
    by Kathy on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:28:24 PM EST
    There is a reason she's still relevant.  It's the reason Clinton is still in the race.

    me too, that interview she did (5.00 / 3) (#173)
    by bjorn on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:30:26 PM EST
    was very cool.

    And Sonny (none / 0) (#195)
    by oldpro on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:46:41 PM EST
    is still dead.

    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by Dax on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:13:18 PM EST
    Jeralyn makes a lot of good points, and she gets the bottom line exactly right, IMO:  Regardless of who's on top, it's just not a balanced ticket.  Two liberal senators from safe democratic states.  Not a good formula.

    Obama as VP (5.00 / 5) (#158)
    by mjames on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:22:08 PM EST
    IMO, aside from the fact that it is insulting to Clinton personally, putting her on the ticket as VP does very litle for the party's chances. I, for one, a Dem all my life, cannot - and will not - vote for Obama this year.
    In fact, if Obama really cared about the party, he'd acknowledge he has much less chance at winning the GE than Clinton and then accept second place as her VP. Then, after her 8 years, he'd get his 8 - and maybe by then he might actually have some qualifications for the job. And by then some of us under-the-bus female seniors might be either dead or able to tolerate his arrogance a little better.
    So, I think it actually falls to Obama to save the Dems by accepting the VP slot (for which he has no actual qualifications either). Then he'd really be the Unity guy.  

    One is left with the ludicrous image of (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by blogtopus on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:22:55 PM EST
    A biker carrying his motorcycle around. The order is supposed to have the better candidate at the top, period. Amazing.

    if you keep a dispassionate view (5.00 / 2) (#165)
    by Andre on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:25:14 PM EST
    of the three candidates, Hillary Clinton is the only President amongst them. She is the 900 pound gorilla in the room (if you'll excuse the metaphor). And the superdelegates know it.

    What is known by Rove, Hillary, and 42, and probably many other very knowledgeable people in this country is that Obama cannot win. His biggest liability is his lack of experience.  He is literally a tabula rasa waiting to be defined.  

    Hillary, in the biggest error of her campaign (not Mark Penn as some would have us believe) did not define him, mainly because she did not want to destroy him, which is what it would have taken.  Indeed, this sensitivity on her part is what makes her the President amongst the three.

    If he wins the nomination and asks her to be his running mate, she will take it because she knows he will not win, and she will work her ass off working for him, and get the admiration of all (she is the President), but he will lose. This is the fact here: Obama is a pig's ear waiting to be made into a silk purse but it will never happen because there is nothing there to work with. To compare Hillary to Obama is kind of silly, like comparing MIT to a local nursery.

    On my part, I think she would be outstanding in the job, possibly a potential latter day FDR, depending on the other powers that be in this country (mainly whatever is left of the so called "left").  And further, to my mind, the big losers in this whole thing are the bloggers, and, if McCain self destrusts and loses, the American people.    

    Great post, Jeralyn (5.00 / 2) (#169)
    by chancellor on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:28:04 PM EST
    I would also add that, unlike BTD, I do see policy differences between Hillary and Obama, especially on health care, mortgage foreclosures, and other economic issues. I would not like to see her have to push for a health care plan or economic plans she didn't believe in. I also think that since she's a fighter an Obama is a compromiser she'd have the same level of irritation with Obama that Edwards had with Kerry when Kerry decided not to go after the swiftboaters and not to go after the Ohio recount.

    About voting for McCain..... (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by Andre on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:36:10 PM EST
    the whole buyer's remorse thing may weigh heavily on anybody who blindly votes D.  Many repugs got a very favorable view of Gore and 42 at about year six of 43's presidency.  The country is far more important than the Democratic party.  The key question is 'does no experience (think W with less experience) work for you better than the wrong experience?'.  Both of those alternatives have to be thought out in all their ramifications before a decision is made.

    Jeralyn, you are a voice of reason (5.00 / 2) (#183)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:39:20 PM EST
    and passion. Your posts on the Clinton campaign are always heartening. It keeps us going. Thank you.

    "Unity ticket" is code for ... (5.00 / 5) (#192)
    by dwmorris on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:46:03 PM EST
    Clinton may be the only hope for the DNC and Obama campaign to salvage the 2008 election from the horrendous mess they've made.

    This election cycle was absolutely wired for Democrats to take the White House, extend the majority in the House, and possibly even achieve a filibuster-proof 60-seat majority in the Senate. Rather than working together to hit the trifecta, our Party squandered the opportunity in a mind boggling orgy of anti-Clinton self-indulgence.

    Assuming he gets the nomination (which is, thankfully, still not certain), Obama is probably unelectable ... and Hillary will get the blame regardless of what transpires between now and November and regardless of whether she's on the ticket or not.

    I hope she lets them stew (alone) in their own juices and then tries again in 2012 on a "I told you so" platform.

    Yes the Dems have messed it up (5.00 / 3) (#221)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:05:46 PM EST
    incredibly. Particularly with Florida and Michigan. The way to fix it is to let those popular votes and delegate votes count before the June primaries are over so the superdelegates can use accurate numbers in arriving at their decision. They will then feel comfortable changing their commitment back to Hillary. Hillary can then be the nominee and the Dems will have an easier time winning in November.

    Note I don't say Obama can't win, only that Hillary is more likely to win against McCain. It's because Dems have been losing support among four key groups in recent years and she is more likely to regain them: older voters, women voters, catholic voters and Hispanic/Latino voters. See my prior posts on electability.


    Obama's electability cannot be ... (5.00 / 1) (#267)
    by dwmorris on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:10:35 AM EST
    reasonably assessed until he has been tested by the Republicans. The argument that he has been "vetted" by virtue of his campaign against a fellow Democrat is fallacious self-serving spin from the Obama camp (despite their rhetoric that Hillary will sell her soul to win).

    It seems to me, our best hope is that Hillary gets as close as possible in the delegate count and then suspends her campaign until August -- under the hope that Obama has a bad self/Republican-inflicted summer.


    A unity ticket isn't going to happen. Obama is (5.00 / 1) (#214)
    by tigercourse on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:00:19 PM EST
    backed to varrying degrees by Daschle, Kennedy, Kerry, Pelosi and likely Dean. None of these people want a unity ticket. He's their man, and he's by and large going to follow their orders. It isn't going to happen. Whenever his various supporters come out and tell Clinton to take a hike, that's Obama saying NO to the unity ticket.

    I officially retract (5.00 / 1) (#255)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:48:35 PM EST
    my delusion for unity.  Had my dinner and thought about it.  BTD if thought my idea that Hillary could rewrite the role of VP was absurd.  Therefore I think that BTDs and any Obama offer for unity is not genuine and therefor I made a mistake.  I take my unity card back.  Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea culpa.  Only if Hillary finds a use for it would I accept it.

    I really still have a heavy distaste (5.00 / 2) (#269)
    by masslib on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:19:06 AM EST
    for this idea.  I think BO can not win without her, but I don't know why she would want to be his lackey.  So, again, only if she wants it, and I suspect she does.  Having said that, I still think Hill will lead in the pop vote by the end of this.  I think it's an embarrassment that the nomination will be given to the candidate who didn't win one big electoral state, save his own.  I think Hill by far has the broadest base of support, which would have been tremendous for Dems.  I have to laugh at BTD's notion that he will do better in the West.  McCain will win the mountain west.  You can put that in the bank.  Hill could win TX.  Hill won AZ and NM in the primaries, but again McCain will win the mountain west.  Anyone who thinks Utah or Wyoming is going Dem, I have a bridge to sell you.  Further, BO peaked in February.  He's a terrible top of ticket candidate and I think his little elitist coalition(save african americans) is not good for the Party.  I still have faith in Hill.  If she wants the VP spot she has earned it.  She's always been a good campaigner.  Her problem was two-fold.  No caucus strategy(thanks for nothing, Penn).  And, all ot the Dem men running against just her.  Congrats fellows.  You probably successfully stopped the first woman President.  At this point given her big wins against all odds does anyone believe she would have a problem getting elected?  No one even makes that argument anymore.  So, BTD, on that, you were wrong.  She was always most electable.

    I am so not for (5.00 / 2) (#270)
    by Serene1 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:24:23 AM EST
    the "Unity Ticket".

    Speaking for myself, I would feel very offended if Hillary were to settle for Obama's VP position. To us women, Hillary represents a lot and then to see her - an extremely qualified and accomplished womean - become literally an assistant to an underqualified male with zero accomplishment would rankle bad. It would constantly remind us of the uphill batlle we face. Hillary is too symbolic to women's struggle to be sacrificed for the good of the party. I would rather, if she looses the nomination, to wait it out for 4 years and then again stake a claim in 2012.

    Ok, last night I said if Hill (5.00 / 1) (#272)
    by masslib on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:38:53 AM EST
    wanted the VP spot, I'd support her, but I can't.  I just do not like Obama.  i think he's an empty suit, and why should she carry him over the finish line?  Nope.  Not happening.

    I would like Hillary to run for pres in 2012 (5.00 / 1) (#273)
    by Lisa on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:36:16 AM EST
    I'd rather she stay in the Senate and show Kerry and Kennedy how it's done.

    just wanted to add (5.00 / 1) (#275)
    by Lisa on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:05:09 AM EST
    After a lifetime as a Democrat, I switched to Independent, too, in protest of the way Kennedy, Kerry, and the Clown Class has treated Hillary and women voters.

    I cannot in good conscience vote for Obama for president - he's quite simply not qualified for the job.  Furthermore, I believe he will make the country worse off than it is now, in many ways, due to his lack of experience, judgment, and character.  Jimmy Carter was at least not crooked.  Naive perhaps, but not crooked.  McCain, despite his faults, will do a far better job than Obama.

    Also reading one of the comments above, it is truly disgraceful how Obama backers completely deny Hillary's extensive national experience of 8 years as the president's most trusted advisor.  Obama backers just keep on driving us to McCain with this disrespect.  Keep it up.


    west virginia (5.00 / 2) (#276)
    by tedsim on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:35:06 AM EST
    Today on MJoe in the last minute when they didn't realize the mike was still on tweetybird said to axelrod west viginia was going to be a problem and axelrod said I know it. 5-13-08

    Wow (2.00 / 0) (#172)
    by flyerhawk on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:30:09 PM EST
    I really don't get this place.  First off since when did Hillary become the most qualified woman in politics?  Diane Feinstein?  Kathleen Sebelius?  Both of them certainly have more extensive resumes and accomplishments than Hillary.  You may LIKE Hillary more but this notion that she is clearly the most qualified seems utterly silly.

    Secondly I don't get how this sort of comment is ok...

    In fact, it would be rubbing salt in the wounds of her already disappointed supporters. Like showing off the new girlfriend to the jilted one. I think millions would stay home.

    You guys are always complaining about sexism but then you choose to make that analogy?  

    I heard Obama supporters (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by bjorn on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:33:52 PM EST
    voted for Sebelius and Richardson as top VP choices for Obama.  I have to admit I don't know much about Sebelius but her speech after the stat of the union was a sleeper.  But I don't think she could help Obama get Kansas. If you guys think you can win with Obama and Richardson we are in big trouble.

    For many people (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by andgarden on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:35:53 PM EST
    politics is intensely personal.

    I've gotten close enough to the sausage making not to feel that way about particular individuals, but some do. I try not to begrudge them that.  


    There's a whiff of condescension there (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by Edgar08 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:38:33 PM EST
    That I'll try to ignore.

    I know you didn't mean it in the way it sounded to me.


    well... (5.00 / 3) (#231)
    by Kathy on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:12:30 PM EST
    So many of us have worked on different dem campaigns for DECADES.  We were in the back rooms and on the phones and in the motorcade.  We were at the strategy meetings and the daily rushes and the internals and the press conferences and the rope lines.

    We don't only know how the sausage is made, we made it with our own bare hands.

    That used to buy you some respect.  I guess this is the new dem party and the rest of us are either deluded or don't understand what is at stake.


    I understand (none / 0) (#188)
    by flyerhawk on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:44:01 PM EST
    that politics can be very personal for some people.

    But that doesn't excuse making counter-factual claims.  If I were to say Obama is the most experienced candidate in the field I suspect that few would pass up the opportunity to criticize that comment, and with good reason.

    As Jeralyn notes, I suspect that they don't really help each other as much as some may think.  In fact it is possible that Obama, or Hillary if she were to get the nomination, will be forced to select some white guy as their running mate.  I don't know.  The campaign will do extensive research on this I'm sure.  But I don't believe that they really help each other much.  


    I'm pretty sure (none / 0) (#193)
    by andgarden on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:46:06 PM EST
    that a generic white guy would help not at all.

    The point is party unity, and my feeling is that these are the only two who can offer it anymore.


    As I said (none / 0) (#201)
    by flyerhawk on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:51:03 PM EST
    I really don't know the answer to that question.  People who study this much more thoroughly than any of us will need to figure it out.  

    If the primary is settled by the middle of June I am fully confident that the party will unite.  They will have 6 months to realize that neither Hillary or Obama are Republicans and what the Republicans are offering is ghastly.  

    IOW, the Republicans are the greatest uniting force among Democrats.


    Hillary is the most qualified women (5.00 / 3) (#189)
    by Andre on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:44:45 PM EST
    in this country today to be president.  Just listen to her for fifteen minutes for crissakes.

    And there is nothing wrong with that analogy.  Perfectly descriptive.


    We don't expect you to get it (5.00 / 4) (#212)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:59:28 PM EST
    Sorry, but we all do. And Diane Feinstein is a Republican lite. The only ticket she'd be a good fit for is Joe Lieberman.

    Well that's fine (2.00 / 0) (#226)
    by flyerhawk on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:09:42 PM EST
    But when you basically say "It's a woman thing, you wouldn't understand" you are implicitly accept that there is a difference between men and women and that it separates us.

    Diane Feinstein? (5.00 / 1) (#227)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:09:51 PM EST
    * Voted in FAVOR of funding the Iraq War without conditions;

    • Voted in FAVOR of the Bush White House's FISA bill to drastically expand warrantless eavesdropping powers;
    • Voted in FAVOR of condemning MoveOn.org;
    • Cast the deciding vote in August on the Senate Judiciary Committee in FAVOR of the nomination of far right Bush nominee Leslie Southwick to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.

    In 2006, Feinstein not only voted in favor of extending the Patriot Act without any of the critical safeguards sought by Sen. Feingold, among others, but she was one of the most outspoken Democratic proponents arguing for its extension ("I have never been in favor of allowing any provisions of the Patriot Act to expire."). Also in 2006, she not only voted in favor of amending the Constitution to outlaw flag burning, but was, as she proudly described herself, "the main Democratic sponsor of this amendment." Greenwald

    Jeralyn said Republican-lite (none / 0) (#244)
    by bjorn on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:30:43 PM EST
    maybe that was generous.

    Wow, yourself. (none / 0) (#182)
    by Lil on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:39:09 PM EST
    That comment is not the same thing in terms of outside sexist remarks. I suspect you know that alraedy,

    Why don't you explain it then? (none / 0) (#196)
    by flyerhawk on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:48:03 PM EST
    I'm all ears.  Instead of simply hiding behind claims of "It is because it is" how bout you, or anyone else, explain the difference?  

    I can't speak to Sebelius... (none / 0) (#205)
    by bjorn on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:52:50 PM EST
    I don't know anything about her.  If Diane Feinstein was running it might have been interesting.  We could compare resumes and we would probably still disagree about the quality or type of experience.  So what are the criteria you suggest we use?

    Think of it like this (none / 0) (#200)
    by Edgar08 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:49:35 PM EST
    If it suits your fancy.

    You know how a black person supporting Obama can say the N-word and nobody will call him or her racist.  But I can't.

    Well.  A woman supporting Clinton can use "girlfriend" analogies without being called sexist.  But you, Mr. Rock, Mr. Cohen and countless others can NOT.


    I see (1.00 / 0) (#220)
    by flyerhawk on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:05:31 PM EST
    So it's a special insider type thing?  

    Oddly enough I always felt the use of the N word by anyone was demeaning even if it is considered acceptable for some to say it.  But that's just me.


    Mr Rock (none / 0) (#228)
    by Edgar08 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:09:58 PM EST
    Would disagree with you about that.

    Mr. Rock (none / 0) (#235)
    by flyerhawk on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:20:58 PM EST
    is a comedian.  

    I certainly never took him (none / 0) (#242)
    by Edgar08 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:29:12 PM EST

    Are those women running to be on the ticket? No? (none / 0) (#236)
    by Ellie on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:21:03 PM EST
    Then the hypothetical isn't really relevant to gauging Sen. Clinton's merits in this context, is it? (She wasn't my first choice, but she far outdoes Obama in every important category I consider relevant to getting my support.)

    It didn't work for Mondale (none / 0) (#8)
    by ChuckieTomato on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:17:28 PM EST

    Well... (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Exeter on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:26:02 PM EST
    that was different, though. It probably did help Mondale a little, because he was an old white guy.

    Mondale (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by cal1942 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:29:46 PM EST
    didn't have a snowball's chance.

    If Jesus of Nazareth had been his running mate the outcome would have been the same.

    By the way; in a comment you made a couple of days ago; you said that FDR had never carried VA and NC.

    FDR carried both VA and NC all four times. FDR carried every state of the old Confederacy in all four elections.  We used to call it the 'solid South.'


    Not what I said re-read my comments so you won't (none / 0) (#218)
    by ChuckieTomato on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:04:14 PM EST
    attribute something to me that I didn't say. I said in 2000, 04, and particularly and especially 08.

    But that has nothing to do with the subject thread so I don't see the point you are making.


    Do you have a theory (none / 0) (#12)
    by digdugboy on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:17:52 PM EST
    for how big wins for Hillary in WV and KY could make a difference in the nomination?

    Maybe the supers will give it more weight (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by ChuckieTomato on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:22:55 PM EST
    TV talking heads are treating Kentucky and West Virginia differently than S.C. and N.C.

    Demographics predict big wins for each particular candidate but Hillary isn't getting the spin that he got from S.C. and N.C.


    I gave it in my post (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:26:54 PM EST
    please go back and reread.

    What odds would you place on your theory? (none / 0) (#153)
    by digdugboy on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:18:54 PM EST
    not giving odds (none / 0) (#164)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:24:54 PM EST
    I'm content to wait for the remaining votes and for events to unfold.

    I just added a poll to the post (none / 0) (#63)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:30:20 PM EST
    go ahead and vote.

    Feisty little poll it is, too (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:20:21 PM EST
    Don't know

    Loved it :)


    I have a headache (none / 0) (#77)
    by bjorn on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:34:33 PM EST
    because I can see both sides to this argument.  My gut says Obama will not ask her.  I need tylenol!

    I'm one of the unsure ones (none / 0) (#111)
    by ruffian on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:51:50 PM EST
    I am very persuaded by Jeralyn's post.  I want Hillary to be president some day, and I don't think being Obama's VP candidate, win or lose this election, will get here there.

    I think the unity ticket is the only sure win for Dems in 2008 and I think that is important for the country.

    I am sure I have argued both sides on the unity ticket in various threads. Lucky for you on both sides, no one in a position of power is really asking my opinion, so I'll just wait and see what happens.

    This (none / 0) (#186)
    by rilkefan on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:43:10 PM EST
    "I also don't want to see a joint ticket because I think Hillary Clinton would make a great President, and I don't think she ever will get the chance if she starts off as Vice President under Obama for 8 years."

    makes no sense as far as I can tell.  Either HRC gets back to the WH now as VP, and takes over health care or some other important portfolio, then maybe runs for president at 68; or she stays in the senate.  If Obama loses (which I doubt) she'll be blamed by a lot of bitter Obama voters in 2012 anyway and Webb or whoever will be the nominee.

    My Guess (5.00 / 6) (#198)
    by dissenter on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:48:59 PM EST
    is that the loser (ie; Obama and his entire team of cheerleaders) will be disgraced. The DNC will change leadership. Donna Brazille will be run out of town. The media will be blamed (since they will support McCain in the end) and the Democratic Party might be put back together again.

    I always laugh at the people who want to blame Clinton for everything. They always seem to be the same people that take no responsibility for anything (ie former republicans) and those that have never bothered to vote before. Maybe that is why they are so willingly led off a cliff by Ted Kennedy - the king of responsibility avoidance.


    Why does the popular vote total matter? (none / 0) (#219)
    by kjblair on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:04:50 PM EST
    You get the nomination by having the most delegates. That's the only number that matters. The popular vote only makes a difference if it is able to convince a number of superdelegates to endorse you as opposed to the other candidate. Unfortunately, there's a lot of problems with the metric.

    1. How do you count caucuses? Do you only include those states that kept count of the number of people that showed up? Do you estimate the number of caucus participants in states like Iowa that didn't keep a count?

    2. What about MI and FL? How do you account for only Clinton being on the ballot in MI? Do you split the undeclared votes between Obama and Edwards based on exit poll data?

    3. If you're trying to use vote totals in a primary to predict performance in a general election, why count states, such as TX, that are in all likelihood going to vote for McCain in the fall?

    Because there are so many different ways to calculate vote totals, it loses its impact. Its much easier to look at delegate totals. And at this point in the campaign, it appears that most superdelegates are looking at other factors in making their decision.

    My personal preference is for Clinton to stay in the race through the final primaries on June 3rd. Although its not going to make a difference in the outcome, it will allow every Democrat a chance to vote in a contested primary. At that point, it will be obvious which candidate has the most delegates and one will have more than enough to win no matter how MI and FL are resolved. Closure will be much easier if the process is allowed to run its course.

    pledged delegates are but one factor (none / 0) (#224)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:08:05 PM EST
    superdelegates can consider. Electability is another. Popular vote is another. Superdelegates can switch back to Hillary any time before the convention in August -- the same way many recently switched to Obama.

    use the search feature (none / 0) (#239)
    by angie on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:26:36 PM EST
    all of these topics have been discussed at length on other threads on this site and you will see that all your questions have been answered and your basic premises underlying them are flawed.

    Comments now closed (none / 0) (#225)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:08:36 PM EST

    VP? (none / 0) (#234)
    by kaleidescope on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:20:02 PM EST
    Why would Hillary Clinton want to be vice president?  She is a fairly talented senator and, though not very senior, has some power there, power that will be increased as Democrats gain a working majority.  Being a senator could be an interesting job.

    Being vice president?  Not so much.  The only way it could be an interesting job would be if HRC got to be a Cheney.  But there's no way Barack Obama would let himself be W to HRC's Cheney.  So that's a non-starter.

    LBJ made a mistake in accepting the vice-presidency and it was only the tragedy of JFK's assassination that allowed LBJ to make up for what he lost in being Majority Leader (and he didn't have that much more seniority when he was made Majority Leader than HRC would have post-2008).  LBJ was miserable as VP, lorded over and picked on by the hated RFK.

    I also agree that with a black man at the top of the ticket there is quite enough alterity already.   Obama needs to pick, let's face it, a white man, either from the South or the Southwest.  Someone like Tim Kaine or Gary Hart (someone like Gary Hart, not necessarily Gary Hart).

    "dream team" (none / 0) (#263)
    by diogenes on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:58:20 PM EST
    So now you figured out why it was so insulting to suggest that Obama be VP for Hillary and face eight years being lorded over by both Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton?  I'm sure Hillary knew what it would be like the moment she suggested it.

    Well, the differences are that, (5.00 / 2) (#266)
    by tigercourse on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:05:30 AM EST
    1. Hillary/Obama would have likely won. Obama/Hillary would likely lose. That's a big one.

    2. Hillary is a good deal more qualified then Obama. It's more insulting to ask the qualified applicant to take a back seat to the smooth talking neophyte.

    3. Obama as VP would be young enough to run in 8 years at age 55. Clinton might not be considered young enough to run at age 68.

    Yeah (none / 0) (#265)
    by kaleidescope on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:05:27 AM EST
    The part of me that dislikes the Clintons wants Obama to appoint HRC Vice President and then have her duties consist of attending the funerals for deceased pets of foreign leaders.

    But that would be a waste of her considerable talents.  The country (and Clinton herself) is much better served by her remaining the junior (but powerful) senator from New York.

    She's not the legislative genius she's cracked herself up to be, but she's better than about 90% of her fellow senators (a better senator than Barack Obama, for sure).  It would be a waste to make Clinton VP.


    'Til the last dog dies (none / 0) (#249)
    by lambert on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:39:37 PM EST
    That is all.

    Irony (none / 0) (#277)
    by esmense on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:37:05 AM EST
    I love this quote from a Hill article asking pols (D&R) about whether or not they would be accept the VP slot:

    Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.)
    "There is no way a 15-month senator is going to be asked. So in deference, to make sure whoever asks would be successful, I would say no."

    Now way a 15-month senator could be VP. But president?