More Support For A Unity Ticket

The Media hates the idea. The Creative Class blogs are apoplectic at the thought of it. But Democrats are strongly in favor:

By a 60 - 33 percent margin, Democrats say Obama should pick Clinton as his vice presidential running mate. "Sen. Hillary Clinton's never-say-die campaign still has lots of fans. Just as in delegates, states, money, you-name-it, Obama leads her in national support - but only by a bit," said Maurice Carroll, director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

"Party leaders may be cringing over the potential damage to Democratic chances in November from the endless primary campaign, but two-thirds of the rank-and-file think Clinton ought to keep battling," Carroll added. "The 'dream ticket?' Three out of five Democrats like the idea."

I stand with the strong majority of Democrats on this one.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Government to Rest in Geoff Fieger Trial | Another Electability Argument Regarding Caucuses >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Not this "people!" (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Shainzona on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:00:31 PM EST

    Oh, and voters think (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by andgarden on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:01:55 PM EST
    that Hillary is more competent and a better leader than McCain.

    He would be toast against her.

    Yes but we must put Obama (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by madamab on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:04:32 PM EST
    on the ticket no matter what!!!1111

    I'm in favor of a Clinton/Clark Unity ticket. Can't we just freaking win for once?


    To be fair, it looks like (none / 0) (#21)
    by andgarden on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:06:20 PM EST
    they feel the same way about Obama.

    Maybe this extended primary really HAS been good.

    Oh, and the "more of the same" meme for McCain on Iraq has taken hold.


    They have good reason (none / 0) (#26)
    by madamab on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:08:30 PM EST
    to feel that way about Obama. He has actively attempted to destroy Bill's legacy and smear him (and his wife) as racists.

    Still, they are grownup enough to swallow their pride and pick Obama as a VP. Obama and his team are nothing but WATB's IMHO.


    Edwards is going to endorse Obama. (none / 0) (#104)
    by FlaDemFem on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:40:08 PM EST
    So maybe it will be Obama/Edwards. You don't think Michelle will let Hillary within a mile of the VP spot, do you?? Right now I am sick after reading about the endorsement. Endorsing a man with a lousy health care plan, no women's rights platform at all, and no experience must have come at a price. I hope it was worth it.

    This Is My Problem (5.00 / 5) (#24)
    by BDB on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:07:57 PM EST
    with an Obama/Clinton ticket.  She isn't being added to help Obama with one particular constituency, like AAs.  She would be added because she's the stronger GE candidate overall.  

    It's completely screwed up that the party would recognize that one candidate is in a better position to win the GE than the other and have the answer be to make the stronger candidate VP to shore up the weaker one.  Not that women aren't used to doing that for men, but it gets old.


    Bingo! (none / 0) (#34)
    by masslib on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:11:47 PM EST
    Obama /Clinton? (none / 0) (#48)
    by felizarte on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:16:46 PM EST
    not for me!

    An Obama guy said last night (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by angie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:03:27 PM EST
    and I quote that the Obama camp "doesn't care what the majority of Dems want. He is trying to appeal to Independents and Republicans and she is radioactive for them." And he was defending Obama's probably decision to not ask her when he said that last night!!!

    Why (none / 0) (#37)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:13:47 PM EST
    do you think she could solve Obamas electability problems? I don't see it happening. People vote for the top of the ticket. Dole would have done tons better against Clinton with his VP pick who was immensely popular.

    Actually (none / 0) (#62)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:24:12 PM EST
    I think OH is gone with Obama on the top of the ticket. Probably PA too.

    Why should she want it? She's already in the senate now. IMO, staying in the senate would be better than being on a ticket with Obama. He won't let her affect any policy changes and he's already trash talked her.

    In the end, I think it's a moot point. It's not going to happen. I think it should be offered if he's the nominee and she should turn it down.


    Have (none / 0) (#112)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:58:36 PM EST
    you looked at county by county results in the Dem primary in PA? Obama lost everything except the cities. He even lost the suburbs in PA. People vote for the top of the ticket and there are lots of demographics there that Obama is extremely weak in. People vote for the top of the ticket. They won't be voting for Hillary to be President, they'll be voting for Obama if he's the nominee.

    Hillary is competetive in FL, Obama is not according to the polls. Yes, FL is out of reach for Obama but not for Hillary.

    MO is out of reach for Obama. Post wright he hasn't broken 40% in that state. No one will help him there.

    Frankly, I just don't see how Obama wins the general election with his serious demographic problems. McCain is an appealing candidate to those swing voters and 1/2 of the voters see McCain as "change".

    OH is out of reach for Obama even with Hillary on the ticket imo.


    Two recent polls have shown Obama up big in PA (none / 0) (#130)
    by democrattotheend on Thu May 15, 2008 at 06:59:44 PM EST
    7 and 9 points, respectively, over McCain. So I'm pretty confident about PA, although it can't be taken for granted.

    Ohio I am a little worried about, but I think it's doable, and I think there are also paths to the White House that don't involve Ohio.


    Dumb guy. (none / 0) (#74)
    by indymom on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:27:43 PM EST
    Who said that?  Link? Was it Axelrod?

    Got link? (none / 0) (#94)
    by wmr on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:35:44 PM EST
    Or an identity of the Obama guy?  Where did you hear this?

    teach me to refresh before I post (none / 0) (#97)
    by wmr on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:36:53 PM EST
    I was flipping channels last night (none / 0) (#127)
    by angie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:49:15 PM EST
    so I don't remember which one it was (MSNBC or CNN) and I've been on an msm free diet for a while (except on election nights) so I don't remember most of their names. Sorry. But he did say that.

    It won't (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:03:46 PM EST
    happen. Michelle has said no. All the people behind Obama have said no.

    Besides, I don't think she can solve Obama's problems for him. It looks like Obama needs a mother backing him up. Kind of like Bush in 2000 with Cheney.

    His Problems? (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by squeaky on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:11:40 PM EST
    It is our problems, not his problems should he get the nomination. You are part of the us, in case you forgot. Every indicator shows that a joint ticket would give us the best shot at the WH whatever configuration it is in.

    Time to join forces, imo and soften up.


    If he (none / 0) (#50)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:17:34 PM EST
    gets the nomination, we are knowingly putting up a candidate with serious electoral and demographic problems. Obama hasn't asked for my vote, he just arrogantly expects it.

    People vote for the top of the ticket.


    People vote for the top of the ticket (none / 0) (#70)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:26:08 PM EST
    I think this is true.  I dont think it will make that much difference.

    I don't think its that it makes me him (none / 0) (#58)
    by litigatormom on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:22:13 PM EST
    look like he needs a mother. Because, among other things, I don't think that Hillary would be perceived as his mother!  But getting back to the topic, I think the fundamental problem is this: being VP is a waste of Hillary's talents.  Of course, if she were to be a VP with Cheneyesque powers, it wouldn't be such a waste, but frankly I don't want another Cheneyesque VP even if the person holding the office is my preferred presidential candidate.  Indeed, I don't even want a president with Cheneyesque powers!

    I think even a vice-presidency on the model of Gore would be a waste of her talents -- and I respect Gore. I'd rather see Hillary stay in the Senate and ease Harry Reid out as Majority Leader. Even with a Democratic president, Reid will remain an namby-pamby Majority Leader, and God forbid McCain wins, we're toast. And even assuming that Obama wins and the Dems have a stronger majority in the Senate, Obama will still need a strong Majority Leader to beat the remaining Republicans into submission. Obama can be the Unity Pony good cop, and let Clinton be the enforcer. The Lyndon Johnson of the 21st Century -- and I mean that as a compliment. Johnson was an awesome Majority Leader.

    I like Clark as Obama's VP, should Obama get the nomination. Not Jean Sibelius, please. The woman is Walking Ambien, and does nothing for Obama's foreign policy cred. Biden, maybe.


    I would be totally sdisappointed (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by masslib on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:24:30 PM EST
    if Clark did that.

    How could he say no (none / 0) (#77)
    by litigatormom on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:27:58 PM EST
    and have any future in the party?

    Reagan said no and went on to become President. (none / 0) (#88)
    by masslib on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:32:48 PM EST
    I expect him to say no.

    It appears Edwards is drinking Kool-Aid... (none / 0) (#84)
    by Shainzona on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:29:50 PM EST
    today so maybe he will take the VP slot.  I'm sure the Blogger Boyz will be drooling.

    As a Hillary supporter (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by wingman2007 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:08:21 PM EST
     I do not like the idea of her being his VP. As others have said, why should the person with a greater grasp the the issues take a back seat to the less knowledgeable individual? When I think about Hillary being Obama's VP it angers me. With that said, no matter who the nominee is I will vote for that person. My enthusiasm will depend on who is on the ticket and it what order they appear on the ticket.

    You ask (none / 0) (#36)
    by andgarden on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:12:23 PM EST
    why should the person with a greater grasp the the issues take a back seat to the less knowledgeable individual?

    You hint at an answer:

    no matter who the nominee is I will vote for that person

    Not everyone feels this way. To be honest, beyond the primary, I am 100% not interested in any questions about qualifications, experience, or character. I am a straight ticket voter.


    As will I (none / 0) (#51)
    by wingman2007 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:18:16 PM EST
    I just hate the fact that, again the more qualified person, who happens to be an older woman, is being asked to take a back seat to the younger guy.

    It's called democracy (none / 0) (#129)
    by democrattotheend on Thu May 15, 2008 at 06:57:14 PM EST
    And more voters have decided they want Obama as the nominee. If the nomination were based solely on resume wouldn't Richardson, Biden or Dodd be the nominee? All of them had longer resumes than Clinton. And experience in Washington is not the only qualification for president. Temperment, philosophy, and approach to governing are important, and I think Obama is superior in all of those respects.

    Your Favorite May Win (none / 0) (#49)
    by squeaky on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:17:09 PM EST
    As others have said, why should the person with a greater grasp the the issues take a back seat to the less knowledgeable individual?
    You mean why should your favorite candidate become VP if she doesn't get the nomination.

    Let the process play out and then join the team against McCain with a unity ticket, whoever winds up is on top it is a winner for the Democratic party in Nov.


    Sadly, I disagree. (none / 0) (#61)
    by pie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:24:08 PM EST
    After eight years of Bush/Cheney, we have to be saddled with a newbie who's supported by a bunch of democrats who let them get away with murder.

    And I'm supposed to be happy about this?

    No way, Jose.


    You Have Only One Function Here (none / 0) (#90)
    by squeaky on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:34:06 PM EST
    And that is to cheer for Hillary, IMO. All the power to you on that.  You have convinced me that there is no point discussing anything but Hillary love with you, fanclubbing is not my thing. Good luck.

    Voting for anything with a (none / 0) (#124)
    by waldenpond on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:06:46 PM EST
    D after it's name is what?  The party is taking in anti-choice anti-gay so-called Dems.  The party is becoming a joke.  Sorry, I will look for candidates that actually share my view of what values Dems should fight for.  Obama isn't one.

    Good Luck (none / 0) (#128)
    by squeaky on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:33:32 AM EST
    Let me know if you find some party or candidate that is left of center and has a chance of getting elected as POTUS. I know you think Hillary is the one but she is the same as the rest. In fact both are pretty much emblematic.

    As for voting D it is waaaay better than voting R, imho.


    I cannot be counted (5.00 / 5) (#27)
    by suisser on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:09:47 PM EST
    in that group of Dems.  I see nothing in it for her or for the party.
    1.  Voters like me, ( 40 year old professional women ) will be pissed off to see her take a back seat to a lesser, younger man.  So much so that our votes might not be reliable.
    2. "It's all Clinton's fault" - they could well loose and I just DON'T want to see her take the rap.
    3. It's not just her I want, it's her policy and her fight to see that policy through, she can't do that from the back seat so her agenda will fail.
    4. She would be far more effective in the Senate ( move over Harry Ried)  and there she would atleast be her own woman.
    5. She's a loyal Dem she will work her butt off to see Obama elected, in that's what it comes to, she's better used as a supporter than a running mate.
    6. When his administration is in ruin I don't want her in the middle of the mess.

    Amen, sister (n/t) (none / 0) (#42)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:15:17 PM EST
    I second. (none / 0) (#53)
    by nycstray on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:19:01 PM EST
    third (none / 0) (#79)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:28:05 PM EST
    sorry (none / 0) (#65)
    by suisser on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:24:58 PM EST
    for the typing. I'm MAD and I don't type/spell well even when I'm happy.

    lets just take health care (none / 0) (#87)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:31:04 PM EST
    as an example.
    I honestly think that McCains plan of doing nothing might be better than some half a$$ed messing around the edges so that the spinless democrats in congress can say they did "something".
    what Obama is proposing will ultimately change nothing IMO. but it could be a fig leaf that delays any real action.

    OT Edwards endorsing Obama tonight (ABC News) (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by nycstray on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:15:44 PM EST
    Guess they are happy to get it in the evening news cycle.

    It's starting to feel like they are trying to squash her run to the end . . .

    Somebody said Edwards had (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:29:01 PM EST
    morphed into a "party elder" who was remaining above the fray.

    LOL, that's a laugher.


    Do they think this will (none / 0) (#52)
    by ruffian on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:18:49 PM EST
    help in Kentucky?  Maybe they were afraid of another big blowout.

    I have no clue (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by nycstray on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:25:06 PM EST
    but if he needs Edwards to get the demographics, that speaks volumes to me. Especially after the lack of effort in WV.

    I thought Edwards was the guy (none / 0) (#59)
    by oculus on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:22:37 PM EST
    guy who dropped out.  How does a highly compensated plaintiff's trial lawyer guarantee Obama a single working-class vote?  Will he drag dear old Dad around w/him on the campaign trail?

    I sincerely hope Elizabeth Edwards endorses Clinton.  


    Well so much for ..... (none / 0) (#60)
    by trillian on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:23:10 PM EST
    ....Edwards caring about the working class.

    Must have been ALL about political expediency.....which I suspected from the get go.


    Let's (Not) Make a Deal (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by kaleidescope on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:29:18 PM EST
    As Jerome Armstrong has pointed out, unlike most of the other names being floated -- Jim Webb, for instance -- Senator Clinton is a polished and effective campaigner.  She would do well on the stump.  But she can campaign for Obama even if she isn't the VP candidate.

    And if she is the VP candidaate, then the Obama campaign can enjoy defending itself not only about Reverend Wright, Bill Ayers and Tony Rezko, it can also defend itself about Bill and Monica, Whitewater, Wen Ho Lee, Ricky Ray Rector, the Rose Firm billing records, Vince Foster and Webster Hubble along with Clinton's pardons of Marc Rich and members of the Weather Underground.  In other words, the entire Kenneth Starr freak show.

    Addressing all those issues might get in the way of Obama getting his message out.

    And like Ronald Reagan being asked repeatedly about Voodoo Economics, Obama will  have the pleasure of having Tim Russert read his running mate's words back at him at every debate and every time Obama or HRC is stupid enough to go on Meet the Press.

    With a black man at the top of the ticket, there's already enough alterity facing the voters.  The idea is to balance the ticket.

    And with all those negatives, would having HRC on the ticket motivate enough West Virginia voters to vote for Obama to make the whole exercise worth it?

    Has anybody actually asked Senator Clinton if she wants be VP?  I can't for the life of me imagine why.  It won't be a stepping stone to the presidency for her.  She will run the risk of being assigned to attend the funerals for the pets of foreign leaders instead of being a powerful U.S. Senator.  People in the Obama Administration could be as vindictive and humiliating as Bobby Kennedy was to LBJ.

    There is no way Obama will let Clinton be Cheney.

    So what's in it for him and what's in it for her?  I just don't see the makings of a deal here.

    What's in it for her is history. (none / 0) (#121)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:51:13 PM EST
    She would be the first.

    Wait your basing it on the popular vote? (none / 0) (#1)
    by Salo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:58:57 PM EST
    As I have it weighted Obama taked half the TL delegates and about 90% of the Dkos delegation. Fair and square like. So you're over ruled.

    This is interesting (none / 0) (#3)
    by andgarden on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:59:10 PM EST
    86% of those who support Clinton do so because. . .they support Clinton. They are not against Obama.

    So much for THEY'RE ALL RACISTS.

    And yes, the unity ticket is important and widely acceptable.

    Is the question ever asked (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by madamab on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:03:08 PM EST
    about Obama being HRC's VP? It would seem to be logical that it should be, no?

    Well, they obviously think he's won (none / 0) (#22)
    by andgarden on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:07:32 PM EST
    It was asked repeatedly earlier on (none / 0) (#30)
    by CST on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:10:21 PM EST
    And Obama kept having to come out and say "I am not running for VP".  I believe the Clinton's brought it up a few times.  Lately though, the talk has shifted.

    I think if they are going to run together, Clinton/Obama probably makes more sense than the other way around. But he has more delegates and more votes, even when you count Florida and Michigan. So I don't see how you ask him to take the number 2 spot when he's gotten more votes.

    Has Rendall's support for this concept (none / 0) (#5)
    by oculus on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:00:27 PM EST
    been discussed here yet?  

    It's RendEll (none / 0) (#8)
    by andgarden on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:01:27 PM EST
    and yes, I think it has.

    The thought of HRC working with this guy... (none / 0) (#4)
    by Shainzona on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:59:32 PM EST
    turns my stomach.  I can imagine him calling her "sweetie" every time he brushes by her in the WH.

    See this - talk about out of touch!!!


    Seems to be a habit with him (none / 0) (#55)
    by nycstray on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:21:14 PM EST
    responded to a question in DC the same way last week. I guess that's his standard brush off to 'girl reporters'?

    Did he really? (none / 0) (#56)
    by Steve M on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:21:51 PM EST
    Two is a pattern.

    Hmm (none / 0) (#85)
    by Steve M on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:29:52 PM EST
    Apparently this has come up before.

    Not the best development for unity, in my book.


    Argh... (none / 0) (#63)
    by indymom on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:24:27 PM EST
    "Sweetie" ugh...she sounds young but that is so disrespectful.  My dad does the same thing, though.  He calls waitresses "Hon."

    And, is he running for President? (none / 0) (#69)
    by masslib on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:25:57 PM EST
    You know, the reporter isn't there to serve him.  

    I'm not worried about the Creative Class... (none / 0) (#7)
    by sweetthings on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:00:48 PM EST
    As long as their guy is on top, they'll ultimately come around. Sure, they may gripe and moan a bit, but that's about the extent of it. And the media hates Democrats, period, so no change there.

    Hillary supporters are the unknown factor. Would West Virginians pull a lever for Obama if Hillary is the VP?

    Some Would (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by BDB on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:03:41 PM EST
    It would certainly gain him support among some democratic voting blocks.  But I think most swing voters are going to swing based on the top of the ticket.  

    Are you crazy, (none / 0) (#72)
    by Mrwirez on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:26:40 PM EST
    They will vote for McCain. I think they showed Obama the WV door.

    Does Obama (none / 0) (#15)
    by cannondaddy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:04:56 PM EST
    already have his VP selected?  I'm sure there's some reason the Obama camp balks at the idea so much.

    I think he has about 6 selected (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by angie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:05:46 PM EST
    and he's going to need every one of them.

    Obama (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:05:52 PM EST
    thinks that the general election will be handed to him on a silver platter.

    They hate the Clintons (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by madamab on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:06:10 PM EST
    as much as the Obama bloggers do.

    BTD can hammer on this all he wants, it's na ga hapin.

    Clinton/Obama, though...I could be persuaded to vote for that ticket.


    Yeah (none / 0) (#28)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:09:54 PM EST
    and I wouldn't be surprised if Bill did very little to help Obama. Oh, I'm sure he'll go through the motions but in reality why should he invest time in trying to get someone elected who has done nothing but trash you?

    I am betting (none / 0) (#23)
    by americanincanada on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:07:42 PM EST
    if the rumors about this afternnon are true...he will choose Edwards as his VP choice and my party will have left me for good.

    Why (none / 0) (#35)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:11:48 PM EST
    would he chose Edwards? That makes absolutely NO sense.

    Why not? (none / 0) (#38)
    by ruffian on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:14:12 PM EST
    If Obama's main problem is wooing working class whites, Edwards makes alot of sense to me.

    Obama's (none / 0) (#76)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:27:58 PM EST
    problems can't be solved with a VP pick. Did Edwards help Kerry with them? The answer is a resounding NO.

    Very true. (none / 0) (#91)
    by pie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:34:37 PM EST
    Which is another reason Edwards wouldn't be considered.  Frankly, I can't think of a VP choice that would put Obama over the top.

    In Case It Is Not Obvious To You (none / 0) (#103)
    by squeaky on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:39:55 PM EST
    Kerry and Edwards were two white guys, not so different from all the two white guys before them. Hilary and Obama on the other hand blow away all comparisons due to the historic nature of the ticket.

    It is a different ball game, imo.


    No (none / 0) (#110)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:51:02 PM EST
    it's not. Sorry but there are people who won't vote for a black and people who won't vote for a woman. When you combine the two you could have even more problems.

    I suspect (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Steve M on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:36:15 PM EST
    that the number of people who will not vote for a woman for VICE president is rather low.

    There are, of course, plenty of Hillary-haters out there, but by and large it's hard for the VP to be a major negative.


    Nah (none / 0) (#115)
    by squeaky on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:36:38 PM EST
    The 23% group you describe is voting GOP hard right. McCain may even be too liberal for them. Bush was their hero.

    Quit (none / 0) (#116)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:53:53 PM EST
    dismissing this stuff as "they're voting GOP anyway". It's the same thing that has been said about working class whites.

    Please don't let this be true... (none / 0) (#40)
    by Teresa on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:15:09 PM EST
    I checked out the Edwards blog his supporters at DK started and they said according to the blog on Time, he boarded a plane this afternoon.

    I'll be so disappointed if he does this. He, Gore, etc., need to wait until we have a definite nominee. This feels like the ganging up on Hillary debate all over again. I wish Elizabeth would bash him in the head if he does this.


    What was it last night (none / 0) (#47)
    by pie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:16:35 PM EST
    in WV?  7% voted for Edwards instead of Obama or Hillary?

    It's true (none / 0) (#67)
    by americanincanada on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:25:32 PM EST
    CNN, the AP, Halperin, Fox et all are all reporting it now.

    Armbinder says he did NOT call the CLinton campaign to give them a heads up and his own staff was caught unaware.

    They are also timing it to step all over her news appearances tonight and she will be forced to react live.


    That's F'ed up (none / 0) (#81)
    by nycstray on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:28:43 PM EST
    Last night they sent an email that was timed about the same as her victory one. Something about looking at videos of their great voter drive yada yada yada . . . .

    She'll handle it just fine.


    No way. (none / 0) (#41)
    by pie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:15:16 PM EST
    Edwards won't run again.  I just got an email from him which begins:

    I want to begin by thanking each of you for all of your support and commitment over the last year. It has meant so much to Elizabeth and me. We have been very busy since January working on the causes that got us into the campaign in the first place -- helping to build the One America we all believe in.

    Then he asks for a donation for one of the programs he supports called College for Everyone, which helps deserving students in Greene County, NC.


    I can't imagine that Edwards would accept (none / 0) (#54)
    by Demi Moaned on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:21:04 PM EST
    ... that position a second time running. It's hard, grueling work. And given his wife's health, if I read the man correctly, I don't see how the possible gain compensates him for the undoubted pain of it all.

    No way (none / 0) (#78)
    by riddlerandy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:28:03 PM EST
    Edwards has already said he has absolutely no interest in it.

    Strickland, Nelson or Richardson


    Strickland has already said he doesn't want it. (none / 0) (#92)
    by masslib on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:35:23 PM EST
    Well, (none / 0) (#95)
    by pie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:36:11 PM EST
    Strickland, Nelson or Richardson

    Strictland sad he's staying with Hillary.

    The other two?

    Oy.  Sure loser ticket.


    After reading Jeralyn's post on why she thought (none / 0) (#16)
    by bjorn on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:05:05 PM EST
    this was a bad idea, I had a headache.  I understand all the arguments on both sides now and if I block out the "intellectual" arguments, my heart would love a unity ticket.  If I block out intellect and heart, then I want it just to spite the Obama supporters (not all of them, just the evil ones at Dkos and huffpost).

    Fine. Put Hill on the top. (none / 0) (#29)
    by masslib on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:10:00 PM EST
    Obama isn't qualifed to be dog catcher much less President.

    Bummer (none / 0) (#93)
    by TedL on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:35:29 PM EST
    Hillary lost to someone who couldn't be dogcatcher.  What does that say about her political skills?

    She hasn't lost. (none / 0) (#99)
    by pie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:37:20 PM EST
    although they're trying their damndest to derail her.

    "They" meaning the voters, apparently (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by TedL on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:43:42 PM EST
    The idea that the Clintons - who started this race with a 100-superdelegate lead - were not the establishment candidates is mind-boggling.

    She was derailed by the voters.


    Funny (none / 0) (#106)
    by squeaky on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:45:41 PM EST
    That you think the qualifications for presidential track starts with dogcatcher. Obviously your joke is that Hillary obviously has that skill.

    As much as animal control could be an asset for POTUS, I do not think it adds too much to any candidates resume.


    I see no evidence that Obama (none / 0) (#111)
    by masslib on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:56:06 PM EST
    has ever so much as held a full time job.

    I am for it again (none / 0) (#32)
    by ruffian on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:10:46 PM EST
    after some waffling the other night.  Jeralyn had me going! I agree there are good reasons against it.

    The overriding factor for me is that this government needs the active involvement of Hillary Clinton.  She wil be sidelined in the Senate by Kennedy and Kerry, etc.

    But I agree that Obama will fight doing it. If there are party elders really pulling his strings they will have to force it.

    You Think Obama Won't Sideline Her? (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by BDB on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:14:27 PM EST
    I think he'll try (none / 0) (#46)
    by ruffian on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:16:07 PM EST
    But she had 8 years to study the vice-presidency up close and personal. I have a feeling she can out-wit Obnama on this one.

    Which is exactly why (none / 0) (#96)
    by TedL on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:36:43 PM EST
    Obama won't choose Clinton as Vice-President.

    There's no reason to think she'd be content doing the job of Vice-President - which is to play second-banana to the President.

    And that's before we get started on what Bill would get up to.  

    One President at a time.


    You need to get medical help. (none / 0) (#100)
    by pie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:38:12 PM EST
    You have a bad case of CDS.

    No Chance IMO (none / 0) (#71)
    by squeaky on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:26:10 PM EST
    Sidelining her would only hurt him and the party. If anything he will value her wisdom, skills and take advantage of all she has to offer. There is nothing in his past to suggest that he is not a team player fully cognizant of the talents of those around him.

    Edwards... (none / 0) (#44)
    by michitucky on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:15:33 PM EST
    Sorry, OT.....

    John Edwards endorsing Obama.

    I DON'T (none / 0) (#57)
    by Mrwirez on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:22:11 PM EST
    Let Him sink.... If she runs with him and he loses, she loses too. Mr. Obama will get a NO vote in November and Straight Dem down  the ticket. The (Dem leadership??) is railroading Hillary. Obama is not what I want to see in the Democratic party. We need a champion of Labor. George Bush has done much to hurt the unions. When Obama came to Pittsburgh He went to our Business Manager at the IBEW headquarters with Bob Casey Jr., (another turncoat we will be aiming to remove ) and said, "I was told you are the guys I need to meet to get elected." He does not know one of the strongest trade unions in PA is needed? The working democrats are needed to win along with blacks and the wine sippers. Personally I hate McCain, but I also strongly dislike Obama. I dislike Obama's r----t wife too. I have heard Obama surrogates ie. Ed Schultz, calling WV voters rednecks and hicks, "Larry the cable guy" etc. Good they can not and will not get my vote.... They have completely alienated me, and EVEN With John Edwards endorsing Obama. I am so F-ing Pi$$ed...

    Post Comment

    I'm with you BTD, gotta do it (none / 0) (#68)
    by riddlerandy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:25:48 PM EST

    Unity 08 (none / 0) (#73)
    by CST on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:27:37 PM EST
    Is there a T-shirt yet?

    I'm sold.

    If Clinton were on top (none / 0) (#80)
    by befuddled on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:28:43 PM EST
    I could hold my nose and vote for it because of my confidence that it would be easier for her to keep an eye on him. Otherwise, there is absolutely nothing about Obama that would make me want him anywhere near the White House.
    You know I'm not a Dem (not since Ted did his last hostile takeover bit) without a bit of party loyalty. And I completely understand the idea that parties have to stick together or they aren't meeting the purpose of their existence---Yet over and over here I've read "The party is broken." "The leaders of the party have sold us out." "The delegates who have committed to an unelectable candidate are acting illogically." "The values we liked are all being sold down the river." So I am wondering: why the heck does anyone think that putting the person who seems to be the cause of all the trouble on top of the ticket (or on it at all, really) is going to do anything to unify the party? It seems to me that it will unify the Obama party firmly, be the opening to totally destroy the Democratic party as you knew and loved it, and leave everyone else out. I'm still not as afraid of McCain as some people, but now I'm inclined to the write in Hillary solution instead. I really don't want to see an Obama party.

    Edwards just endorsed Obama (none / 0) (#89)
    by TedL on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:33:58 PM EST

    Loser (none / 0) (#107)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:47:13 PM EST
    So much for him.  What was amazing next to Hillary, he looked like a loser in the debates.  I guess he wants to be part of the Let's make history train.  

    I don't like the unity ticket (none / 0) (#98)
    by aquarian on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:37:14 PM EST
    and I have many reasons, including all the ones mentioned above, for thinking it would not benefit Senator Clinton to align herself with the ticket.

    That said, I highly respect Senator Clinton's prowess as a politician.  If she finds VP acceptable and desirable, she has her reasons and I am inclined to trust her decision on what is right for her.  Since I would support her bid for presidency, I support her on VP.  What Senator Obama or the DNC wants or needs plays very little role in my decision.

    I should have added (none / 0) (#105)
    by aquarian on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:43:14 PM EST
    that Senator Obama is not likely to offer her the slot, and even if offered, I don't think Senator Clinton would or should take the slot.  

    No, No, No (none / 0) (#101)
    by cdalygo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:38:28 PM EST
    This is not a normal election so why should this happen?

    You only put a unity ticket together when you want to save the party. Obama and his supporters want to take it over. I say let them have it, the building will be empty.

    It won't happen (none / 0) (#108)
    by ibextati on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:47:37 PM EST
    He can't use the anti-war and change in washington message against McCain if Hillary is on the ticket. Plus she has made some damaging statement about Obama on the campaign trail, for example, she and McCain bring a life time of experience to the whitehouse and Obama has a speech he gave in 2002, she and McCain passed the commander-in-chief threshold and Obama has not. The republicans will use these statements against Obama citing even Hillary(Obama's VP) agrees with them.

    Seriously, what's with the hate (none / 0) (#109)
    by TedL on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:47:49 PM EST
    What's with the hate for the "creative class"?

    Sure, people who think they're well educated can get smug and self-satisfied (just like anybody else) but what's the point of setting up a dueling stereotype?  

    For that matter, I'm pretty sure that Hillary and Bill and all their top campaign staff count under any reasonable definition as members of the "creative class."  

    As used here, it sounds a bit too much like a Republican talking point.

    It is what it is, (none / 0) (#113)
    by pie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:14:06 PM EST

    "Creative class" = well educated? (none / 0) (#117)
    by gandy007 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:07:05 PM EST
    No wonder you guys are clueless on how to connect with us ordinary mortals, if you think that being well educated is the primary criterion for being a member of that exalted category.

    I've got twenty years of formal education with a JD. I vehemently reject any inclusion in that group.

    In Spanish, there is the term "bien educado". Literally, it does mean well educated.  But to be "bien educado", one does not have have a PHD, a college degree, or even a high school diploma.  It is a humanistic term, for lack of better definition.

    It means the person is cultured, sensitive to the needs of others, not crude or boorish, and sincerely well mannered, not the "excuse me" kind of person of another era.

    IMHO, too many of Obama's devotees, and in fact Obama himself, are sorely lacking in these qualities.  In addition, too many seem devoid  of those nebulous qualities called maturity and judgment.

    Indeed, they seem to often scoff at the need for such. As a Yellow Dog Democrat of some 44 years,
    I will be saddened to see Obama go down in flames, if he is the nominee, without my participation.  


    I have no idea what you're talking about (none / 0) (#118)
    by TedL on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:38:50 PM EST
    The term "creative class" was coined by Richard Florida, and he defines it to include people who do white collar work that requires an educational credential and that affords the worker a great deal of autonomy.  He specifically includes lawyers.

    You could look it up.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_class

    More than that, the title of this post echoes lots of criticisms of "latte-sipping" liberal elitists that I've heard.  My point was that those stereotypes are no more accurate than the stereotypes of so-called undereducated blue-collar voters.

    Sensitive much?


    Your response (none / 0) (#122)
    by waldenpond on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:58:24 PM EST
    just make the point of the previous comment.

    OK, I'll try again (none / 0) (#125)
    by TedL on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:44:26 PM EST
    Given that I come from a blue collar family, I'm pretty sure I wasn't crapping on them.

    Let me try again.  The post that started this thread said a lot of the "creative class" blogs are Obama supporters, and the implication is exactly what Paul Begala said to Donna Brazile the other night:  Obama's supporters are "eggheads and African-Americans."

    I find that attitude extremely unhelpful, because I see no reason to denigrate "eggheads" or African Americans.  And, as I said, I find it equally unhelpful that some people say all Clinton voters or blue collars are racist.  There is far, far too much done lately to denigrate the supporters of the other candidates.

    If you can't get that, I can't help you.


    I get it, I just don't (none / 0) (#126)
    by waldenpond on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:10:49 PM EST
    sympathize with it.  Calling Clinton supporters uneducated is the same as calling them unknowledgeable, lacking in knowledge or stupid (as bloggers often do), lower income is the same as caling them poor which in this society often means not intelligent enough to be successful.  Calling Obama supporters creative class, elitist, educated, affluent? It's a class distinction... same as saying intelligent, successful, wealthy.  Specifically egghead?  egghead means intelligent.  Yeah, it's terribly insulting to call people intelligent.  I don't know how people will ever survive it.  Oh, the shame.

    As do I . . . (none / 0) (#120)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:46:25 PM EST
    I can thing of no choice that would better the chances for electoral success.  I don't think it will happen.  But I very much hope it does.

    New Fox Poll out (none / 0) (#123)
    by waldenpond on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:02:26 PM EST
    I would never vote for Obama, but that apparently is shared by less.

    Fox poll says Obama leads McCain by 20 pts in the under 40 crowd.  If the polling data keeps demonstrating this, Obama will never take Clinton.

    It is amazing watching Fox cover how poorly Repubs are doing, bad polling data for McCain, there weaknesses in reaching out to new constituencies.  The regular news people lean towards Obama winning.  (don't care about the whack job talking heads)