West Virginia and Beyond

Hillary Clinton is expected to take a massive victory in West Virginia tonight and the Media will be forced to suppress a yawn. They have declared the race over and therefore this would upset their narrative. On NBC at the least, the storyline will be WWTBQ (See Corrente).

I believe the storyline should be the one I have been discussing for days, how can Obama do better with white working class voters. There are thing he can do to improve his performance with that demo. I won't be holding my breath that the Media will find that an interesting issue to discuss. The evilness of Hillary Clinton will be the subject of the night as it is most nights for the Media. I really wonder what they will talk and write about if and when Clinton is out of the race. They have nothing to say about either Obama or McCain. Seriously. [More...]

A corollary discussion to WWTBQ will be how dare anyone think Obama should pick her as VP? As part of that discussion, this Gallup poll and this WaPo poll will be studiously ignored. As I wrote yesterday, 59% of African Americans want Obama to pick Hillary Clinton as his running mate. Now Gallup says:

Fifty-five percent of Democrats say this would be a good idea, compared to 38% who think Obama should choose someone else. There are again big differences in views on this issue between Obama supporters and Clinton supporters.

Clinton supporters appear enthusiastic about the idea of such an Obama-Clinton "dream ticket," with 73% saying they favor the idea. Just 19% of her supporters reject it. [43% of] Obama supporters . . . say they would favor it, while 52% say they would not.

We can see now that Hillary Clinton is clearly the almost required VP choice for Barack Obama should he be the nominee. Will the Obama campaign be stubborn and silly because the Media hates Clinton and apparently some in the Obama circle are childish? I trust David Axelrod, and more importantly, Barack Obama, have more sense than that.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

Comments closed

< Late Night: Open Thread: Baby Boomers and Vietnam | Hillary Clinton, Dems And White Working Class Voters >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    If Obama is the nominee Hillary needs to stay (5.00 / 13) (#1)
    by Angel on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:15:11 AM EST
    as far away as possible from him.  Why should she help him get elected and then be relegated to doing tea parties and funerals?  

    Clinton Would Never (5.00 / 7) (#146)
    by talex on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:17:05 AM EST
    accept the VP post. And Obama would never chose her as VP.

    First Clinton. Clinton would much rather be majority leader, which has more power than VP, where one she could get some things done; and second where she could take Obama to school should he win the WH if he gets to cocky with congress.

    As for Obama, he would never pick a VP who could outclass him on policy. And he also knows that while he may shine with the college crowd and the not as smart as they think Creative Class, that Clinton as VP would smother his notoriety. She is a far more powerful figure that Obama.

    Lastly Clinton would never take the VP spot because when Obama's Republican hugging post-partisanship falls on it's ass and he opens himself up to a Democratic challenger in 2012 Clinton will want to be free and clear of him so her brand is not tarnished by his folly.


    Because having a democrat in the White House (2.00 / 0) (#60)
    by digdugboy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:44:49 AM EST
    is better than having a republican in the White House? And because it's not all about her?

    Tell me (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by Steve M on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:51:53 AM EST
    Does this argument apply to Obama as well?

    Unbelievable (5.00 / 3) (#109)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:05:06 AM EST
    Just because someone is a Democrat doesn't mean we have to lock-step.  That is group-think.  I will not compromise my vote just because someone has a "D" by their name.

    I can only guess that John McCain isn't as bad as George W Bush but I don't know that. None of us do. But I certainly will not vote for Obama simply because he is a Democrat.  I learned a long time ago to not go metaphorically re-arranging decks chairs on the Titanic.


    America First for me (5.00 / 3) (#128)
    by felizarte on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:11:16 AM EST
    before party affiliation. I intend to vote for the better person for the presidency in November.  And I really hope it is Hillary.

    What did you think (none / 0) (#148)
    by digdugboy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:17:33 AM EST
    of McCain's climate speech yesterday?

    Didn't hear or read about it. (none / 0) (#172)
    by felizarte on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:26:39 AM EST
    do tell.

    McSame (1.00 / 0) (#189)
    by flashman on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:32:47 AM EST
    I can only guess that John McCain isn't as bad as George W Bush but I don't know that.

    Two things:  McCain wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years and wants to make the chimp's tax cuts permanent.  What else do you need to know?


    Wrong. (5.00 / 3) (#223)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:51:09 AM EST
    He said that there will be an American presence in Iraq for 100 years in the way that we have been in Korea, Japan, Europe since WW II.

    You are falling for Obama twisting his words.  Go to mediamatters.org and see for yourself.

    Try again.  


    McSame (1.00 / 0) (#201)
    by flashman on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:36:16 AM EST
    I can only guess that John McCain isn't as bad as George W Bush but I don't know that.

    Two things:  McCain wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years and wants to make the chimp's tax cuts permanent.  What else do you need to know?


    McSame (1.00 / 0) (#203)
    by flashman on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:36:57 AM EST
    I can only guess that John McCain isn't as bad as George W Bush but I don't know that.

    Two things:  McCain wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years and wants to make the chimp's tax cuts permanent.  What else do you need to know?


    I wouldn't say so. (5.00 / 5) (#134)
    by mm on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:13:03 AM EST
    having a democrat in the White House

    Not a "post-partisan" Democrat who's bent on reforming Social Security.  I'd rather have a Republican who won't be allowed to touch it.


    If I had more faith in Obama (5.00 / 6) (#3)
    by Fabian on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:19:10 AM EST
    I could see a Unity ticket.

    I'd rather see the Clintons campaign from the sidelines.  Obama could enjoy and benefit from their support and Hillary could avoid being inextricably linked to the Obama administration.  As ever, it's their choice to make, but if Hillary was my friend, I'd ask her if she really could do it with all her heart, soul and integrity.

    I think she certainly can (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by andgarden on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:20:00 AM EST
    Obama is toxic (5.00 / 9) (#5)
    by katiebird on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:20:10 AM EST
    And we've seen toxic candidates before.  

    Hillary should do everything she can to avoid the Obama Campaign and being asked to be VP.

    But I don't think that will be necessary.  I think she'll be the nominee.  And I think the circumstances of how that evolves will make it extremely unlikely that Obama will be considered for VP.

    I agree! (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by felizarte on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:40:31 AM EST
    and I still go with Jeralyn's analysis of the vp choices.  The republicans will attack Obama for Hillary's weaknesses and Hillary will be attacked for Obama's weaknesses.  Axelrod may be doing Rovian strategies, but the original one, who can think of new strategies, is with McCain.

    well, hate to say it but when (5.00 / 10) (#6)
    by hellothere on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:20:29 AM EST
    a campaign puts out such negative slants on hillary for months, it is hard to switch gears and say oh yeah, veep! that is one of the problems with very young people in a campaign as opposed to seasoned politcal operators.

    and the so called media? words cannot express my dislike and disgust for them. who knew i'd be watching faux as a preference.

    having said that i want what is best for my country. so sad to have reached this place. the lack of real leadership in the democratic party especially from such people as kerry, kennedy, pelosi, and dean leaves me disgusted.

    I remember all the diaries (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by Fabian on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:29:18 AM EST
    trumpeting this endorsement or another at daily kos and how incredibly significant it was to have this or that mayor or governor come aboard the Obama train.

    I finally got tired of it all and started pointing out that politics is a game of mutual pandering and that at least some and quite possibly many were endorsing which ever candidate they thought would give them valuable administration appointments.  In other words, some people endorse candidates for very selfish reasons.  It makes me take endorsements with a huge grain of salt.


    endorsemens now leave me asking (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by hellothere on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:52:32 AM EST
    what's in it for them. sad

    I think the only way it could work (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by dk on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:20:57 AM EST
    would be if Obama gave out signals that he was not only asking Hillary to be his VP, but that he would be willing to give her a high level of power in his administration (I'm not saying it has to be a Bush-Cheney like thing, but it would have to be clear that she would take the lead on certain very important policy portfolios).  Then, maybe.  

    However, even if Obama wanted to do this (which I doubt, and can't really understand why BTD is giving Obama benefit of the the doubt on this), his campaign against Hillary has been so negative (Harry & Louise ads, "she'll do anything to win", etc. etc.) I think he's boxed in.

    politicians are rarely boxed in :) (5.00 / 5) (#58)
    by kempis on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:44:22 AM EST
    Look at how McCain is now Bush's bestest friend. Politicians by nature and necessity are slippery creatures.

    That said, I agree with your sentiments. The only way they can sell the Hillary VP position is to promote it as one that would enable her to have a hand in policy-making, not ceremonial, Dan Quayle-like tasks. (I still can't believe that Dan Quayle was Vice President of the United States. Eek.)

    But I think that's the problem. Hillary on the ticket reminds voters that Obama is by contrast inexperienced (and possibly uninterested in policy details, a la Bush). There's still more contrast than compliment. But over time, I guess they could PR us into a different perception....With McCain running an experience v babe-in-the-woods campaign, though, I think it's going to make Obama look even weaker that his VP and vanquished opponent, Hillary, is his "big gun" in policy debates.

    That dynamic may remind voters of Bush more than McCain will. I think the constant contrast between his lack of experience and his VP's and his GOP opponent's depth may weaken Obama's candidacy.

    Hillary on the ticket gives the GOP a twofer: it makes him look so green that he has to hide behind Hillary's apron (to put it in the demeaning and sexist way the GOP will likely hint at to "unman" him), and it also gives the Hillary-haters on the right a chance to keep throwing rocks at her (along with the Kossacks and HuffPosters, who are indistinquishable from freepers and dittoheads when it comes to CDS). Also, the GOP already has a thick playbook of how to run against Hillary and one on how to run against Obama. They'd have both barrels loaded and their sites set. A new VP would send them scrambling a bit, and maybe the DNC would actually be smart enough to define that candidate BEFORE the GOP had a chance to.

    For all her srengths, Hillary does energize the GOP base. Of course, what the Kossacks and others fail to grasp is that Obama will be even more energizing once the GOP defines him as a smirking, smug, unpatriotic, "foreign" and scary guy. He's going to out-polarize any Clinton when they're done with him--and in fact he's already proven his polarizing ability in his own party.


    Yep, picture this: Hillary saying something (5.00 / 2) (#173)
    by Cream City on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:26:56 AM EST
    like quoting the Associated Press again, and the OBF now trained so well to call anything racist will do so -- or maybe it will be Bill.  But the OBF would be doing so to Obama's own campaign, his own ticket then.  And all the media in the OBF (which is almost all) would have to jump all over the conflict between the candidates on the Dem ticket . . . and can we see the disaster?

    Nope, Obama has allowed his campaign to so demonize the candidate that could help him win in November that it can't be done now.  


    BTD (5.00 / 8) (#8)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:23:39 AM EST
    let's just face facts:
    Obama can't win working class whites. He comes off as too elitist and effette. There's just no other way to put it. He can't change who he is anymore than Kerry could.

    In nominating Obama we are knowingly going to put up a candidate who will lose in Nov. As you have said, demographics are destiny and Obama's demographics are losing ones.

    How is this for elitist (5.00 / 5) (#95)
    by talex on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:59:30 AM EST
    from one of the Creative Class?

    From Matt Stoller at open Left this morning on the front page:

    Obama's about to lose West Virginia by a substantial margin, possibly thirty or forty points.  That'll be embarrassing and scary for Democrats

    Can you imagine someone saying that about an important swing state, in a real closed election where all other party outsiders cannot vote in? This is a Democrat only primary where one candidates is going to lose badly and to Matt it is "embarrassing".

    Matt - good luck wooing Clinton supporters to vote for Obama should he get the nomination with insults like that.


    I never (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:40:16 AM EST
    said that. Being racially divisive has worked in the dem primary. If you think it will work in the general election then I want what you're smoking.

    Really (none / 0) (#120)
    by 1jane on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:08:51 AM EST
    Poll in Oregon has Obama 55-34 over Clinton. Oregon is a white working class state.

    Bill has spent two days in small rural working class towns trying to work the Clinton base.
    Obama returns to Oregon this weekend as does Hillary.


    I've lived in the east and in teeh west (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:11:48 AM EST
    and there's a difference between the two. Obama is generally stronger in the West. That won't help him in Ohio.

    Oregon is a blue state (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by angie on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:26:10 AM EST
    it also has 7 electoral college votes. WV was blue until GWB -- it has 5 electoral college votes. KY went for Bill Clinton twice -- it has 8 electoral college votes. Even if the basis of your argument is that Clinton can't win Oregon & Obama can, that is nullified by the fact that Clinton can win WV & KY & Obama can't. That is, 5 + 8 > 7.

    Oregon (5.00 / 3) (#212)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:41:51 AM EST
    is NOT a white working class state. It is a latte liberal state that even Dukakis carried in 1988.

    Doesn't Obama need a "Cheney"? (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by katiebird on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:23:43 AM EST
    Surely the Democratic Leaders who support his campaign have noticed his total lack of work experience.  Isn't it likely they're planning on Kerry or some other Ego running as VP and guiding the presidency?

    Well, a "Cheney" requires (none / 0) (#25)
    by Fabian on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:32:38 AM EST
    someone who appears nonthreatening and fades quietly into the woodwork.

    Clinton would make a lousy Cheney because it's obvious that she's interested in being active.  If Obama picks up an old hand who defers to Obama and seems to think that state funerals are the best use of their time, then I'd suspect a Cheney.


    Maybe (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by cmugirl on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:36:27 AM EST
    Daschle is angling for the job....

    He would need a Cheney (none / 0) (#37)
    by BarnBabe on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:37:19 AM EST
    But they do not want Bill anywhere near the WH. Not even living down the street. And if Hillary was the VP, and only a breath away from the POTUS, I suspect they do not want her in that position.

    Co-Presidents! (5.00 / 7) (#10)
    by SeaMBA on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:25:02 AM EST
    I just had a great idea.  I think they should run as co-Presidents.  Obama can be President of the 51st state onward (I'm not sure if there are 57 or 59 total).  Clinton can be President of the lower 48, Alaska and Hawaii.


    Sorry, I normally try to be respectful, but I just had to let out a little frustration.

    You have won (none / 0) (#23)
    by zfran on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:32:04 AM EST
    the prize....a great, great comment!!!!!

    The 51st State of America (none / 0) (#31)
    by liminal on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:35:02 AM EST
    New Model Army, a politically-oriented British punk band from the 1980s, had a song criticizing Britain as the "51st State of America."  

    Maybe we can export Obama!


    He's still very popular with (none / 0) (#47)
    by Salo on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:41:45 AM EST
    the BCC and such.

    oops (none / 0) (#48)
    by Salo on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:42:04 AM EST

    I sincerely do not believe he will get elected (5.00 / 6) (#11)
    by ajain on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:25:54 AM EST
    He looks weak and annoying to me. If a significant portion of the population in WV is voting in a different fashion than the declared nominee that tells you something. I believe that the press and especially MSNBC is really soothing over Obama's GE problems.

    As if "new" voters and independent voters are enough  to dish off problems with traditional voters.

    As Ohio Goes (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:36:54 AM EST
    So goes the nation.....

    you figure out the rest.


    txpolitico67 (5.00 / 0) (#133)
    by cal1942 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:12:14 AM EST
    is right.

    Ohio has been carried by the winner in 11 straight elections.


    Sigh. (5.00 / 8) (#12)
    by madamab on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:26:25 AM EST
    Kudos to you BTD, for your persistence on this idea.

    Clinton/Obama has a shot.

    Obama/Clinton does not.

    Clinton/Clark is a landslide.

    Just IMHO of course.

    What do you think (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by Faust on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:19:48 AM EST
    Of Obama/Clark?

    No to Obama/Richardson (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by Faust on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:20:24 AM EST
    no no no.

    We're so excited here - (5.00 / 6) (#21)
    by liminal on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:31:51 AM EST
    - we're not ready to be beyond. Not quite yet. Volunteers have traveled in from Wisconsin, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Ohio.  

    We ran out of yard signs two weeks ago, but one of those out of state volunteers brought in a bunch left over from that campaign.  After the election here, I plan to gather all our signs up and take them over to Kentucky.  We have a really diverse group of volunteers, too - union folks, men, women, high school kids, and senior citizens.  Hillary also has really solidified some enthusiastic support among working class men.  Seriously: truckers and DOH guys, contractors and landscaping folks, we get alot of enthusiastic support from them.

    How does that translate if she's VP?  I just don't know.  Many older Democrats in WV - yellow-dog Democrats, folks who have never voted for a Republican - refuse to support Obama.  I don't think that her coattails as VP would be strong enough to solidify them in WV, and as a WVian that really concerns me: I don't want our state to turn solidly red in presidential politics.  

    The Obama kids around here aren't bothering to campaign much; they are demoralized, as he has no chance of winning the state.  Heck, HRC's folks are sad that she probably won't win the nomination, but we're out there working really hard.  

    HRC really has found a way to connect with working class men in a way that our Democratic candidates have failed to do since Bill Clinton - the extended campaign has unveiled her inner strength in a way that is clearly attractive to them.  I hate that we might throw that away, and I don't know that she can give Obama the aura of authenticity she's gained from the extended campaign (you know - the one he's lost over time) as VP, but I maybe that's really our best shot.  I don't want to see her playing second fiddle to him as she's just flat out a better candidate now, but if it comes down to that, beating McCain is important enough to me that I can swallow it.  

    How Many Ways Can One Say No? (5.00 / 7) (#22)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:31:56 AM EST
    I would vehemently be against her running with Obama, either or being at the top of the ticket.  He puts me off so bad.

    I would vote for HRC if she is at the top of the ticket but if she's VP, no way.  

    I like Jeralyn's comments about letting the process take its course, if Obama is the nominee let him find the best running mate for his campaign.

    Since when the f**k do they listen to the voters anyway?  If that were the case we wouldn't have the colossal FUBAR known as MI and FL primary votes.   I am more than insulted that they are going to start listening at THIS point.  I predict that if he is the nom he will lose Dukakis/Mondale style and SHE can run again in 2012.  She doesn't want that albatross known as Barack Obama around her neck (ala Edwards and John Kerry).

    Hillary Will IMO Do Exactly What She Has Said (5.00 / 9) (#27)
    by MO Blue on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:33:28 AM EST
    she will do. She will campaign her heart out for Obama. If she can persuade people to vote for Obama over their objections, she will be just as effective in that role as she would be as a VP candidate. If she can't, then she will not have his loss hanging around her neck.

    Bottom line is that it is Obama who will have to persuade Democratic and Indie voters that he can be effective as president and is in touch with people who are not like him (i.e. voters in WV and small town PA etc). If he can't do that, then IMO we lose in November no matter who is the VP.

    Excellent comment. (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by madamab on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:37:15 AM EST
    HRC usually does not promise anything in public unless she plans to follow through on it.

    The media would jump all over her if she did anything different. :-)


    The Only Way She Will Not Do This Is (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by MO Blue on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:42:10 AM EST
    if Obama decides to distance himself and his campaign from the Clintons. A mistake but who knows if he agrees that the Clintons will tarnish his "CHANGE" brand.

    I believe she is fully aware (5.00 / 0) (#63)
    by madamab on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:46:39 AM EST
    of this possibility.

    My take is: either she's the nominee and he's the VP, in which case, she fulfills her promise by proxy; or, he's the nominee, and declines her help, in which case she is free to go back to the Senate and let Obama sink or swim on his own.

    She keeps her promise either way.


    She can campaign then (none / 0) (#185)
    by felizarte on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:31:29 AM EST
    for the downline dem candidates.  However, that is a chance she takes.  It is not certain that they in turn will support her.  Example is Ted Kennedy and Bill Richardson and Kerry. Or, the AA vote.

    Dead. Wrong. (5.00 / 5) (#44)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:41:14 AM EST
    Why should HIS loss ever be around HER neck?  He's a big boy.  He (along with the DC power brokers he LOATHES) knew what they were in for.

    If Obama loses it's because of Obama.  Period. End of story.  


    The media will make it so. (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by madamab on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:47:09 AM EST
    In reality, you're right. IACF! is just an excuse.

    True (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by cmugirl on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:51:51 AM EST
    But you are living in reality and not the world as presented by the media and Obama spinmeisters,

    Part of the Lame Media Narritive (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by northeast73 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:34:34 AM EST
    on the Unity ticket has been "after all those horrible things she said about him, how can he pick her as VP".

    Here is another question...after all the horrible things he and his supporters said about HER (dishonest, poll tested, scheming) how can THEY justify picking her.

    I actually dont want her on is loser ticket.  I would rather see him go down in flames with some other LOSER like Bill Richardson.

    Do you really want a fellow Dem to lose? (2.00 / 0) (#43)
    by independent thinker on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:40:55 AM EST
    Seriously, I understand that emotions are running high in this historic contest, but the alternative is McCain. The prospect of a McCain presidency makes me sick. Think of his SCOTUS nominations...he could set back women's reproductive rights 30 years! And yes, full disclosure--I am an Obama supporter. But I would back Clinton if she won the nomination.

    No, but I want to be a member of a party (5.00 / 4) (#69)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:48:24 AM EST
    that respects women. I used to think that was the Democratic party, but it has proven otherwise. (It's not the Republican party, either.)

    Feel the Unity (5.00 / 4) (#144)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:16:03 AM EST
    As another example, women have been a majority in this country since forever. So why did we not get the vote until 1920? Do you think that being in the majority means women are in charge?

    You lost all credibility (5.00 / 3) (#184)
    by angie on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:31:01 AM EST
    to be able to tell democat to direct his/her anger anywhere when you used the word "retarded" to attack him/her.

    The GOP was first to support suffrage (5.00 / 4) (#213)
    by Cream City on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:41:56 AM EST
    then, after being first to put a woman in Congress in 1916.  The GOP was first to support the ERA and to push the Equal Pay Act -- in the 1940s.  The GOP was the first to nominate a woman for president -- in the 1960s.  Etc.

    The Dems were first to put a woman on a major-party ballot, but only for vice-president -- and look what your candidate has done to that hero in women's and American history.

    You are more correct on the current support of women's reproductive rights, but those who don't know history are destined to repeat . . . well, it look like destined to repeat losing this election, too.  


    Yeah (5.00 / 4) (#154)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:20:14 AM EST
    And that's why we've been relegated to second class citizens.  ;-).  LOL!  The party WAS majority women.  It will be interesting to see how it is after this election.

    Do you actually believe (none / 0) (#205)
    by Binx on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:39:51 AM EST
     that the Democratic party has relegated women to second-class status?

    Is it because it appears that Clinton will not win the nomination? I ask because I don't agree with that as a blanket statement; the fact that the Democratic Party is pro-choice, and for wage equity, among other positions, when the Republicans are not makes it difficult for me to agree with you about the second-class status. Minorities of all sorts have found a home with the Dems without being second class and without having a candidate of their persuasion in the lead spot.


    Yes, in 1920 (4.50 / 2) (#225)
    by Cream City on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:54:45 AM EST
    when the Dems made women go into a party auxiliary, while the GOP made them regular members of that party.  So GOP women made more substantive gains for decades, while Dem women did not.  

    It began to turn around in the '60s, when women and minorities worked together to win change -- but the Dems are turning back again on women.  The push for pro-life aka anti-abortion Dem candidates in recent years, candidates who thus did not support the party's own platform, showed where this would end up.

    And so it has done, with Dem leadership dissing one of their leading candidates and a powerful sitting Senator, with Dem leadership not standing up to and denouncing the sexism in its own ranks.

    So it is about much more than Clinton.  Explain Casey, Strickland, et al., and the support that they have won from the Dem party despite being against its platform.  Explain Dem votes in the Senate for anti-women's rights SCOTUS nominees -- almost including Obama, until dissuaded at the last minute only for political calculations.

    The Dems of the New Millennium cannot continue to coast on what they did almost half a century ago, in the 1960s, when Obama calls it "excessive," after all.  That dogwhistle at us won't hunt now.


    Cut the ad homs -- and see if women (5.00 / 3) (#195)
    by Cream City on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:33:54 AM EST
    still are the majority of Dem voters in November.  Obama may, repeat may have time to finally step up and say something about sexism instead of racism, for a change.  Frankly, I think he has only days to do so to salvage the women's vote.  But it may be too late, as we will not forget the treatment that Clinton has received, that women thus have received, and that is irrevocably associated with him.

    When that Dem (5.00 / 5) (#73)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:50:50 AM EST
    is of the caliber of George W Bush is, yes.

    I admonished all my republican friends for voting for Bush because of his supreme lack of everything.  IF I voted for Barack simply because he has a "D" by his name that makes me no better.

    I don't educate myself on issues to vote for incompetence.


    Seriously (5.00 / 5) (#79)
    by cmugirl on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:52:54 AM EST
    What makes you think Obama will be any better for women's rights?

    SCOTUS (5.00 / 6) (#84)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:55:36 AM EST
    argument is a loser argument. If that's the threat that the Obama campaign is going to use to get women on board then they'd better start calling the election for McCain right now.

    SCOTUS is already done. A challenge by a state would probably overturn Roe. v. Wade right now. It was a salient argument in 2004 but no longer.


    Add to this (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by cmugirl on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:57:35 AM EST
    if he's truly considering Strickland or Hagel as his VP, then we know what he thinks about the issue.

    What I want (5.00 / 6) (#85)
    by madamab on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:56:22 AM EST
    has very little to do with what the Republicans will do to Obama as the front-runner. It's sheer lunacy to ignore what he will have to endure. He's obviously not up to the job, considering how poorly he's handled the Wright affair. It's already damaged him irrevocably among Independents. (Hint: Screaming "racism" won't work against Republicans. They do not care what Democrats call them.)

    Sure, I prefer Hillary. But up until Wright, I was perfectly happy with a Dream Ticket or voting for Obama even without Hillary.

    Now that I know Obama, he is unacceptable to me. I won't vote for him. But I will not change the election in my state.

    Talk to the people in Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia, and see what they think.

    Blame them for President McCain if you like. But as for me, I'm putting the blame on the DNC and Barack Obama.

    This never had to happen.


    Agreed (5.00 / 3) (#97)
    by cmugirl on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:00:15 AM EST
    (Hint: Screaming "racism" won't work against Republicans. They do not care what Democrats call them.)

    And don't you think that this meme might be played out by the fall? (Think "The Boy Who Cried Wolf")


    As someone here pointed out yesterday (5.00 / 4) (#100)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:01:11 AM EST
    Obama needs a VP candidate who can help him with women, Latinos, older voters, working class whites, OH, PA, and FL, and Jews.

    Seriously, how in h**l did we get to this point?


    You forgot (5.00 / 3) (#224)
    by Nadai on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:53:02 AM EST
    gays and Italian-Americans.

    And Poland.


    If the best reason (5.00 / 3) (#99)
    by samanthasmom on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:00:33 AM EST
    you can give for anyone to vote for Obama is SCOTUS, then he shouldn't have voted "Present".  His creds on women's reproductive rights are questionable. Try something else.

    What "fellow Dem"? n/t (5.00 / 2) (#177)
    by bodhcatha on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:28:19 AM EST
    Obama hasn't (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by Mari on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:35:00 AM EST
    done anything to suggest to me that he would not act like a republican if he wins the white house. Why tie this albatross around the neck of the Democratic Party. When he disses the values and history of the Democratic party, why should I  vote for him. IMO, he would be worse than McCain.

    Obama hasn't (none / 0) (#199)
    by Mari on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:35:28 AM EST
    done anything to suggest to me that he would not act like a republican if he wins the white house. Why tie this albatross around the neck of the Democratic Party. When he disses the values and history of the Democratic party, why should I  vote for him. IMO, he would be worse than McCain.

    The reason I don't think... (5.00 / 12) (#30)
    by NotThatStupid on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:34:57 AM EST
    ... a "Unity Ticket" can work is because Senator Obama has not run a campaign, but created a movement, and movements rely on certain unifying factors to solidify the faith of their followers. The content-free "change and hope" screed was a good start, in that it allowed Senator Obama, the "man of words," to get himself out in front of the public with a non-controversial (because it took no stand on any issue) message. Keeping the new disciples in line required more than that bowl of pabulum, however. Movements need enemies, because one of the most important unifying factors movements can, and typically do, exploit is hatred. Hatred requires a human opponent. His campaign needed a human face to represent everything, literally, which stood between him and the Democratic nomination. They cast Senator Clinton (and by extension, her husband) in that role and made her out to be the very devil incarnate, an immoral, racist, harridan, incapable of opening her mouth without lying. That is the origin of IACF and CDS.

    If Senator Obama were to choose Senator Clinton as his running mate, that act would show his followers that the hatred towards Senator Clinton which had previously been cultivated very carefully was no longer valid. This would tend to sow confusion and doubt among the faithful, as it would then allow them to question all the other beliefs so crucial to the movement, e.g., experience isn't really important, people who don't vote for Obama are racists, etc. This could very well lead to the collapse of the entire movement, situated as it is in a virtual tie with Senator Clinton for the hearts and minds of the Democratic party.

    The larger problem that I see is that, having once established Senator Clinton as the anti-Christ, the Obama camp is going to have a hard time saying they really meant that Senator McCain, not Senator Clinton, is the embodiment of all evil.

    For the record, I still don't think Senator Obama is qualified to lead either my country or the Democratic party, and I still won't vote for him.

    Excellent analysis! (5.00 / 4) (#46)
    by dk on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:41:44 AM EST
    I agree with everything you wrote, but am particularly glad you raised the larger problem at the end.  Because Obama spent so long demonizing Hillary Clinton, there will be major cognitive dissonance when he would have to turn to demonizing McCain.  Now, maybe the masses of Obama supporters won't have a problem with this at first (akin to how many Republicans didn't have a problem following the switch from railing against Communism to railing against the Muslim world).  But the lack of credibility this creates with people outside the "movement" will be huge.

    I don't agree with the hatred part, (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by chancellor on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:15:38 AM EST
    and I don't agree with the "movement" part (movements are created from the bottom up, and then the movement finds a representative leader), but I do agree that the vitriol from the Obama campaign and its followers poisons the well for a unity ticket. Some of us felt that an Edwards/Clinton ticket would be great in theory, too, but we recognized that, with JRE differentiating himself from Hillary on the lobbyist issue, there would be no credibility for JRE's position if the two of them eventually tried to establish a partnership.

    Obama has done everything in his power to convince both the voters and the Beltway that he represents "change." He doesn't want to associate himself with anything having to do with Bill Clinton's legacy--including the name "Clinton." It's his decision, but we know what happened to Gore and Kerry when a similar decision was made.


    Sorry. I don't see hatred in either campaign. (2.00 / 1) (#39)
    by kindness on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:38:29 AM EST
    Dislike....sure.  Hatred though?  No.  I just don't see it.

    I do see it here in the comments though.


    maybe you should pay better attention (5.00 / 5) (#51)
    by angie on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:42:42 AM EST
    even if the barrage of sexist attacks and charges of racism by the Obama camp against the Clintons could be characterized as merely "dislike" -- from where did this dislike stem? We are talking about the only Dem president to win re-election since FDR and we are talking about a hard-working and effective NY Senator, both of whom have long track records of working for Democratic values.

    Ask Mrs. Obama how (5.00 / 7) (#52)
    by zfran on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:42:59 AM EST
    she feels about Hillary when early on she said she'd have to think about whether she would vote for Hillary if she were the nominee. Hillary said she would work her heart out for whoever the nominee was....quite a different attitude.

    Mrs. Michelle Obama (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:52:25 AM EST
    would best serve her campaign in the way that Jacqueline Kennedy did when JFK was president.  Mrs. Kennedy used to say:  "Maximum politness with minimal information."

    I'll stick to question #1 (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by suisser on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:35:38 AM EST
     How does Obama do better with WWC voters?

    I don't know, honestly.  I do believe that many don't like him for legit reasons, i.e., lack of experience, arrogant tone, lack of policy specifics in stump speech, unwillingness to debate and/or poor debate performance, and his apparent inability to get what their lives are really like.  It's obvious that HR possesses a positive counter to each of the above deficiencies and that a team player would seek her out.  But I don't think he will see beyond his own comfort and asking her would be uncomfortable. AND, I don't think she should accept. As I have said before she isn't a trophy to make him look better. She should stay far away and seek her next  place in history elsewhere.

    Given the question (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Edgar08 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:39:32 AM EST
    Those numbers are not definitive.  The question to ask is "Why aren't they better?"

    I mean more than half the Obama folks don't want it.

    1 in 5 Clinton supporters feel so stongly about it as to reject it.

    We can look at the same numbers and come to different conclusions, I guess.

    As it has been pointed out repeatedly, there are certain groups in the Clinton camp who have been offended by the Obama campaign, and if your goal is to bring them back into the party, making Clinton VP isn't going to work and is only likely to tick them off more as it will be perceived as a token gesture by an incompetent we don't like. Women who put their hopes and dreams of a woman president will see this as the ultimate example of the man getting the promotion while the woman does all the work.  

    It simply won't work with the people it's designed to work with.

    Of the other folks, they'll vote for Obama anyway without Clinton on the ticket, and if you can win the General Election with those folks, then why not just go ahead and do it?


    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.  

    Her career ending as a token gesture made by an incompetent man is simply not going to work with the people who care about this enough to leave the party, anyway.

    The more it gets repeated (without much of a supporting argument), the more I dislike it.

    You can make up anything you like (none / 0) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:41:43 AM EST
    The Obama supporters do not matter. they are Obama supporters.

    the Clinton supporters matter TONS. 3/4 of them want it and the 1/5 against it will not vote against the ticket BECAUSe Clinton is the VP.

    I hate contortionist comments. Yours is one.


    I've been taught to be cynical... (5.00 / 8) (#107)
    by lambert on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:03:49 AM EST
    So what I believe is:

    1. The constituencies Obama is throwing under the bus happen to be Hillary's -- all of whom need government to work. Obama's disgusting introduction of der dolchstosslegende into the discourse -- one of the most vile smears of a Democrat you can imagine, used with great success by the Republicans for years -- is but the latest manifestation of this; aging Boomers need Social Security not to be looted, and need Medicare. But if they're morally unworthy, why should they, any more than the racists in the white working class [irony!], have their needs met?

    2. The reason "Obama's Party" is shedding Hillary's constituencies is that they intend to govern from the center right, as well as (see talking points) run from the center right. That is the structural reason for Obama to be vague or sleazy on policy (see Harry & Louise ads). The right doesn't want government to work at all, but they will accept a Democrat who wants it to work as little as possible -- and especially they will accept a government that, in the name of Unity, will not hold them accountable for their crimes.

    3. If Obama truly wanted unity, the signal would already have been sent. Instead, with stuff like der dolchstosslegende, he ups the ante, and continues his strategy of winning by shedding costly constituencies (winning with the huge money he gets from that, which funds the content free movement....)

    4. The Obama faction would prefer to win. But given a choice between partial control of the party and winning, and complete control, and losing, they'll take complete control and wait for another election cycle (after all, their opponents have no place to go; there is no NWP). That is what the "Obama Movement's" new "Get Out The [Obama] Vote" apparatus, which is independent of the party, is all about.

    5. It follows from all this that there will be no unified ticket. It also follows that Obama's Unity schtick is a complete scam. But then, we knew that.

    Well OK then (none / 0) (#105)
    by Edgar08 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:02:18 AM EST
    A particularly offensive piece of wit from our good friend Friedrich then:

    Comparing man and woman on the whole, one may say: woman would not possess a genius for ornamentation if she did not also possess an instinct for the secondary role.

    Hopefully this isn't too too much of a contortion.  My OPINION is it won't work with the people it needs to work with.  And I would add the Obama folks would just blame Clinton anyway for the defeat!.  It's a perfect lose/lose situation for Clinton and chances are, you know what!  She'd do it!

    So really.  Go for it.


    Eh (5.00 / 9) (#57)
    by nell on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:44:13 AM EST
    Maybe I am crazy, but I am just not a fan of the current unity ticket up for discussion (Obama/Clinton) because I think it is a) insulting to Clinton and to women everywhere who understand and have seen first hand how alive and well sexism is in the workplace, b) Clinton as VP will not help Obama where he needs it.

    What do I base this on? People like my parents and their friends who are very middle of the road - they love Clinton and will vote for her as top of the ticket, otherwise they are for McCain. They don't especially care who is VP...

    I was in a taxi the other day discussing my Clinton phone banking plans with my partner, who tepidly supports Obama, and the cab-driver turned and asked me, are you volunteering for Hillary? And I said yes I am! And he said I just love her, my wife and I, we just love her. And I was like oh, me too, and we gushed about Clinton for a few minutes and bad mouthed the biased media. And then he said, with no prompting from me, if it's not her, I won't be voting this year. I just feel too angry. And my partner said, well, what if she is VP? And he thought about it for a minute and he shook his head and said "No, it just hurts too much for me and my wife, she didn't deserve to be treated this way." My partner was surprised, but I think for the first time he actually understood that I am not some crazy Clinton supporter on the fringe, but that many of us really do feel personally offended by the way she has been treated and by the way all of her accomplishments have been belitted by the Obama campaign and the media in a way that no man's accomplishments would.


    Second narrative: Referendum on press (5.00 / 6) (#61)
    by lambert on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:45:15 AM EST
    The Obama faction (Federalist 10) has full spectrum dominance of our famously free press, and the coverage is skewed accordingly. This has been clear to the point of absurdity since NH, where not only the talking heads but the stenographers openly rooted for Hillary's defeat. Plus, Obama has more money than God and has been saturating the teebee with ads.

    So, the WV vote can also be viewed as a referendum on the press, which has declared the race over. And it's almost a controlled experiment, since Obama did not deign to campaign i the state, no doubt in the interests of Unity. It's Hillary versus Conventional Wisdom.

    If Hillary wins by a reasonable margin, that means The Mighty Wurlitzer has been tuned out. A substantial population of voters just isn't listening to what these clowns have to say. That should be seen as a huge story and a great victory, but at this point, our tribunes of the people in the "left" [cough] blogosphere don't want to replace Broder, they want to be Broder. So it probably won't be seen that way.

    Be The Broder. (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Salo on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:57:36 AM EST
    Take up the Bald Man's burden--

    Send forth the best ye breed--

    Go send your sons to exile

    To serve your creative classes need

    To wait in heavy harness

    On fluttered folk and wild--

    Your new-caught, sullen posters,

    Half devil and half child

    Take up the Bald Man's burden

    In patience to abide

    To veil the threat of terror

    And check the show of pride;

    By open speech and simple

    An hundred times made plain

    To seek another's profit

    And work another's gain

    Take up the Bald Man's burden--

    And reap Broder's old reward:

    The blame of those ye better

    The hate of those ye guard--

    The cry of blogs ye humour

    (Ah slowly) to the light:

    "Why brought ye us from bondage,

    "Our loved Egyptian night?"

    Take up the Bald Man's burden-

    Have done with childish days-

    The lightly proffered laurel,

    The easy, ungrudged praise.

    Comes now, to search your manly manness

    Through all the thankless years,

    Cold-edged with dear-bought wisdom,

    The judgment of your peers!


    I'd do a a great big Snoopy dance (5.00 / 2) (#171)
    by BGP on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:26:36 AM EST
    of joy, Lambert, if anything could knock some of the wind out of The Mighty Wurlitzer.

    Unfortunately, I think you're right. They're too busy listening to themselves to hear the people.


    "key demographic" (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by Stellaaa on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:35:12 AM EST
    To be more cynical like I am, the MSM does not want or is not looking for Hillary's demographic.  The MSM like the DNC sees Obama as the cash cow.  They want the "higher educated", "higher income"  whites.  As long is he is the candidate and eventually the president they will have engaged the key demographic.  Our democracy has been sold to the MSM desired demographic.  It's that simple.  

    Well, the narrative I heard this morning (5.00 / 8) (#66)
    by Anne on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:47:21 AM EST
    is that WV and Kentucky are non-events, because Obama is "letting" her have these big wins so that she can get out of the race on a high note...how's that for patronizing?  Really magnanimous, huh?  It just kills the unity for me.

    As for the large percentage of Clinton supporters who enthusiastically support an Obama/Clinton ticket - I am casting a jaundiced eye at those numbers.  If Gallup was reporting enthusiasm for a Clinton/Obama ticket, that would be believable, but Obama/Clinton?  Not so much.  It's like Obama is the kid with a learner's permit and she is the more experienced, fully licensed driver who gets to ride shotgun while he learns to drive.  Ugh.  Thanks, but where this country is and where it needs to go is not a job I want to hand over to a student driver.

    I fully expect that if Obama is the nominee, he will not only not pick Clinton, he will pick someone who will be the slap in the face that will wake people up to the fact that this man is not a progressive in any way, shape or form.  He will be going for the McCain voters, and not the Democratic party base - other than the black community - because he still thinks he can do it without us.  Now, there's an ego.

    100% correct. (none / 0) (#91)
    by madamab on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:57:51 AM EST
    My prediction: He will pick a Republican.

    That would probably be the only thing (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:21:40 AM EST
    that could happen that would prevent me from voting for him because it would no longer be a Democratic ticket.

    R Chuck Hagel (none / 0) (#140)
    by 1jane on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:14:48 AM EST
    is being talked up on MSM.

    If Chuck Hagel Was Chosen As VP, (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by MO Blue on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:28:43 AM EST
    would we still be the Democratic Party or has it been morphed into the Unity08 Party?

    Obama is not going to pick (none / 0) (#182)
    by independent thinker on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:29:41 AM EST
    a Republican. The MSM needs to fill time so the talkings heads spout off all kinds of crazy things.

    Obama has never said he could do it ... (none / 0) (#162)
    by independent thinker on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:23:05 AM EST
    without you. That is simply false. This meme comes mainly from a single talking head named Donna Brazil who got into a tussle on teevee. This is not and never has been the message from the Obama campaign.

    Second, the point about WV and KY is not that he is "letting her win" them...it is acknowledging that she runs stronger in those two states, but that the delegate math still favors Obama.

    Looking at the remaining contests, here's how I see it:
    WV - Clinton 68% (19 dels), Obama 32% (9 dels)
    KY - Clinton 65% (33 dels), Obama 35% (18 dels)
    OR - Clinton 44% (23 dels), Obama 56% (29 dels)
    MT - Clinton 44% (7 dels), Obama 56% (9 dels)
    SD - Clinton 44% (6 dels), Obama 56% (9 dels)
    PR - Clinton 60% (33 dels), Obama 40% (22 dels)

    With these numbers we end the voting season with Clinton at 1818 dels and Obama with 1965 dels.

    Even with a 50/50 split of the remaing supers, Obama ends up with 2088 to Clinton's 1941. And even adding Florida and Michigan in with the most Favorable numbers imaginable, Obama still would lead in total dels and popular vote.


    Oh please stop with the stupid delegate math (5.00 / 3) (#168)
    by Marvin42 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:25:33 AM EST
    No  offense, but you do realize hearing the same falsehood over and over will cause anyone to lose all patience and stop listening? The SDs will break for Obama, but it has NOTHING to do with the math numbers and 50% this, 60% that. They will break for one or another WITHOUT giving a darn about the math and percentages.

    I for one am so sick of this line of bs.


    Thank you for being so polite. (none / 0) (#190)
    by independent thinker on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:33:03 AM EST
    But I see nothing false in my comment. The numbers DO matter to some extent. Not to all SDs, true, but to many it does weigh on their decision. More importantly it matters to many people who have voted.

    Thank you for being so polite. (none / 0) (#194)
    by independent thinker on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:33:29 AM EST
    But I see nothing false in my comment. The numbers DO matter to some extent. Not to all SDs, true, but to many it does weigh on their decision. More importantly it matters to many people who have voted.

    Thank you for being so polite. (none / 0) (#202)
    by independent thinker on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:36:26 AM EST
    There is nothing false about the numbers. And they do matter to many--no all--but many SDs. And to many voters too.

    There Are Two Reasons In Favor (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by CoralGables on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:49:25 AM EST
    Providing Obama does hold on and wins the nomination, there are two important reasons for the unity ticket.

    First and foremost it helps unify the party and thereby helps the Dems win the White House in November. VP selections are generally chosen as a "do no harm" measure. Hillary Clinton may be the first VP candidate that actually garners votes for the ticket that otherwise might slip away.

    The second reason is interconnected, less factual,  and more emotional. We have just had a woman come closer than ever to the White House. As of now there are no other female candidates in the same league. Sometimes when a step is there you take it, even if its not where you were aiming.

    I have a daughter. I would have been proud to vote for Hillary not just because she may be the best of the remaining three candidates, but also that the ultimate glass ceiling would be broken. Being elected as VP in November is still a nice ceiling to break through, and one this Dad would be proud to vote for to the benefit of every young girl growing up.

    if the uniter is really a unifier he can start (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by kimsaw on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:50:10 AM EST
    with his own party. Let's see what kind of leader he truly is.  This ticket would work with Clinton's policy expertise that he sorely lacks.

    Unfortunately I think he won't necessarily go with a Dem.  I think a fringe republican or an independent like Hagel or Bloomberg, remember how Kerry contemplated McCain. Remember the morning meeting and Unity '08. I think a stealth campaign to over take the Dem organization has been Obama's coup.  Obama's platform will be about the appearance of national unity and unexpected compromises will be made.  My question is what will the core dems do with this betrayal of fortune? As an independent even I think it stinks.

    If he picks an R.... (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by NWHiker on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:54:28 AM EST
    ... can the Dem party take away his nomination?

    I won't vote for Obama at all, personally (was it here that I read Win Without Me?), but I know my dh will hold his nose and do it, as will my MIL. An R on the ticket as Veep? Ummm... Neither will. DH stated that this morning and MIL is already thinking Obama makes nice too much with Rs. She's one of the ones who slipped out of the middle class during the Reagan years and Obama's -endlessly parsed- comments about Reagan just pissed her off to no end.


    he wont do that. (none / 0) (#90)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:57:43 AM EST
    Oh Capt... (none / 0) (#101)
    by madamab on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:01:15 AM EST
    I think he will.

    How well would that fit in with his post-partisan Unity schtick?



    totally agree (5.00 / 0) (#166)
    by kimsaw on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:25:21 AM EST
    He becomes the transcendent figure he proclaims, he becomes the leader of the party, the party values don't matter when the appearance of change is the goal. He is a great capitulator under duress. He sold out his grandma, you don't think he's willing to sellout the party. His is a message that sweeps every issue under the rug as not important enough for real solutions. UNIVERSAL  health care, ain't universal if someone can opt out. It's all about style, substance is under the bus.

    He may not pick Hagel and you don't know how much I want to be wrong.  Maybe I will be. Perhaps its that trust thing lacking when it comes to him.  He's been a member of a black liberation theology church for 20 yrs and doesn't own the vision but sat there making himself look good in his community. When is Rev. shows himself to the general public, Obama hides till he has to clarify.  He's a the candidate of contradiction. Everyone owns a piece of him, but he owes them nothing, not loyalty, not action, "just words".

    The smartest thing for him to do is pick Clinton for the benefit of our nation, but I just don't think he's all that smart.


    Watch Out for the Trolls (5.00 / 0) (#83)
    by rbottoms on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:55:09 AM EST
    Obama can't win working class whites. He comes off as too elitist and effette.

    Horse manure.

    Assisting concern trolls trash the certain Democratic nominee is silly and self-defeating. I am a Yellow Dog Democrat and you people better get your mind right about winning.

    I voted for Hillary, she lost, and I got over it.

    It was liberating to not feel the need to vote for Obama because we're both black. I did so because I was concerned if he couldn't beat her, he couldn't beat them. Well guess what.

    One thing remains above all else: Obama's a Democrat and McCain is not. Any Democrat who even hints that they won't support our nominee after eight years of this crap is worse than a fool.

    If you think I am anything but a kick ass and take names Democrat, just drop my name over at Balloon Juice folks. I've spent six years giving John apoplexy, now it looks like some of us need an attitude adjustment too.

    Sorry (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:01:58 AM EST
    but the fact is that Obama has problems. Sticking your head in the sand DOES NOT help one bit.

    re: problems (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by rbottoms on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:08:44 AM EST
    So he has problems.

    Is he a fraggin' Democrat or not? Are you a Democrat or not? You better be telling the GOP right now that if Obama is the nominee you'll throw every dollar and ounce of support behind him.

    There is no other choice but to stand up and be Democrats and tell the GOP to go straight to hell.

    That's how they beat us for 25 years.

    Party loyalty.


    I'm (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:28:50 AM EST
    sick of the totalitarianism that reeks from the Obama supporter. You'd better do this! Or you'd better do that! I DO NOT want 4 more years of that. We've just had 8 years. Frankly, the interesting thing is that McCain is asking for my vote while Obama is not. Obama does not want my vote.

    Frankly, how much of a Dem is Obama? He's a guy who follows the Daschle school of "roll over to the GOP." I really don't see the point of voting for him.


    No they beat "us" because (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by Marvin42 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:33:26 AM EST
    The democratic party is suicidal and I am sorry to day dumb. Observe what "we" are about to do yet again: nominate someone we know can not win. And "our" leaders decided they don't want a particular candidate and did everything they could to make it happen. Now let's sit back and be "shocked" when we lose in Nov.

    And I am quoting because I just quit the party.


    No they beat "us" because (5.00 / 0) (#196)
    by Marvin42 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:34:30 AM EST
    The democratic party is suicidal and I am sorry to day dumb. Observe what "we" are about to do yet again: nominate someone we know can not win. And "our" leaders decided they don't want a particular candidate and did everything they could to make it happen. Now let's sit back and be "shocked" when we lose in Nov.

    And I am quoting because I just quit the party.


    Tell Obama (5.00 / 1) (#234)
    by cal1942 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:16:04 AM EST
    To stop attacking Democrats from the right.

    Tell Obama leave Social Security alone
    Tell Obama and parts of the "Democratic" leadership to abandon the madness of warping the Democratic Party into some version of the Eisenhower GOP.


    The Democrats (none / 0) (#147)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:17:30 AM EST
    are the party of misogyny.  To many of us, they are just another side of the GOP coin.

    Nice Try But Not Trolls (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by cdalygo on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:06:58 AM EST
    I applaud your loyalty to an institution. But the Democratic Party I supported for most of my life no longer exists. (I suspect the difference between us lies in our gender. You were not cast aside in order to nominate a leadership favorite.)

    Obama did not beat her "fair and square." They are essentially "tied" if you don't disenfranchise Michigan and Florida. She's ahead if you look at the metrics that count in the fall such as the number of swing states and cross-sections of supporters. Anything else is a sleight of hand pushed by the leadership and the Rove controlled mainstream media.

    I'm mailing my change in registration today (going independent) and it feels great. Mind you, too, I have not only voted dem in the past but also volunteered for it. However, I will not play a part in an institution that has become an antithesis of everything for what it once stood. Nor is this tied solely to Hillary, it's been coming for awhile.

    That's why I would never support a ticket that places her as VP.


    re: nice try (2.00 / 0) (#123)
    by rbottoms on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:10:10 AM EST
    I applaud your loyalty to an institution. But the Democratic Party I supported for most of my life no longer exists.


    That's the choice this year. Us or them.



    Hear Me (5.00 / 5) (#129)
    by cdalygo on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:11:22 AM EST
    There is no "us" right now.

    re: us (2.00 / 0) (#183)
    by rbottoms on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:30:15 AM EST
    >There is no "us" right now.

    Again, horse manue.

    Either you're a Democrat or you're not.


    Not N/T (5.00 / 1) (#218)
    by Marvin42 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:46:18 AM EST
    Well I'm Not A Democrat (5.00 / 2) (#220)
    by MO Blue on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:48:48 AM EST
    I am an Indie. You know one of those voters that Obama values over some of the more traditional Democratic voters. You may not realize this but your tactics are counterproductive and really turn some of us Independent voters off and make it less likely that we will vote for Obama.

    Well, then, (5.00 / 4) (#231)
    by Nadai on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:04:09 AM EST
    after 30 years of party-line voting, I'm not a Democrat.

    If I have to choose between being a feminist and being a Democrat, it doesn't take me 5 seconds to make my decision.

    Loyalty goes both ways or it's nothing but exploitation.


    Win friends and influence people much? (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by Fabian on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:26:15 AM EST
    A vote is a wonderful thing.  I own mine.  I can give it to any candidate or none at all.

    And I live in Ohio, so I expect some serious pandering and sucking up - pronto!


    You Are Either For Us Or Against Us (5.00 / 1) (#208)
    by MO Blue on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:40:53 AM EST
    Now where did I hear that before.

    You Are So Right (5.00 / 0) (#138)
    by MO Blue on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:13:34 AM EST
    Obama has absolutely no problem with working class whites. All the exit polls and losses in small town rural America are just propaganda and should be ignored. Obama, Axelrod and Brazile should just keep on doing what they have been doing and everything will be fine and dandy.

    Parades and flowers.... n/t (5.00 / 2) (#174)
    by Fabian on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:27:15 AM EST
    The tone of your (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by suisser on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:27:33 AM EST
    post is bullying.
    I won't be bullied into voting for someone who is not qualified. Period.

    re: bullying (2.00 / 0) (#188)
    by rbottoms on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:31:38 AM EST
    I won't be bullied into voting for someone who is not qualified. Period.

    Gosh. Now I have the power to force you into a voting booth.

    With great power comes great responsibility. My Uncle Ben taught me that.


    Gosh (none / 0) (#93)
    by Steve M on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:58:37 AM EST
    You really toughed it out as a Clinton supporter at BJ?

    BJ (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by rbottoms on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:05:16 AM EST
    I've been telling people to go to hell over there for quite a while. I am a Yellow Dog Democrat and I live by this:

    There are no good Republicans.

    There are no bad Democrats.

    For 25 years the far right has used the same strategy, fight like hell in the primary, vote for whichever Republican is in the general.


    Any hint of idiocy like "boo hoo", I'm staying home or maybe I will vote for McCain if Hillary loses is crap.

    I am a Democrat, I will never vote for anyone but a Democrat, and you better be that way too if you want to beat these bastards.


    "There are no bad Democrats" (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:10:32 AM EST
    its not that simple.
    if only it was.

    True story. (5.00 / 0) (#192)
    by Fabian on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:33:08 AM EST
    My bro's SO has a father.  He's a staunch conservative.  He's also a judge who has been elected time after time as a Democrat.  Why?  Because he knows that he'd never have won an election running as Republican.

    Define "Democrat".  


    No bad Democrats (5.00 / 2) (#215)
    by cal1942 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:43:52 AM EST
    "There are no bad Democrats."

    Tell that to Obama and his crowd.

    Tell that to the Democratic Party "leadership"

    Force Obama to fire his GOP style economics team.
    Force Obama to discard the Unity schtick.
    Force Obama to guarantee he will dispose of ALL appointed Republicans in federal agencies.
    Force Obama to appoint only Democrats.
    Force Obama to discard Blackwater and their ilk.
    Force Obama to clear out all contract workers.
    Force Obama to abandon his neo-liberal economic philosophy.


    I was disappointed (5.00 / 0) (#104)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:02:14 AM EST
    that there were no internals on that poll.  I specifically wanted to see how the women's support went (of course).  Regardless, the 27% of the Clinton supporters who don't want Clinton in the subordinate spot are enough to give the election to McCain.

    You know my feelings on the issue, so I won't go further.

    What I will say, if Obama picks the more qualified Clinton to make his coffee in the VP spot and she agrees (bleh), it will be funny to see Tweety and Olbertwit's heads explode.  Might be worth the watch (of course, with ample popcorn).

    Kuh-LASSIC (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:06:53 AM EST
    see?  that's THEIR game.  Forget the issues...let's talk about race.

    Has he won yet? (5.00 / 3) (#124)
    by Radix on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:10:17 AM EST
    I hadn't realized everyone had finished voting.

    Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated

    Don Henley-The Garden of Allah

    Every other metric? (5.00 / 3) (#126)
    by angie on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:11:10 AM EST
    Like winning the big swing states? Furthermore, hasn't the Obama camp ever heard of "don't count your chickens before they are hatched?" The race isn't over, so don't so we don't know the popular vote yet & FL & MI still need to be seated.
    Don't bother to respond to me -- I am ignoring you and your idiotic charges of racism.

    Chickens? (5.00 / 0) (#150)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:18:49 AM EST
    Counting them?  Or coming home to roost?  

    Painting WV as backward and racist (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by davnee on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:11:25 AM EST
    is unacceptable to me.  That alone is enough reason to vote against Obama.  He has truly set race relations back in this country by decades.  His candidacy has made it impossible for us to debate merit.  Dismissing the results in WV means that you accept that there is no merit-based reason for a voter to prefer Clinton to Obama.  Once you accept that you have condemned yourself to a mindless devotion that will paralyze all criticism.  I refuse to condemn myself to four years of being called a racist every time President Obama does something I disagree with and I want to point it out.  What makes it all the more galling is this guy is an unproven nobody.  We are delivering unchecked power to him?!

    The media had better watch themselves tonight, because don't think the Republicans won't be recording everything said for posterity and readying the clips on how the elitist Obamabots despise the working class.  Could there ever be more evidence of how much Obama and his media and DNC cronies actively hate rural and working class Americans?  Culture war here we come.

    I don't think the tape you are refering to says (5.00 / 3) (#191)
    by Radix on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:33:05 AM EST
    what you say it says. More likely she comments on the current state of affairs, which don't include FL/MI, she then goes on to say that could change depending on the rules committee. And since both Obama and Dean are also on recording, stating FL/MI will be seated, the number needed is therefore 2209.

    Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated

    Don Henley-The Garden of Allah

    Clinton Unions in till the end - (5.00 / 0) (#217)
    by gabbyone on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:45:58 AM EST
    There is a great article on Jake Tapper's blog
    about how the Unions are still fighting hard for
    Hillary. One of the Union guys says she should take it to the convention.  He was there the year that Sen. Ted Kennedy came and fought Carter with 979 delegates seperating them.  He says this is a small number between Clinton and Obama.  


    re: Carter (none / 0) (#227)
    by rbottoms on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:57:11 AM EST
    That's the year Carter lost, isn't it?

    One thing I believe, Hillary and Bill are Democrats, just like me.

    She's looking for the best spin for conceding and the best position from which to pursue VP. But destroy the party, no I don't think so.


    I'm beginning to change my mind about this race (3.00 / 0) (#13)
    by Jim J on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:26:47 AM EST
    Much as I'm loathe to say this as a diehard HRC supporter, I'm coming around to the realization that Democratic registration and energy, combined with almost unprecedented Republican malaise, will carry the election in November.

    I'm with everybody on Obama's many and obvious salient weaknesses. But it's looking like none of them will matter very much. The numbers favor Democrats too heavily.

    The polling is looking a little better (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by andgarden on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:27:40 AM EST
    this week. But then, McCain really hasn't started to campaign.

    And what if (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by madamab on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:29:01 AM EST
    Bush attacks Iran?

    What if there's another terrorist attack on American soil?

    Don't get me wrong, I don't think Obama's electable no matter what. But should either or both of those things happen, McCain sails into the White House with no problem at all.

    And I personally would not put it past Bush, Rove or Cheney to make these things happen. They, not HRC, will literally do anything to win.


    I believe (none / 0) (#80)
    by Steve M on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:53:48 AM EST
    that Bush attacking Iran would be an electoral disaster for the Republicans.

    People are sick of this war.  They really really do not want another war.  They would not just say, "oh well, I guess we're in another war now, we better elect a Republican to handle it."


    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:58:16 AM EST
    with that. Attacking Iran won't help the GOP. However, some foreign policy crisis would help deliver the WH to McCain over Obama.

    He won't attack (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by cmugirl on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:01:52 AM EST
    But there will be some saber-rattling with regards to Iran - just enough to wake people up to foreign policy and Obama's lack of experience.

    Yep (5.00 / 0) (#161)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:22:54 AM EST
    And if you look at the Oregon poll, 90% of those who think terrorism is a big issue prefer Clinton.

    All they have to do is throw out a Bin Laden video or some other threatening device.  Couple that with the Kerry-Kennedy-Moveon support and some affiliation with Ayers/Wright, and there's no way Obama can win.


    Yeah (none / 0) (#110)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:05:11 AM EST
    that would work. All the GOP has to do is raise enough doubt about Obama (easy to do since he's undefined) that people won't pull the lever for him. If McCain is polling at 45% with all the bad stuff the GOP has going on right now, I would think that all he has to do is get 5-6% and pull off a win.

    Yup (none / 0) (#131)
    by cmugirl on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:11:46 AM EST
    And like Bill Clinton - he doesn't even necessarily  need a majority - he could win with a plurality (especially if Nader, Paul, Gravel, and Barr all pull in a couple of points).

    I don't (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:29:31 AM EST
    expect the Republican malaise to last though. They had it in 1988 and a 527 changed all that. The GOP will show up to vote for McCain. They always show up for their guy. It's the Dems that are going to have the problems IMO.

    As disgusted as the voters are with the GOP right now, when Nov. comes they can always justify voting for McCain because "he's a maverick" and the dems hold congress and the senate anyway.


    Yup. Frankly all they (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by dk on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:32:46 AM EST
    have to do is take out an ad with Obama's face and the words "tax and spend liberal" on the bottom.  That will be a 10% spike for McCain right there.

    The Clinton's know how to respond to that attack.  Obama doesn't.  Sometimes it really is that simple.


    Yes he does (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:54:56 AM EST
    Obama and his campaign will play the race card.  May work on guilt-ridden liberals in the primary but won't last 5 minutes in the general.

    Sorry Jim (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by SeaMBA on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:30:52 AM EST
    As someone pointed out on another site, does anyone remember Dukakis's lead after the convention?

    Obama is not a fighter.  Clinton has been nothing compared to what the Republican's will throw at him.


    Wait Until the Republican (5.00 / 6) (#64)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:46:47 AM EST
    527s are finished with him. By the time they are through with him he will be looking like a Muslim terrorist who hangs out with Louis Farrakhan and Rev Wright over in Syria.  

    Look what those SOB's did to the honorable Max Cleland?  That guy is a freaking HERO and a TRUE patriot.

    They (the R's) will eviscerate him and will have fun doing it.

    Your mind may not be changed but a WHOLE LOT OF others will be.


    One needs to be careful (none / 0) (#53)
    by Salo on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:43:40 AM EST
    about national polling.

    It's likely to mean that obama is the presumptive nominee. It suits McCain to be the underdog.

    But yeah there is a sense that teh real race was the Democratic Primary.


    Will Bill keep his yap shut? (3.00 / 0) (#209)
    by Semanticleo on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:41:07 AM EST
    I don't have a problem with Hill as Veep.

    I will qualify that by saying I hope Bill operates as 2nd Husband from the background, but I think that will be impossible for him to do.

    re: delegates (3.00 / 0) (#233)
    by rbottoms on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:07:02 AM EST
    If he loses as bad as he is expected to why does he get nearly 40% of the delegates?

    Maybe he won't lose by as much as you expect and the delegates are awarded proportionally.

    In any case, Hillary cannot catch Obama in delegate count. Period. She screwed up, I wish she hadn't but then the primary is a test of political ability. Sometimes you just get beat.

    Meanwhile, I noticed you didn't sign off with a note to Republicans that we will be knocking their block off in November.

    Man or woman as the nominee we are better than the Republicans on every measure that counts.

    We are not the torture party.

    We are not the gay bashing party.

    We are not the destroy the environment party.

    We are not the party of anti-science and religious intolerance.

    We are, Democrats.

    Richardson would be a better pick for VP. (2.00 / 0) (#34)
    by kindness on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:36:37 AM EST
    He can bring some of the western swing states to the Democratic side.

    Richardson is a terrible pick (5.00 / 5) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:40:16 AM EST
    Indeed an unacceptable pick.

    First he is now seen as one of the most divisive figures in the Party because he chose to pick a fight with the Clintons. that alone makes him unacceptable.

    Second, Richardson brings nothing to the table except New Mexico. Richardson is not a force with Latinos. most do not even know who he is.

    Third, Richardson is possibly the worst campaigner I have ever seen.

    If Obama picks Richardson, then he will have confirmed that he has terrible judgment.


    He'll not bring anything (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by Salo on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:48:15 AM EST
    but buffoonery.

    He's also offensive to many Clinton partisans.

    Rendell or even Daschle woudl be more intertesting.


    I do believe... (5.00 / 2) (#226)
    by Dawn Davenport on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:55:59 AM EST
    ...that's the first time I've seen the words "Daschle" and "interesting" in the same sentence. ;-)

    No no (none / 0) (#211)
    by Edgar08 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:41:48 AM EST
    Richardson.  No one brings out the best in Obama like Richardson.

    You mean like NM (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:56:29 AM EST
    where Hillary won?

    Ascribing petty motives to Clinton (2.00 / 0) (#137)
    by digdugboy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:13:33 AM EST
    One of the things I just do not understand about some on this blog is how you can be so supportive of a candidate -- Hillary -- and yet believe she could be so petty as to want Obama to lose in the GE. She, more than practically anybody else in this country, knows exactly what is at stake in this election, with climate change and SCOTUS in the balance.

    How could you possibly believe that Hillary places more importance on her own political future than she does on the climatic ruination of our planet? Is that really the kind of person you want to be President of the United States? You've already had one just like that, for he past 8 years.

    I do not doubt that Hillary can be a ruthless campaigner and a ruthless politician. But I simply cannot believe she works this way for herself alone. Her eyes remain on the ends for all of us, not just for herself. It is deeply insulting to her for any of you to suggest that she should celebrate an Obama crash and burn in the general election. Those of you making that suggestion reveal your own pettiness.

    I'd celebrate (5.00 / 0) (#160)
    by Fabian on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:22:51 AM EST
    Obama suddenly becoming an Issues based campaigner who stops disrespecting important constituencies.

    I won't celebrate a loss.  I'll just sigh and send a nice letter to the DNC with suggestions.  That would be after I trash the invective and profanity laced initial draft.


    If memory serves, some (none / 0) (#163)
    by brodie on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:23:27 AM EST
    anti-HRC forces in the MCM and among the Clinton hating left thought she and Bill were working behind the scenes in 2004 to sabotage, variously, the campaign of the beloved Howard Dean, and then Kerry.

    All to set herself up, doncha know, for her 08 run.

    Same difference today.  It's always the ruthless Hillary scheming against some favored Dem to take away his deserved prize.

    Now, realistically, I don't see her making another run in 2012 should O fail to beat the elderly McCain.  This campaign has been brutally long -- nearly a solid year and a half of campaigning -- and it has to take its toll, regardless of the positive public face she presents now.

    2012 is also her re-elect year.  I'd expect her to go for one more term as an important and influential senator from a hugely important state.  She'd finish out that way, much as Ted Kennedy ended up being a major Dem force in Congress.  But no more WH runs, and no Maj Leader attempt either.  Not in the cards, and I'm not sure half the senate Dems would want her in that post either.


    "working class whites" (1.00 / 0) (#29)
    by diogenes on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:34:38 AM EST
    The only way that Hillary wins working class white men is by comparison to Obama.  This was not her strength in January 2008.  If Obama wants to win the good old boys then he can pick Webb, Warner, Casey, Nunn, etc.
    Why in heaven's name would you pick as your second in command someone you don't get along with?  Especially someone who runs a futile race with a nuclear option (contrast with Romney viv-a-vis McCain).  No CEO with half a brain would do that.  As was said of Karl Rove, taking advice on how to win an election from Hillary partisans is a bit like getting health care tips from the director of a funeral home.  

    Heh (5.00 / 6) (#55)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:43:45 AM EST
    You can not have it both ways - either clinton has some appeal with those voters or they hate Obama and he can not win them. In which case, we lose in November.

    CDS can be so severe that it even allows for trashing Obama just as long as you get to trash Clinton too.



    How ridiculous. (5.00 / 5) (#56)
    by madamab on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:44:02 AM EST
    If anyone knows how to win elections, it's Hillary.

    HRC won a very difficult election in her first term as NY Senator. The Republican voters in upstate NY did not like her and thought she was too liberal.

    Somehow, while amassing a 91% progressive voting record in the Senate, she managed to convince the upstate NY voters (white working-class men for the most part) that she cared about them and represented their interests.

    She was re-elected in 2006 with 67% of the vote.

    What she did in upstate NY is what she's doing with the rest of the country.

    She is the stronger candidate in the GE.

    We ignore this at our peril.


    so, Hillary wins only compared to Obama (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by angie on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:45:39 AM EST
    therefore what? we should put up the one who does worse with the white working class men against Sen. McCain? Great strategy.

    Obama (5.00 / 4) (#68)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:48:19 AM EST
    can't win the those voters with a VP pick. Edwards didn't help Kerry and no VP candidate will help Obama.

    While Obama may have done well in the primary he's set himself up very poorly for the general election. He hasn't broadened his appeal, he has lessened it. And if he's already lessened it by the end of the primary it doesn't bode well for the general election.


    Yes An Anti-Choice Candidate Like Casey (5.00 / 3) (#113)
    by MO Blue on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:06:08 AM EST
    would be a great way to win over women who already doubt Obama's commitment to woman's rights.

    "None is so blind as he who will not see." A perfect description of some Obama supporters.


    Sure (none / 0) (#38)
    by liminal on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:38:07 AM EST
    You're right: it wasn't her strength in January 2008.  However, it is her strength now.  

    Hillary won't accept if (1.00 / 0) (#74)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:51:11 AM EST
    the VP slot is offered. Because if she does:

    If Obama loses she will be dead.

    If Obama wins she will be dead.

    At this point she has to hope McCain wins and she can run in 2012.

    I desagree that she would (none / 0) (#96)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:59:54 AM EST
    be to old in 2016.
    she would be younger than McCain now, right.
    but I suspect they are eyeing 2012.
    I have guessed she might take it if only to be able to say she did everything she could.

    She might be younger than McCain (1.00 / 0) (#149)
    by cmugirl on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:17:38 AM EST
    but let's face it - she's a woman.  My gawd - we are already hearing about her pantsuits, her cackle, her thick ankles. Can you imagine a woman (especially this woman) with 8 more years of wear on her face - we'd never hear the end of her wrinkles, and whether she did (or should) have plastic surgery.

    its funny (5.00 / 0) (#178)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:28:38 AM EST
    well not funny ha ha, but I think that in a few more years those jokes just wont hold anymore.
    Hillary is just the right age for them to make disparaging remarks about her appearance or like MSNBC use the worst pics with the most harsh lighting. because she is still young enough to look really good in the right light.
    in 8 years (or maybe even 4) she will be of an age that those things just wont be as funny any more.
    I think a Maggie Thatcher, Golda Meir stateswoman thing might be going on by then.
    just MO.

    re: WV (1.00 / 2) (#142)
    by rbottoms on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:15:13 AM EST
    West Virginia is backward and racist.

    But that's me speaking like any rational black would do, not a more charitable Obama.

    Dismissing the results in WV means that you accept that there is no merit-based reason for a voter to prefer Clinton to Obama.

    Except that numerically she can't win. Get over it.

    Well You Will Be Glad To Know That Obama (5.00 / 2) (#200)
    by MO Blue on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:35:32 AM EST
    will not be tarnished with that backward and racist state in his win column come November. Good chance he won't carry the backward and racist states of Ohio and Missouri either but who needs these states when he can win ID and UT.

    An honest bigot? (none / 0) (#151)
    by Fabian on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:18:59 AM EST
    How refreshing!

    Who else wants a unity ticket? (none / 0) (#2)
    by andgarden on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:17:57 AM EST
    Bill Nelson:

    If Hillary's the nominee, Barack will be the running mate. If Barack's the nominee, Hillary will be the running mate. That's my answer

    Just thought I'd put that out there.

    A man with some sense (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:28:41 AM EST
    At least he admits (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by madamab on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:32:25 AM EST
    that HRC could still be the nominee. ;-)


    Read the whole thing. Sure it starts out with Obama's new lead in national polls, but there are some interesting bits about how Dems are not exactly anxious to see Clinton drop out.

    You linked to the entire archives (none / 0) (#59)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:44:41 AM EST
    VP (none / 0) (#50)
    by tedsim on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:42:41 AM EST
    It would be to demeaning,it would be to much,she is so far ahead of him in every respect, she would never do that never!

    heard some interesting speculation on teevee (none / 0) (#54)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:43:45 AM EST
    that Bill would be the one to push her to the VP slot.
    for two reasons.  dont be a bystander to history and if he loses they will be blamed.
    not sure I buy it.
    I suspect they might be just as happy to see him crash and burn and try again in 4 years.
    it will be very interesting to see what happens.

    That fits with what she said about choosing to run (none / 0) (#118)
    by hitchhiker on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:07:59 AM EST
    I'm sorry, I don't have time to find a link now, but the way she described her decision to get in the race goes like this:

    She was agonizing over whether or not to do it.  Bill asked her how it would feel to have said no, and then watch from the sidelines as a Republican won, knowing that she could have beaten him.

    Bill would be the one to push her to the VP slot.
    for two reasons.  dont be a bystander to history and if he loses they will be blamed.
    not sure I buy it.

    I think she would say yes, and I'm on board with BTD here.  This ticket would win, and I would feel much better knowing that she's a heartbeat away than any other person in America.


    it would certainly be the best bet of winning (none / 0) (#136)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:13:07 AM EST
    Mara Liasson... (none / 0) (#70)
    by NWHiker on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:49:18 AM EST
    just said on NPR, speaking of WV, that the state is full less educated, older, white voters that Clinton now considers to be her base.

    Is that reporting?

    no (5.00 / 3) (#87)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:56:58 AM EST
    thats Mara Liasson.
    the person who puts the pee in PBS.

    I like Katrina vanden Heuvel, but (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:28:10 AM EST
    she was on CNN last night talking about these voters and I so wanted to call her up and invite her to spend a week at my parent's house in Alabama so she could meet some of the hill people she was talking about - clearly without a clue as to who they really are or what they really care about.  Most of these people commenting on TV haven't a clue about rural folks.  The only person that I've seen who gets it is Craig Crawford.  But most of the puditry's exposure to small towns is limited to places like East Hampton and "quaint" little towns in Maine.

    not just pundits (5.00 / 0) (#187)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:31:33 AM EST
    but bloggers and commenters as well.

    Yesterday evening on CNN (none / 0) (#106)
    by OxyCon on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:03:46 AM EST
    I rarely watch cable news these days, but yesterday I listened to CNN while I was preparing dinner for me and my son (I'm a widower). Woof Blitzer asked Charlie Rangel about Hillary's comments on her "white" supporters less then twenty minutes after John King had said something to this effect: "The Obama campaign thinks they can win Virginia due to his large AA support there".
    I just shook my head, then turned the television off. I'm so sick of the double standards and the sleazy way everyone is going out of their way to try and destroy the Clintons.
    What amazes me is that the right wingers, along with the media, tried everything they could think of to destroy the Clintons in the 1990s and we all know who got the worst of that. But now the far left, along with the media again, is doing the same thing the right wingers did, basically making sh*t up, and it sure looks to me like the Clintons are still doing quite fine, while the far left is shooting themselves in the foot.

    I can't imagine Obama (none / 0) (#145)
    by brodie on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:16:13 AM EST
    voluntarily choosing someone he feels personally uncomfortable with, as appears to be the case, nor can I see Hillary returning to the WH for another tour of duty as advisor to another president.  Certainly hard to imagine she'd willingly do so when she'd be in a non-trust situation with a previous political opponent who wields all the power and would have the ability to ease her out to the margins of relevance once he's in office.  She'd make history, yes, but that's the only guarantee.

    The only way this unity ticket comes about is if both camps are compelled to do so because 2-3 months or so of party healing efforts haven't worked.

    In any case, Obama isn't obliged to make any decisions in May, nor should he or we take too much to heart the meaningless polls right now about unity tickets.  Makes for some interesting discussion though.

    He has the luxury of time, months to think it through.  Kennedy had less than a day, and in his fatigue was blindsided in all the various calculations by the deceptive Johnson ...

    I have no idea how thiw works going (none / 0) (#153)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:19:59 AM EST

    I am not at all opposed to a Unity ticket, I do wonder if this unity matters to the general election voters as much as it does to Democratic primary voters.  I wonder if these two candidates would be a good enough team in terms of general electorate appeal to merge their campaigns.  Kerry-Edwards was a huge disappointment because the Kerry camp muzzled Edwards and didn't take advantage of him.  

    Would Obama take Clinton begrudgingly and end up undermining his ticket as a result?  I ask this question because I haven't seen much flexibility from the Obama camp.  They would need to make room for Senator Clinton - not to mention a former president on the inside of their campaign and I wonder if they have the ability/desire to do that.  Then there is Teddy Kennedy's and Kerry's influence on the Obama camp which seems to be pretty intense and it is clear that they picked Obama in part because they were trying to put up a roadblock for the Clinton machine.

    I don't know.  

    There's a farm bill winding its way through the House and Senate and my favorite rice growers can't afford to plant unless it passes.  Apparently, Bush plans to veto the bill.  Has anyone heard our candidates talking about this farm bill?

    Hillary to break out new slogan (none / 0) (#157)
    by Exeter on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:20:46 AM EST
    in tonights WV victory speech. I'm not supposed to tell anyone, be Hill's confidante and all, but I will say this: think Bill Murray in Meatballs.

    "It just doesn't matter" (none / 0) (#204)
    by cmugirl on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:38:27 AM EST
    Ha Ha!

    But remember... (none / 0) (#216)
    by Exeter on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:45:22 AM EST
    ...Camp Northstar is so inpsired by Murray's anti-anthem, that they go on and do the impossible: beat Camp Mohawk!

    I hope it's this one (none / 0) (#228)
    by samanthasmom on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:58:36 AM EST
    "I'm looking forward to some action this summer. I hope you can supply it."

    You just painted my (none / 0) (#181)
    by Fabian on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:29:36 AM EST
    sister and her SO and his son with that nice broad brush so I'm not feeling very charitable at the moment.

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#232)
    by Nadai on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:06:48 AM EST
    and my mother, half a dozen of my aunts and uncles, God alone knows how many of my cousins, and, of course, my late maternal grandparents.

    I'm so feeling the unity.


    I think (none / 0) (#186)
    by Claw on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:31:32 AM EST
    She'd be a great asset to him as VP. She's shown she can fight, she's shown she's extremely intelligent, and if you think she'd be making the coffee you don't know Hillary! Plus, I don't think Obama would try to alienate her, or dismiss her opinion as VP.  I really don't.
    I'm not ready to call it.  But if she were to become his VP I think she'd do an unbelievably good job and might even be able to persuade Obama to improve his health care plan.
    Plus, BTD, when people like Carville are saying that Obama's the likely nominee...It remains unfair to her to deprive her of great coverage for what looks to be an impressive win.  I just don't think the media is obligated to show something they don't think anyone's going to watch.

    Roughly half (5.00 / 1) (#214)
    by Nadai on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:43:38 AM EST
    of the Democrats voted for her.  How could the media legitimately think no one wants to see her win big?

    My main priority (none / 0) (#206)
    by Coral on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:39:52 AM EST
    is having Democrats win--and win BIG, by big margins for President, and overwhelming numbers in house, senate and state government--in November.

    The best way to make this happen is to have both Obama and Clinton on the ticket and have the Obama and the Clinton families make a public show of unity and work their magic on their respective most enthusiastic and loyal constituencies.

    It would lead to a huge landslide, and heal divides that have been existent in the party back as far as I can remember, racial, ethnic, working-class/latte elite/"creative" class, and regional divides.

    Now that would be truly transformational.

    To get there, I would certainly be happy to see Clinton take the VP spot.

    United we stand, divided we fall.

    Not Now John (none / 0) (#210)
    by rbottoms on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:41:33 AM EST
    Dear John,

    We're a little busy now sorting out a small family dispute which should be finished up in about six weeks or so.

    When we do, be advised we are coming to kick your George Bush loving, mismanaged war fighting, economy destroying, environment polluting, Chinese lead toy excusing, inept, gay bashing, anti-science, fanatical party's behind to Pluto. And beyond.