The Unity Ticket - The Hard Way

I think Barack Obama would be nuts to not unify the Democratic Party by offering Hillary Clinton the VP slot. But let's assume he is that nuts - Bob Beckel argues Hillary Clinton could take the VP slot over Obama's objections:

[I]magine its June 4th and Clinton calls again. Clinton, "I know Obama has enough votes to win, but I wanted you to know Hillary has decided to run for vice president at the convention. You know there are two roll call votes at the convention: first president then for vice president. I know you are voting for Obama for president. Fine, but I want your commitment to vote for Hillary for vice president."

MORE . . .

You imagine being on the floor in Denver. Hillary's delegates, NEARLY HALF THE DELEGATES, are demanding she be on the ticket. These are true believers who have stuck with Clinton through thick and thin. To them, putting Hillary on the ticket is a crusade. Most Clinton delegates are women, most Democratic voters are women, and they're going to just accept some middle aged white governor that Obama is rumored to want? No way. They are in your face. Hillary supporters from back home are jamming your Blackberry. This and more horror scenes flash through your mind in a nano second.

Here's the thing, it will not take Bill Clinton or Hillary Clinton doing anything to imagine that scene. It is nuts to even contemplate not offering Clinton the VP slot. Let's hope Obama is not nuts.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

Comments closed

< Thursday Morning Open Thread | NARAL's Divisive Obama Endorsement Divides . . . NARAL >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Honest? (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by kredwyn on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:43:41 AM EST
    I really think he's nuts and won't offer the VP slot to her.

    Clearly (5.00 / 8) (#6)
    by madamab on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:48:22 AM EST
    this is BTD's wishful thinking.

    No matter what he does, he can't make Obama Presidential. Obama just doesn't have it in him. He is consistently rude, ungracious and immature towards the Clintons and wants to kick them out of the Party forever.

    Na. Ga. Hapin.


    I don't know (5.00 / 5) (#51)
    by samanthasmom on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:06:41 AM EST
    how putting Hillary in the VP slot creates "unity". It implies that it would satisfy her supporters enough to get us to vote for Obama, and I doubt that many of us would. If she accepts the VP slot, she'll take away the last shred of idealism that I still have.  Unless you tell me that Obama is terminally ill, I see no reason to think that Hillary as VP would be anything I would want or work for.  Since I truly hope that Obama leads a long and healthy life, there is no way I would want her to take the VP spot.  Unity pony returned as damaged, sales receipt attached.

    If it won't unify (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by HelenK on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:04:43 PM EST
    and her supporters won't vote for Obama even if she is VP and even if she tells them to, then that is the end of the discussion.

    There is NO REASON left to offer her VP.

    She would use her talents much better as the Senate Majority Leader, where she would have a great influence and they would have to Unify to get things done.


    I don't think he's nuts. (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by Fabian on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:53:15 AM EST
    Egotistical, self centered and insecure - sure, but not "nuts".  (Insert obvious gender joke about testicular fortitude here)

    Obama knows that Clinton's strengths highlight his own weaknesses.  If he does agree to have her as his VP candidate, I predict that we will see the both of them share a stage as little as logistically possible and that Obama will talk about Clinton as little as possible.  

    I also predict that he'll send Clinton to the "hard" states and he'll stick to his preferred ground - cities, areas with large AA populations, IOW - his base.  I expect Obama to continue being the same old Obama that we know, and the debates will be excrutiating.  Except for the VP debates, where Clinton will rock.  For that reason, I expect there will only be one VP debate even if there is pressure to have more.


    Egotistical, self centered and insecure (5.00 / 4) (#38)
    by p lukasiak on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:01:52 AM EST
    I'm starting to think we need to add "sociopathic" to the list.....

    Has this site really devolved to the (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:16:52 AM EST
    point where this has become acceptable discourse?

    I will defend it (5.00 / 3) (#101)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:21:54 AM EST
    sociopaths, are not all murderers.  But they do have an ability to lie and convince large numbers of people that they are saying the truth.  So, I agree.  He does have a way of convincing himself that the campaign fabrications and his narrative is true.  The saddest part is his ability to convince large numbers of people.  

    I'll defend that too except (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by befuddled on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:51:15 AM EST
    nowadays they aren't called "sociopaths." The current psychological classification is in "personality disorders." The key component of all of them is self-centeredness, and the difference of Narcissistic, Histrionic, etc. is just how that self-centeredness is expressed. How many times has someone said "It's all about Obama..."? These disorders are very hard to diagnose because it's a fine line between normal and "disorder," but this frequent naive observation of onlookers is suggestive.

    I think we should be careful with this (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by bjorn on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:54:36 AM EST
    stuff.  You might be right about Obama.  But what President hasn't been narcissitic, certainly Clinton was, Bush is, Kennedy, Nixon, maybe Jimmy Carter is the only one who might not have been.

    Difference between supreme (5.00 / 3) (#191)
    by brodie on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:15:37 PM EST
    self-confidence (JFK, FDR) and unhealthy narcissism.  We do need to watch for armchair overanalysis and misanalysis here.  

    That said, Nixon and Johnson, and perhaps the spoiled brat Junior, are the only presidents in recent history to exhibit clear indications of severe personality disorder.  Definitely LBJ, as his two top aides Moyers and Goodwin noticed first hand.

    Obama is merely a slick and very ambitious young pol who lacks enough self-confidence and experience to understand the importance of accepting and acknowledging his mistakes and shortcomings, as Hillary can and does.  But no personality disorder.  If he's nuts, we've really defined down to meaninglessness what a PD is.


    DSM IV changed the term to Borderline (none / 0) (#173)
    by oculus on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:04:39 PM EST
    Personality Disorder, I thought.  Out with the old.  But, I don't support on line mental health diagnoses.

    Borderline (none / 0) (#194)
    by befuddled on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:19:56 PM EST
    is the one that doesn't fall neatly into the other categories and is considered the hardest to deal with. I totally agree that on-line diagnosis is iffy. Even real-life diagnosis is iffy as you can tell by the evolution of nomenclature. I'm just saying I'm a naturalistic observer and I see a funny situation where someone is painted white by one group and makes another group skittish, that makes me wonder whether it's the person or the groups that are different.

    Do you have any evidence (none / 0) (#183)
    by HelenK on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:08:22 PM EST
    that his narrative is not true? What is he lying to himself about?

    And what are the fabrications?


    This scenario (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:03:32 AM EST
    reminds me of Duakakis/Bentsen where as the stronger electoral candidate was on the bottom.

    There's nothing Hillary or anybody else can do to solve Obama's electoral problems. I don't know why people can't wrap their head around that. People vote for the top of the ticket. Heck, many clinton supporters here are saying that they won't vote for Obama even if Clinton is on the ticket.


    Yep, many HRC backers like me (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by brodie on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:14:32 AM EST
    do not want her on the ticket, and Beckel overestimates the extent of the Hillaryites' support for such a scenario.

    Forcing a second-place finisher onto a ticket is just about unprecendented in Dem Party annals, and such forced unity is hardly the positive basis from which to move forward into the GE.

    Btw, Bentsen in 88 never would have made it in the primaries had he run.  Too corporate conservative for the Dem base.  That wasn't an unreasonable pick by the Duke, certainly better than Gore-Lieberman, but Duke failed to fight Poppy in the GE.  What a disaster.


    I can't see Hillary begging to be VP (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by felizarte on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:42:16 AM EST
    She can effect policy better as a Sen. by writing the laws that will be passed for McCain's signature or veto.

    O/T...I JUST LOVE YOU PEOPLE...Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:48:19 AM EST
    deserves you on her side!!

    Was going by BTD's (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by kredwyn on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:06:58 AM EST
    definition of "nuts."

    Yeah. (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by Fabian on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:15:32 AM EST
    Just loved the politician who commended Hillary on her "testicular fortitude".  We need to get "ovarian awesomeness" into the language.

    Not to mention the Right rolling in the aisles with the "Who wears the pants(uits)?".

    And Hillary's toughness and testicular fortitude are going to be a bonanza for the Right.  You'll see them paying homage to her "manliness" because they can imply that she is the stronger of the two.  And you know how those Authoritarians love their manly men!

    Personally - Obama and a strong woman is a losing combo and just a treasure trove for the Right.  Heck, Obama and ANY woman is probably a disaster.  He's better off with an older (can hardly go younger) man who is perceived as mature, stable and reliable.  A little National Security cachet is a must.

    If Obama was a stronger candidate, his VP wouldn't be such an issue.  But he is and it is.  


    Well, my answer to the guy who (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by FlaDemFem on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:45:22 AM EST
    came up with the "testicular fortitude" bit would be to smile sweetly at him and ask "Speaking of fortitude, how many babies have you had??" If men had to have the babies, the human race would have died out in the second generation. Testicular fortitude, my @ss, try long term gestation and delivery for a benchmark. I doubt any man could get to it.

    Oh, God... (none / 0) (#148)
    by creeper on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:49:52 AM EST
    He's better off with an older (can hardly go younger) man who is perceived as mature, stable and reliable.

    Remember what happened that last time a candidate bought that line of reasoning.


    Yes Bush Won The WH Twice (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:54:31 AM EST
    Of course, people who thought Cheney was stable were delusional.

    Well there is No Way (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by talex on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:02:15 AM EST
    that Clinton would want to be VP anyway. She can get so much more done in the Senate as a Senator by introducing bills and lobbying others for votes. And she may even have a shot at being Majority Leader which can be almost as powerful as the President, in fact more powerful in many ways in driving the agenda vis a vis bills and budgets and working with powerful committee chair people.

    A VP under Obama is going to be a weak position unless the person accepting the position ends up being one who is chosen to shore up Obama's weak Commander in Chief credentials. But then the question will be will that person have any real power or will they be ceremonial in nature.

    If he was up for it I could see Colin Powell being a choice but of course that could come at some risk with the Left as Powell and his UN charade helped get us into the war. But then as we all know Obama doesn't pay attention to the Left anyway and instead overtly distances himself from us. Which is of course why a lot of Lefty blogs just love the guy because they either love being pissed on or they have no common sense on who they are supporting. I'd guess it is a little of both.


    Re: Colin Powell (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by creeper on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:52:23 AM EST
    Two African-Americans on the same ticket isn't going to happen.

    Agreed (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by talex on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:05:32 PM EST
    I was just talking about a choice to prop up Obama's Security credentials. Let me rephrase then...

    If Powell was White he would be an obvious choice for consideration.


    Not only that (5.00 / 3) (#177)
    by HelenK on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:06:12 PM EST
    but Powell has no credibility left. None. If he did he would have made a public apology and spilled all the ugly beans on Bushco.

    No credibility and no spine.


    I Have Come To the Conclusion (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by creeper on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:23:58 PM EST
    that this whole diary/entry/post is misleading.  BTD, you're promoting Obama as a done deal.  He is not.

    Why on earth are we even entering into this discussion at this point.

    And if we're going to speculate, why is there no speculation about Obama being VP on a Hillary ticket?

    Hillary's supporters shouldn't even address these questions at this time.  All that does is lend legitimacy to Obama's claims that it's over.


    I've said countless times (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by herb the verb on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:47:22 AM EST
    The losing candidate will have, at minimum, veto power over the VP pick. They have the delegates to force themselves on the ticket also should they desire and there is not a damn thing Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, or anybody else can do about it.

    Right, I mean (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by andgarden on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:49:23 AM EST
    do you think Superdelegates like John Lewis are going to vote against her for VP if she asks for it? I don't.

    The Convention floor, being as close as it is, will not behave like a parliament.


    They won't override the nominee (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by JakeBryant on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:01:34 AM EST
    The argument makes no logical sense.  You'd be asking Obama's delegates - a solid majority - to override Obama's choice.  Even Hillary's delegates wouldn't be wiling to overrule the nominee en masse.

    Obama will choose his VP.  
    Full stop.  


    Imagine the Unity that will come out of it (5.00 / 3) (#100)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:21:23 AM EST
    You Obama folks want to lose in November. It is the only explanation.

    Unity or victory (none / 0) (#179)
    by diogenes on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:06:34 PM EST
    Choosing Hillary may appease her fanatic base, but exactly which of the 54% negatives she runs (manny independent/republican) would she bring to the ticket, and how many voters would she turn to McCain?  
    Pick Webb, Nunn, etc if you want victory.  There's more to life than making Hillary Clinton happy.  And she's no Bob Dole (years of leadership, past minority/majority leader of the senate).  She just has seven years of Senate experience from a cherry-picked safe seat she chose in 2000 and won because she was the president's wife, supplanting real New Yorkers like Louise Slaughter who served years in the House from upstate NY.

    If you're going to attack (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by andgarden on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:10:22 PM EST
    Hillary with a standard stupid story, at least get the story right. Slaughter was never going to be Senator--Nita Lowey stood aside.

    Of course, this will be worked out (none / 0) (#13)
    by andgarden on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:51:24 AM EST
    far ahead of time. There will be a unanimous roll call for both offices.

    Maybe not nuts... (5.00 / 0) (#4)
    by Shainzona on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:47:50 AM EST
    but his ego and Michelle may very well make him decline the opportunity.

    This guy is not a saint and the sooner people understand that the better for this country.

    I don't think, in modern history, (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by andgarden on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:48:18 AM EST
    that there will have been a convention so close. Hillary should probably be in a position to ask for just about anything she wants--short of the Presidential nomination.

    I think if Obama doesn't offer her the position quickly after the last contest, Hillary can threaten to take it to the convention unless he does. I hope she gets the offer out of him, because I think it's our last chance in November.

    A JOINT Ticket (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:49:52 AM EST
    I wish you'd call it a JOINT ticket.  Putting the person with more experience (arguably 6 years versus just a few months) at the bottom of the ticket isn't unity.  And to be quite honest, the term has become a bit cynical for me.

    Clintons (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:49:57 AM EST
    I read this article and thought that no way the Clintons can be shut out of power by the likes of Axelrod, Kennedy etc.  They must have a plan.  Frankly, I would hate that much power in Obama's hands.  It scares the living cr@p out of me.   Someone has to watch them, for we know Congress and the MSM will not.

    Oh, (none / 0) (#24)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:56:20 AM EST
    they can easily make Obama lose by declining to endorse him. I don't know if they'd go that far but I would imagine that they're pretty lukewarm towards his candidacy considering the way they've been treated.

    They could just say, after the convention, (none / 0) (#187)
    by oculus on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:11:03 PM EST
    the Democratic voters have spoken so we are endorsing Obama.  

    I Think That Would Be A Really Dumb Idea (5.00 / 6) (#11)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:50:52 AM EST
    I am neither a Obama supporter or an advocate for the Unity ticket. Don't see how forcing Obama to choose Hillary would be good for Obama, Hillary or the party. Would make Hillary look exactly like what Obama and his supporters portray her. A power mad woman who will do anything for the sake of power. After having Hillary forced down his throat, Obama is not going to allow her to be anything other than a token VP that attends funerals and "tea parties."

    I wish this type of insanity would stop.  

    You miss the point too (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:53:19 AM EST
    She has earned the right to turn down the VP slot, even if you thin  she should.

    I am surprised that you folks ar emssing the point here.


    Oh (5.00 / 5) (#29)
    by Emma on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:58:19 AM EST
    I did miss that point.  I agree with that point... sort of.  I think she's earned a he** of a lot more than that.

    I Don't Think I Missed The Point At All (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:05:26 AM EST
    I don't disagree that Hillary has earned the right to turn down the VP position even if I think that is not a good idea.

    I do think that this article depicts a scenario where Hillary as VP is forced down Obama's throat is not beneficial for Hillary as it promotes current negative stereotypes of her character. I also think it is divisive rather than unifying. I anticipate this is an area where we will agree to disagree BTD.  


    I think Beckel is making my point (none / 0) (#55)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:07:25 AM EST
    Not the one you take from it.

    In your opinion (none / 0) (#41)
    by JakeBryant on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:03:05 AM EST
    She has not earned anything of the sort.  The VP hasn't been 2nd prize since Jefferson was President.  The VP is a partner to the President, and the nominee's choice.

    You go with that (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:06:44 AM EST
    And see how unified the Dem Party is in November.

    Some of you Obama supporters seem to want to lose in November.


    BTD. It's not about losing. They don't care. (5.00 / 6) (#76)
    by rooge04 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:13:59 AM EST
    They don't care if they lose. They hate Clinton viscerally. Even more than the Republicans did in the 90s. They don't WANT her on the ticket. They don't "NEED" her on the ticket.  And they're willing to lose for it.  They're willing to lose millions of her voters.  They will get what they want.  And they will LOSE.

    Unity (5.00 / 7) (#81)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:15:40 AM EST
    through subtraction not addition.  Looney tunes.  

    Unity of the clique (5.00 / 4) (#140)
    by tree on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:45:17 AM EST
    backed up by unity of the mob.

    Amazing...just amazing Lego, (5.00 / 10) (#94)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:19:34 AM EST
    Obama makes decisions based on his ideals and goals, not based on political expediency (see, e.g., rejecting the idiotic Republican gas tax holiday idea). Having Hillary as VP might help him win an election, but it won't help him be a good President.

    Now see this is exactly the kind of uncritical kool aid drinking idiocy that the Obama followers are filled with.  

    I will not go into details, but you truly believe this?  Every part of his career and life, his minister, the rejection of his minister, everything about him is about politics and there are no ideals.  If he had ideals, he would have rejected Rezko when the tenants in his buildings, low income black people were suffering.  Instead he stood by the money guy.  


    There will be NO Administration (5.00 / 5) (#97)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:20:14 AM EST
    even if I bought into your silly idea that having Clinton as VP would wreck an Obama administration, if you do not win the election.

    It's ALL about political expediency! (5.00 / 5) (#99)
    by Fabian on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:21:06 AM EST
    Well, except for Dick Cheney unless you think that Cheney's idea of political expediency trumped GWB's.

    The VP is supposed to be the President's partner and also to make him/her look good.

    That's the problem with Clinton.  She doesn't make Obama look good, because she's actually better than he is at a number of things.  OTOH, she'd shine campaigning and she'd do it while educating the voters.


    Yes. You don't need an intelligent, (5.00 / 5) (#104)
    by rooge04 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:22:16 AM EST
    experienced Senator that is arguably one of the best candidates for President EVER to go in and ruin Obama's Presidency.

    What a joke.

    The Unity Pony wants no one on it.  


    If he had Hillary's help (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by Evie on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:40:46 AM EST
    Obama might have been able to pass more than 2 of his own bills during his time in the U.S. Senate.

    Well I Hope You Can Understand (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by TooFolkGR on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:07:20 PM EST
    ...how this kind of talk affects "some" Obama supporters though.  In this thread I see people saying that their "ideals" won't allow them to vote for Barack Obama for President while out the other side of their mouths they say how Hillary can work with "President McCain."

    Ideals?  Seriously?

    DailyKos has devolved into a place where hatred trumps reason and accusation trumps evidence.  They talk about how they can't support Hillary on "Principle."  Well guess what.  There's more than one "Principle" in this world and if voting for Hillary  OR Obama violtes ONE of your principles, a John McCain Presidency would probably violate about ten thousand more.

    Inasmuch as it's possible to "earn" the VP slot, I think Hillary probably has.  But I'm not sure at the end of the day that it would be the best move for her, or even that it would be the most effective role she could play.  I believe John Edwards when he said she has shown strength and character.  And when he said that the things Hillary AND Obama care about are actually the things all of us care about.


    And there has not been an essentially tied race (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by Marvin42 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:19:30 AM EST
    to the end since, when? And there is nothing that says the VP is the "nominee's choice" but tradition and politics.

    This independent whole heartly agrees (none / 0) (#197)
    by kimsaw on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:24:55 PM EST
    with you! I don't think Clinton will decline the VP. First she loves this country. Secondly she is a party loyalist ( though I wish she wasn't). Thirdly this is just as much about the power of women as it is about the power of the African American community. If Barack Obama believes in change than he needs to step up to the plate and bring the 17 million of Clinton into his fold by showing his respect for her fighting spirit and inviting her to join the ticket. She is the policy wonk to his rhetoric. She is an asset to the party  and to Obama. If he truly is transcendent and she truly believes in the Dem. governance then she will join with him. They don't have to like each other, this is not about them personally this is about what our nation needs and we need to end the divisiveness by rising above it. Governing this nation effectively is should be the highest calling for a candidate who seeks the highest office. Loose the personal animosity it's unbecoming leadership.

    I listened to McCain's speech today, like it or not, the words he spoke will resonate with middle America. McCain even in his less then perfect cadence comes off as authentic whether you agree with his policies or not. He's not a repeat of Bush, the guy is a maverick. I don't agree with him on issues but he's got my respect. So Sen. Obama and his supporters better think ahead instead of in dislike.


    Well put and covers many (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by brodie on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:01:18 AM EST
    of my concerns about O-C ticket nonsense.

    And I can't imagine why HRC would want a job where she gives up independence, being accountable only to the people of NY, and trades that in to take whatever slight power O deigns to give her, possibly only for a limited period.  

    She's already made history in a sense by being the most influential FL-First Advisor in history, even greater than Eleanor Roosevelt.  

    Why would she seek what would turn out to be a likely lesser role with someone with whom there is no sense of mutual trust?

    Better for both parties to arrange something pre-convention whereby he "offers" her the #2 spot and, by prior backroom agreement, she thanks him for the might generous offer, but for various reasons cannot accept.  They have a unity handshake/embrace for the cameras, then Obama announces that he is losing a potential great VP but NY is gaining a mighty fine senator.  


    This scenario (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by rilkefan on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:51:06 AM EST
    is more like a West Wing plot gone wrong than a credible threat.

    The anger would not be a West Wing plot (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:52:29 AM EST
    This is Beckel's point. You really miss it.

    This scenario is possible, but (5.00 / 0) (#14)
    by independent thinker on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:52:28 AM EST
    I wouldn't call it a unity ticket. Tactically, it is a viable option--and probably would succeed--but politically it would destroy true unity.

    Hillary on top (5.00 / 8) (#16)
    by sonya on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:52:35 AM EST
    is the only unity ticket I want to see.  It would be highly offensive for Hillary to be second to Obama as she is the superior candidate for whom more people have voted.

    I agree that Clinton would be a better pres. (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by kimsaw on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:35:57 PM EST
    but we cant' be talking about her ego or how offensive it might be. We're talking about what this country needs to move forward. I am a Clinton supporter but the political realities are such that she deserves to be the VP if she's not the President. I look at it as she will be the Dem in the administration helping it to stand when needed to compromise where reasonable. Look I'm not sure at times that Obama is a Dem. He's the every where man. I think with Clinton as VP insures that he will stand effectively on Dem. issues, than say with a VP like Bloomberg. Isn't that more appealing to Dems?

    Let's make a (5.00 / 7) (#17)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:52:45 AM EST
    deal. If Edwards can't help Obama with voters in a democratic primary like KY then Obama's problems are unsolvable. If Obama's problems are unsolvable then there's no reason Hillary would want to be on a losing ticket. Maybe she could have veto power but who would she pick? I can't imagine.

    exactly! (5.00 / 3) (#115)
    by Josey on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:29:47 AM EST
    Obama has a "white" problem because of his own words calling white working class voters "racists" - coupled with Rev. Wright's racist rants.

    "The white working class isn't voting for Obama" is deemed a racist remark for the purpose of overshadowing Obama's own words.
    Rather than take responsibility for his own mistakes and association with a race-baiting church -he and Obamedia cast Hillary as a racist.

    But if Obama doesn't even understand that his own words are the reason whites aren't voting for him - how will he understand how to lead the country?
    Like Bush, Obama seems to be another Blamer.


    I'm sure even as I write this (5.00 / 10) (#18)
    by Anne on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:53:04 AM EST
    that Obama is working on a plan - similar to the Edwards endorsement - that he thinks will cut her off at the knees, and render her politically powerless.  

    Sad to say that the one plan that might do that would be to offer her the VP spot, and then make that the useless position it was in the past.  Stick her in a corner somewhere and let her travel to foreign countries to have tea with diplomats and go to funerals.  Give all the cabinet positions to people who will not take up any of her causes.  Make it clear that she does not speak for him with the Congress so no one pays any attention to her there.

    See, it's perfect.

    And she would be crazy to take it.

    It's the top of the ticket (5.00 / 7) (#25)
    by madamab on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:56:45 AM EST
    or nothing for HRC.

    She will not be his VP. He is a Titanic waiting to crash into the electoral iceberg.

    If she is not the nominee, she will go back to the Senate, and crush a 76-year-old McCain in 2012.



    That might be his plan if he offered her VP, (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:02:44 AM EST
    ...but we all know that he and all the useless idiots he will probably load up the cabinet with will come running to her for help as soon as the going gets tough.

    Look, I like Hillary Clinton. I strongly support (5.00 / 6) (#22)
    by tigercourse on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:55:22 AM EST
    her. But she is still a politician. She still acts in her own best interests. And her own best interest is not to push for a VP position. Firstly, if the ticket failed to win she would be very damaged for 2012. Secondly, if it won, she would likely be too old for 2016. If it did lose, she would take the blame. If it did win, she would be blamed for it not winning by more. It's better for her to step aside and let Obama win or lose on his own merits. If he wins, that's it for her. If he loses, she is the 2012 front runner.

    That is a different question (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:01:33 AM EST
    She needs to be seen as having the influence to deserve the offer. If she declines, then she declines.

    But if she is ignored, then her political power becomes ephemeral.


    Maybe (5.00 / 4) (#50)
    by Emma on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:06:10 AM EST
    But if she is ignored, then her political power becomes ephemeral.

    But only if Obama wins the Presidency, I think.  If he loses, he's back to being a 1st term IL Senator.  Albeit with a great donor list, but I don't know if that shuts her out of power.

    Indeed, it might not happen even if he wins the Presidency, if he's going to be as scattered and ineffective as lots of people fear.  The Senate derailed a lot of Bill's plans, there is power there.  And she's tapped into it, become a part of it, in a way Obama has never been interested in trying to do.


    ephemeral? Not when Obama loses... (5.00 / 8) (#60)
    by p lukasiak on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:09:11 AM EST
    Consider this....

    Obama loses, and loses big.  The party is in disarray, and needs to be unified...

    Who Ya Gonna Call?

    the Clinton's, that's who.  Once Obama loses, the Clinton-haters and the party establishment that enabled Obama will be in complete disrepute, and the only people who are gonna look good are Bill and Hillary Clinton.  


    yep (5.00 / 6) (#107)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:23:19 AM EST
    It's a win/win for Hillary. Obama's an electoral loser.

    The good thing she can do is campaign for downticket races in swing districts.


    I Feel This is Overly Optimistic (none / 0) (#192)
    by TooFolkGR on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:15:59 PM EST
    The party didn't go running to Bill Bradley in 2004 or John Edwards in 2008.  If the Democrats lose in 2008 (which I believe is unlikely regardless of our nominee at this point) the 2012 field will be wide open.

    this is my position exactly (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by bjorn on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:50:39 AM EST
    he better ask her, then it is up to her...but if he does not ask, I bet even some of you that don't want her to take it will be as pissed as I will be!

    I don't (none / 0) (#59)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:08:49 AM EST
    know. Declining to be on a ticket with Obama would give her supporters the message that it's okay to leave the party. Declining him could be seen as a slap in the face by her voters. Lots of ways this could end up bad.

    Clinton voters (5.00 / 4) (#71)
    by Emma on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:12:19 AM EST
    already get that it's okay to leave Obama.  Like those 49% or so in WVA who said they're not going to vote for him if he's the nominee.

    Obama Has Sent The Message That Their Is (5.00 / 7) (#114)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:29:30 AM EST
    no need for party loyalty only loyalty to him. Clinton's voters will vote for me but my voters won't vote for her.

    Clinton has been the one stressing party loyalty not Obama.

    I don't think that the party deserves any loyalty after dismissing so much of its base as irrelevant and that is why I'm now an Independent.  


    Not so fast to 2012. (none / 0) (#111)
    by Christy1947 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:25:08 AM EST
    She has a lot of her own fences to mend before she could be the frontrunner in 2012 or 2016. Fences as angry and as passionate as those on talkleft and other similar sites. And her own baggage. It just isn't that simple.

    Not necessarily (none / 0) (#132)
    by Double Standard on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:39:35 AM EST
    We know the Clintons love campaigning.  This is what they do.  This is what they live for.  Meeting people, hearing their problems, coming up with solutions to help, etc.

    She'll be 68 or so...women tend to age better than men.  If she has her full health, she's going to make a run for it again because that is what she likes to do.  Age is not going to keep her from running.

    The key for her is to have Obama pick a Vice President that is not likely to run for the presidency in 2016 against Clinton, whether it be Clinton herself or somebody like Wesley Clark.


    Yes, Obama needs to offer it to her. (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by lyzurgyk on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:03:20 AM EST
    If they believe they can work together, by all means put her on the ticket.

    If not, Obama and Hillary need to put their heads together and come up with a suitable Veep choice.  

    Alternately I suppose Hillary could negotiate for selecting certain cabinet posts or Supreme Court nominations.

    But one way or another, Obama is going to have to kneel down and kiss her ring.

    the convention will definitely be interesting (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by DandyTIger on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:06:00 AM EST
    I think I remember Jeralyn saying she would be there, what about you BTD. Can we get some live blogging from there. This looks to be like a really amazing and educational thing. I wish we could get a camera in some of those back room meetings about FL&MI and of course about the overall delegate meetings and counting. I hear there will be a push to get the Clinton and/or Edwards health agenda on the platform, for whatever that's worth.

    The VP issue is pretty interesting. I for one thing it would be a massive mistake for Clinton to take such a position. I think after this campaign (where she really figured out politics and grew amazingly well as a public figure) she will be a much better senator and can move over to the state as governor if she wanted. To say nothing of 2012 against McCain. But then she is a democrat first in my opinion, so if she and others thought it would be best, she probably would.

    What's really interesting is I think a lot of the DNC and the Kennedy/Kerry/etc coalition efforts have been to smash the Clinton wing of the party. But since Clinton has done so well (basically statistically tied in the popular vote, close in del), she will have a lot more power at the convention than that group would like. It will be interesting if she and the Clinton wing figure out how to wield that power carefully and successfully to make themselves more viable in the future.

    Not going (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:10:40 AM EST
    All of this will be done BEFORE the Convention. Nothing will happen at the Convention itself.

    that's no fun (5.00 / 0) (#75)
    by DandyTIger on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:13:22 AM EST
    I want high drama. Jeez, dems are just no fun. You know, there are going to be lots of books and probably movies about all of this. I'm telling you, start calling publishers now...

    That depends BTD (5.00 / 2) (#155)
    by felizarte on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:53:15 AM EST
    on how Hillary and her supporters are treated.  If half of the party is thrown under the bus, what is there left to do except fight to the bitter end.

    The million plus women's march on Denver? (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by oculus on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:21:39 PM EST
    Is the only way (none / 0) (#171)
    by Alien Abductee on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:03:20 PM EST
    Hillary and her supporters can not be "thrown under the bus" really just to have her on the ticket? I would have thought that some of the issues she says she wants to fight for - end of Iraq War, universal health care, protect SS, better deal on NAFTA, jobs, economic justice, etc. - would have some importance too, no matter who carries the banner on them.

    Obama and Clinton are two peas in a pod on the issues, with just a few details of implementation different in their plans.


    That is exactly (5.00 / 3) (#184)
    by dissenter on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:08:36 PM EST
    Why you won't get Clinton supporters. They are NOT the same on issues. Try reading the fine print.

    Same pea in a pod? Obama isn't even in her league. And as for my New Politics, try reading the Obama story on the front page of the ABC website.

    Obama is dirty and the stink is going to grow worse as the summer heat sinks in.


    While the primary campaign (none / 0) (#193)
    by Alien Abductee on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:17:42 PM EST
    goes on there's an incentive to keep pushing that particular story line to Clinton supporters. Once we're into GE mode there will be less disinformation being spread about Obama's stand on the issues, at least by fellow Dems.

    If Obama wins (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by rafaelh on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:06:08 AM EST
    she definitely should have a say over who the VP is going to be. Hell, she will probably have veto power over that decision since she has so many delegates. Obama should be really diplomatic in how he approaches her on this subject. I think he will be, maybe that was why Edwards spent the first 10 minutes of his speech praising Hillary.

    Point of Order!!! (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Edgar08 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:07:16 AM EST
    Hey BTD are we segueing into a narrative where you're going to blame Clinton if she doesn't fight to be VP????!!!!!

    I'm getting a whiff of that here.  But I'm a little paranoid and over-sensitive, so I just want to be clear!

    Not at all (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:09:59 AM EST
    This post is entirely directed at Barack Obama. He needs to be seen as OFFERING the VP to her. Clinton need not do anything.

    Thanks (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Edgar08 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:12:03 AM EST
    If it's offered and she rejects that offer, have at it.

    Doesn't mean I agree though.


    Are you secretly communicating to (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by oculus on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:27:31 PM EST
    Axelrod et al. you theory from yesterday that Obama will retain his media darling status during the GE if Clinton is on the ticket to suffer the slings and arrows?

    That would be the point of this meme. (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by madamab on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:11:35 AM EST
    (Not BTD's point, I think. I'm speaking of the Obama bloggers and his campaign.)

    Declare victory on May 20, three months before the Convention. Throw big-name and superdelegate endorsements out there to blunt all of her victories. Fuel talks of a Unity ticket that Obama and Party Leaders like Pelosi and Dean have dismissed as never happening. Seed the airwaves with thoughts of Hillary as Veep to try to convince her supporters that she can't win.

    It's not over till the lady in the pantsuit sings on August 28. Which I believe is what BTD is trying to say. ;-)

    very true (5.00 / 3) (#166)
    by Josey on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:02:30 PM EST
    and if Hillary were VP nominee and Obama lost - guess who they'd blame.
    "Hillary only campaigned 29 days in FL!"
    "She wanted him to lose so she could run in 2012!"

    Obama put a "racist" on the ticket? (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by Cream City on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:33:38 PM EST
    Maybe he could explain that she has seen the light -- although I doubt she'd get a halo like his photoshopped onto the Obama campaign fliers.

    It would be fun to watch him and the blogger boiz squirm around to suddenly loving the Clintons.

    But I would hope that she turn it down and be even more of a power in the Senate.  When an Obama ticket loses, we will need strength there.


    Should Point Out (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by The Maven on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:14:08 AM EST
    that one of Beckel's key stated reasons for why and how this could happen appears to be fundamentally flawed when he says, "Most Clinton delegates are women."  If this were true, they probably have a hard time getting seated at the convention, because the DNC rules provide for a strict 50-50 division of pledged delegates for any candidate.  So unless Beckel is very loosely defining "most" to mean 50% plus one, Clinton's delegation at the Convention is going to have a gender mix effectively identical to Obama's.

    So messed up (5.00 / 5) (#87)
    by Davidson on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:17:21 AM EST
    Basically just about everyone here has given up on the legitimate chance Clinton has to be the nominee even though the only reason why Obama is ahead is because of pledged delegates in (anti-democratic) caucuses in red states, two states are disenfranchised, and he's paying off the superdelegates.

    No wonder why the supers are so cowardly in doing what's best for the party and choosing Clinton: we're all buying this myth that it'd be "wrong" to pick the winner, facts be damned.  The media will hate whichever Democrats is thrown their way so there's no real excuse for all this nonsense (Also, Clinton supporters are increasingly growing immune to the media).  I'm tired of lowering the standards for the presumptive nominee who has all the advantages in the world and still can't win where it counts.  Even now he has to have all these "leaders" prop him up.

    I know that it's either Clinton as the nominee and future president (with Obama as VP; I don't care) or McCain will win.  If it means her taking it to the convention floor to fight it out, then so be it.  The party and our country are worth fighting for even it's widely seen as "ugly."

    I have not given up. (5.00 / 3) (#103)
    by madamab on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:22:10 AM EST
    Nor have a lot of people here.

    But as you know, HRC is a person of extraordinary strength. She has endured decades of abuse just for being herself. I would not have been able to endure ten minutes of it, and she's still thriving after 16 years.

    We can't all live up to her example. That's why she is out there speaking for us. :-)


    I have not doubt that Hillary will be our nominee (none / 0) (#158)
    by katiebird on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:54:57 AM EST
    Obama can make his "Mission Accomplished" announcement.  But I think he'll expose himself or with his graceful way with words, force McCain to expose him.

    This is going to be a long, long summer and Obama is already tired.


    Give me 3 better candidates than Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:18:14 AM EST
    for the VP slot. It is not about the GE and votes, it is about who would be the best for our country. I cannot think of one. I will be very disappointed in Obama if he does not extend the offer to the best candidate as will many democrats, Hillary supporters or not.

    Bill Clinton. (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Fabian on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:22:53 AM EST
    We know he's good.
    We know he's an excellent campaigner.
    Live footage of exploding heads on webcams.

    lol (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:24:51 AM EST
    Ok, there is one better. But the argument still stands, give me one who is better, that could take the job.

    Legally, I think he can. (none / 0) (#121)
    by Fabian on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:31:08 AM EST
    He can't RUN for POTUS, but I don't think he can't be the VP candidate.  

    And yes, I do so enjoy the spectacle of exploding heads from everyone who thinks that Bill is getting ready to take over from Dick Cheney.  


    how so (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:28:58 AM EST
    How is Edwards superior to Hillary?

    He quit the Senate to run in 2004 (5.00 / 0) (#118)
    by rooge04 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:30:19 AM EST
    and has done nothing legislative since except keep running for office. Obama AND Edwards together STILL don't have the same amt of experience as Hillary.  

    John Edwards sure did alot for John Kerry (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by tigercourse on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:31:31 AM EST
    in 2004. He's lost 3 elections in a row. 4th times the charm?

    The stalking horse may win the nomination. (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by wurman on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:37:54 AM EST
    Allegedly, in 2004, Bill & Hillary Clinton made a special effort to get Gen. Wesley Clark into the Democratic Party nominating campaign in order to stop Howard Dean.  It worked, supposedly.

    From my observations, Barack Obama was boosted into this 2008 campaign to stop Hilary in order for either J. Edwards or W. Richardson to wiggle in the back door.  Oddly, the Sen. Obama effort became successful, almost despite itself.

    Dean, Kennedy, Kerry, et al. were on a vendetta to displace Sen. Clinton & probably could not even imagine that an unknown, un-vetted, IL senator (who beat a carpet-bagger, substitute GOP candidate) would strike a nerve with some very skillful, dedicated, hard-working campaigners.  [And . . . they did not game the system; they "systemed" the system which had been designed to produce a path through the caucuses to let an underfunded unknown candidate at least be in the running because of proportional delegate assignments.  Yes, of course, he later became well-funded, duh.]

    At present, if my view & my speculations are at least partly accurate, the initial goal of the Obama campaign (to eliminate the Clinton faction from the Democratic Party) is nearly complete.  This is why Richardson turned coat.  This is why Edwards just endorsed the candidate least like the actual JRE positions.  This is why Brazile & many of the DNC poobahs are fronting for the Obama candidacy.  [The media whores stoke the Obama boilers because their corporate masters crave the incomprehensible ad spending--just a beaucoup bucks they could not have imagined.]

    Much of the anti-Clinton behavior, demonizing & vilification is mistakenly identified as sexism.  In my opinion, it's more nearly a purge of the Big Dog, his supportive wife & that "element" of the overall party.

    And, yes, the leaders of the purge will gladly lose the general election to McCain (who they sort of like, anyway--one of the good old boys) in order to delete the Clintons.

    Obama would be dumb to offer it (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Slado on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:39:52 AM EST
    and Hillary would be dumb to take it.

    Nobody votes for a President because of the VP.   That is tired logic that doesn't apply anymore.  Maybe a single state likes to see one of their own be the VP but nationaly it doesn't matter.  Heck, most people don't even know who the VP is.

    Hillary should step aside if Obama pulls this out.   She knows she's the better candidate.  Why would she take a 50/50 or worse chance of being the running mate of the democrat that lost a gimme election (IE the next Liberman).

    If Obama wins he will have a constant head ached fomr VP Clinotn and vormer President Clinton.  It gets him elected but once in office they will be a permanent drag on his administration.   What would Bill do?  The only thing he could do would be to make stupid comments that Obama would have to answer for.  Who needs it.  

    Edwards, Richardson etc.. would be much better choices.   If Hillary dems want to bite their hands to spite their face then that's a risk Obama will have to take.   His administration can't afford to drag along the Clinton baggage for no other reason then to keep this blog happy.

    Obama Doesn't Need To Worry About Hillary's (5.00 / 3) (#170)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:03:04 PM EST
    baggage. He needs to worry about his own.  

    Obama (5.00 / 2) (#190)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:13:33 PM EST
    baggage is huge.

    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:46:23 AM EST
    This comment is hilarious in its incoherence.

    Isn't this normally how it goes? (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by lilburro on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:58:15 AM EST
    "Since she didn't win you better give her second place."

    you know, in races?

    You're mistaken, BTD. You don't know women (5.00 / 0) (#172)
    by goldberry on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:04:01 PM EST
    We aren't going to accept second- period.  We aren't interested in the VP slot.  I don't know what makes you think this would be acceptable to us.  Yes, I see the poll results but what I don't see is the poll where the order is reversed with Clinton #1, Obama VP.  That to me is the only unity ticket I will accept.  Any other Obama combination is unacceptable.  

    It's a question of pride and his legacy (5.00 / 0) (#189)
    by Saul on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:13:05 PM EST
    When you preached day and night that you were going to be that so different politician, (which IMO he contradicted so many times during his campaign) totally to be divorced from the politics of the past which includes the Clintons, then to have now throw that down the drain, eat crow and reverse yourself will be beyond him and his elitist style.  If he did offer the VP to Hilary his history would be clouded with the true way he wanted to go down in the annals of history.  First Blackman and the first politician to get to the white house by not doing what every other presidential nominee did to get there which IMO is questionable anyway that he stuck to his core philosophies.  

    Hillary has earned the right to be asked (5.00 / 0) (#198)
    by esmense on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:25:12 PM EST
    but the decision (I suspect) has most likely already been made -- Richardson. He is the only person who, against McCain, may be able to help Obama actually pull off the electoral argument he's been making; that he can win the Southwestern swing states (most notably New Mexico and Colorado) -- an argument that otherwise is far from convincing when you consider the lack of enthusiasm Hispanics have shown for his campaign so far and the genuine popularity McCain enjoys in his home region.

    Hillary Dont Do It.... (3.00 / 2) (#32)
    by northeast73 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:59:51 AM EST
    ....let the loser go down with some other LOSER like Edwards or Richardson.....

    Dont soil yourself by being associated with this Turkey.

    OMG! (none / 0) (#2)
    by madamab on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:46:05 AM EST
    This will never happen!

    Edwards is rumored to be after the VP slot. That is the much more likely scenario should Obama be the nominee, don't you think?

    After much thought about the meaning (5.00 / 0) (#182)
    by oculus on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:07:36 PM EST
    behind the Edwards endorsement yesterday, I am convinced Obama rolled out the endorsement when he did to tamp down the joint ticket talk.  See, I already have my VP choice and look how the people are cheering.  

    Only if Hillary says OK (none / 0) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:54:21 AM EST
    But I do not believe it for a second myself.

    Hillary will be fine with it. (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by madamab on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:57:37 AM EST
    Let the two losers lose together. She will be in the Senate making President McCain's life a living hell.

    I don't know how to comment (none / 0) (#7)
    by katiebird on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:48:54 AM EST
    without crossing the line.

    I guess I'll just say -- my fingers are crossed.  And I hope you get your wish.

    Okay, I'll Bite (none / 0) (#23)
    by The Field on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:56:16 AM EST

    This sounds like the "HRC as inevitable nominee" meme has now mutated into "HRC as inevitable vice presidential nominee"! And what is being cited as evidence of this: her "lead" in the "polls" of potential VP picks! Ha! As Yogi Berra said, "It's deja vu all over again!"

    I and many , many others think Obama would be "nuts" (your word) to stain his general election chances with a symbol of the very kind of "old politics" that HRC embodies, and for many other reasons (baggage, a loose cannon off-message spouse, and a gift to cash-starved GOP coffers by giving them, anew, a Clinton to demonize and fundraise off of).

    In any case, I find the lobbying for it to be entertaining because the louder you and others claim that Obama has to pick Clinton (or any other individual), the tighter the door locks against that outcome.

    To wit: If after a lobbying campaign on her behalf Obama were to choose Senator Clinton, it would create the widespread public impression among Independents and other swing voters that Obama capitulated, that he is weak, that he is not his own person, that he is calling his own shots, that he buckled under pressure... very far from the commander-in-chief profile that a winning presidential candidate needs to embody in order to win.

    I understand that bargaining is a stage of grief. But at a certain point, it's gonna be time to move on.



    The problem (5.00 / 6) (#26)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:57:34 AM EST
    is that he already has that profile.

    Weakness isn't his problem.... (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:07:27 AM EST
    ...sooner or later its going to become obvious that he has bought the Democratic party lock stock and barrel. I was more at piece with Edwards' endorsement yesterday, before I read that it came with a price. He has nothing left to offer Hillary or to her voters.

    Yes!!! (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Edgar08 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:58:19 AM EST
    The future of the party.

    As for this (5.00 / 4) (#30)
    by andgarden on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:59:05 AM EST
    it would create the widespread public impression among Independents and other swing voters that Obama capitulated, that he is weak, that he is not his own person, that he is calling his own shots, that he buckled under pressure...
    What is your plan to bring the other half of the party back into the tent?

    In a word: Issues (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by The Field on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:05:24 AM EST
    The "other half of the party" is the 99 percent of Clinton voters that did not donate to her campaign, did not blog in her favor, are not insiders, and voted for her based on familiarity ("brand loyalty") and the issues.

    In Obama v. McCain, those folks line up with Obama on the issues, from taxes to government economic programs to Roe-v-Wade, to the Iraq war, etcetera. They don't feel as personally hurt as the activists do.

    As for the one percent that are pro-Clinton activists, a majority are adults. They're going to see things like who gets appointed to the Supreme Court as more determinative of their votes than what some pro-Obama blogger or activist said that they considered nasty.

    As for the tiny percentile of one percent that sees their own hurt peewings as more important than ending the war in Iraq, or ending the tax breaks for the super rich, they'll be greatly outnumbered by the number of swing voters (Independents) and new voters (youth, African Americans, and all kinds of Americans) that will flood the polls, as they did in Mississippi's 1st CD on Tuesday to vote for the Democrat.


    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Edgar08 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:08:43 AM EST
    Of course it's only 99%.

    Yes (5.00 / 4) (#58)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:08:49 AM EST
    Because we know how well a complete focus on issues works in elections.

    Al, you are smarter than this.


    So this was your plan all along? (5.00 / 4) (#62)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:09:40 AM EST
    ...to rely upon our better judgment? You guys should just talk about that stuff amongst yourselves. You're not winning any supporters here with that line of reasoning.

    First of all... (none / 0) (#83)
    by The Field on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:16:19 AM EST
    ...I'm no representative of Obama or his campaign. I'm not even a donor or a volunteer. I'm a writer, that's all.

    I'm not here to pander to the activists or make you feel good. I'm, rather, calling on my pal Armando and others willing to listen to put their own hurt feelings aside and look at the issues. If you can't at least do that, then you're probably not among those I'm speaking to.


    In a way you DO represent the Movement (5.00 / 5) (#90)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:18:41 AM EST
    This is a point I have been trying to make to the Obama blogs. The smearing of Hillary Clinton has infected all parts of the Obama message.

    In short, I think you and blogs like yours have become a problem for Obama.


    Armando doesn't really have hurt feelings... (5.00 / 7) (#93)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:19:32 AM EST
    ...he isn't the one Obama has to worry about. He will push the lever correctly. And he isn't the one that is influencing many of the posters here to have "hurt feelings" and frankly even calling it that is patronizing. I'm not one to argue or fight with people, but this type of scolding that we are getting right now is exactly what turned me against Obama in the first place. So is it mature of me? Maybe not, but until you can pass a law that only the "good people" can vote, I and my ilk must be dealt with. That is all.

    If you think the problem (5.00 / 5) (#95)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:19:55 AM EST
    is our "hurt feelings," then you are never getting our votes. (Speaking for me and a lot of others like me.)

    Question (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by The Field on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:30:06 AM EST
    So, your feelings aren't hurt?

    Because your words suggest otherwise.

    But one thing I've learned in life as well as politics: when we begin pandering to people who say "you have to do THIS, and do it MY WAY, in order to win me over," we fall down a slippery slope when we empower that kind of blackmail to come, from the same people, again and again.

    I think I heard a presidential candidate say this year that leadership is also about telling people what they don't always want to hear. My experience has inoculated me against worrying about pleasing people that demonstrate that they'll never be pleased enough to stop demanding more.


    This attitude (5.00 / 7) (#125)
    by andgarden on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:35:33 AM EST
    has enabled Obama to get away with doing just about anything and being praised for it.

    You promote Bush-style divisive tactics, and I hope you are not rewarded for it.


    Pot, meet kettle (5.00 / 3) (#130)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:38:53 AM EST
    Have you not just said that we must vote for Obama because of your interpretation of the issues? What is that but "blackmail"?

    And please don't presume that you know anything about my feelings. If you are an actual Obama supporter, and not a Rrepublican troll, then you are not a very effective advocate for your candidate.

    And Obama needs advocates.  There are reasons why Clinton has garnered half the votes cast.  If Obama cannot deal with that and figure out a way to draw these voters in, then he will lose.


    the flip side (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:39:43 AM EST
    to telling people what they don't always want to hear... Is creating an administration that challenges you to recognize the power of the establishment to promote your new agenda. Change is most widely accepted and integrated with powerful change agents and Hillary is the strongest in that regard. Who would be a better choice and why? Why must we have an argument of him having free choice over the position, which i think he should have, versus who is the best candidate. As an Obama supporter his youth and lesser experience than HIllary is a drawback and I think it is best for the country to have strong, sagacious counsel at his side. Picking a governor to win a state is politically expedient and demonstrates weakness in my opinion. Me, I want the person at my right hand to be someone who is capable of telling me no and following it up with logical reasons why. From domestic to foreign policy there is no stronger candidate that I can think of, so to me, it seems like he must pick her for those reasons.

    To get my vote (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by samanthasmom on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:48:03 AM EST
    Obama needs to apologize to the Clintons, their surrogates, and her supporters for playing the race card at every opportunity in this campaign.  I'm going to assume a leadership position here and tell you that the people who won't vote for him are tired of being called racists because they don't buy Obama's message of hope and change.  Until he does that, his choice of VP is irrelevant. The Obama campaign is very good at blaming his lack of connection to the people who support Clinton on the voters' His bus is dragging from all of us who are under it.  Try making some GOTV calls and see what you hear.

    What I am looking for is a President (5.00 / 2) (#202)
    by FlaDemFem on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:48:44 PM EST
    who can actually DO something rather than just talk about it. Obama has little history of getting things done, at least on behalf of other people. Hillary does have a long history of getting things done for other people. Hillary can not only articulate her plans, but explain how they will be implemented and paid for. Obama seems to think that money we don't spend on Iraq is available to spend on other things. He doesn't seem to realize it is all borrowed. And must be repaid, with interest. When asked about policy he either hems and haws, or uh's, and then refers people to his website, where his staff has put up the policy papers. He should go read it and then be able to explain it all himself. I don't want a president who defended his contributor/friend against his own constituents when they sued for repairs and heat in the buildings the friend put up, with funding he got due to a "form letter" sent by Obama. And Obama was an attorney of record, I believe, for Rezko's company in that case.  

    And as for this...

    I think I heard a presidential candidate say this year that leadership is also about telling people what they don't always want to hear.

    I would think that telling people they are bitter, cling to guns and religion, are racists, and their votes don't matter is a bit more than "what they don't want to hear." It's what no one has a right to say to them and then expect them to vote for  him.

    Hurt feelings? (5.00 / 3) (#168)
    by Molly Pitcher on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:02:42 PM EST
    You ever hear of principles?  And putting country ahead of party?

    The World Does Not Consist Of Bloggers (5.00 / 9) (#91)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:19:21 AM EST
    and I think that you overstate their importance. I also think that you underestimate Obama's disconnect with a large segment of the population at your peril. Exit polls are showing that a large percentage of voters (25% - 50%) way over 1% will not vote for Obama.

    The idea that they will flood back to Obama in the GE is the same idea that said that there was no way that Bush could win in 04. This type of thinking has been prevalent among Democrats for years and is why Republicans continue to win the WH.


    I think you underestimate the division (4.90 / 11) (#66)
    by andgarden on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:11:01 AM EST
    as even 20% staying home could be fatal. But I'm glad you've laid this out: your plan is faith, ignorance, and ridicule: have faith that they'll come back, ignore them, and ridicule them when they don't fall in line.

    I'm going to vote for the nominee, but recent polling shows that I'm not in great company. "Issues," if with the grace of god Obama actually starts running on them, will not be sufficient.


    The polling was as bad... (none / 0) (#88)
    by The Field on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:18:05 AM EST
    ...in 2000, when more than half of Bradley voters said they wouldn't vote for Gore, and more than half of McCain voters said they wouldn't vote for Bush. By November, both groups came home to their respective parties. And who was left to decide: Independents and swing voters that were not big enthusiasts of any of those candidates in the primaries.

    This amounts to "they'll fall in line," (5.00 / 13) (#109)
    by andgarden on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:24:38 AM EST
    What I think you don't understand is that the Bradley supporters in 2000 were different from the Clinton supporters of today. Frankly, Obama's base consists of the Bradley vote plus African Americans. Ohterwise, Hillary has the rank and file of the party behind her.

    Mending the fences this time is simply different, and expecting it all just to work out in the end is not a strategy. Essentially, I don't think you're willing to recognize that you have a problem.

    And as for this idea that swing voters are more important: I think that the blogosphere circa 2005 would simply eviscerate you for that line if reasoning. In other times, this would have been called faux-centrist triangulation. It's the cartoon version of the DLC strategy.


    Swing voters will be important ... (5.00 / 0) (#188)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:11:08 PM EST
    ....if you consider Hillary supporters first time swing voters as more and more of them register as independents. Look I'm even going to do it and I have no intention of voting for McCain, but my vote must be courted this year.

    It's those that demand he relinquish his VP choice (none / 0) (#124)
    by The Field on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:34:47 AM EST
    ...that are demanding that somebody else "fall in line."

    I'm sure Obama will do so much more than I would ever do to make amends with Clinton supporters. Unifying is much more in his nature. I myself would never seek political office. I don't have the patience or the capacity to hide my displeasure that is required.

    It is those that claim that the ONLY way he can do it is capitulate to THEM on his first big important decision - picking a good vice president among many excellent possible choices (Sebelius, Kaine, Richardson, Edwards, Dodd, and, yes, even some Clinton supporters out there) - who are insisting that another "fall in line."

    And now they're apparently projecting it on those that don't want the nominee to fall into anybody's line!


    Richardon, Sebelius? (5.00 / 3) (#126)
    by andgarden on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:36:53 AM EST
    Heh, at least now I know what I think of your political judgement.

    Good day.


    He needed to win clearly and decisively (5.00 / 4) (#149)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:49:56 AM EST
    to have that freedom. He did not.

    That's the way the cookie crumbles. Politics is compromise.


    I think this is at the core of our different views (none / 0) (#175)
    by The Field on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:05:27 PM EST
    I think Obama won the right to pick his own running mate, both under the rules and morally.

    Just the same, if it had gone the other way, I would oppose (and have vocally opposed even before this was settled) the imposition of Obama on Clinton as her VP pick.

    Not only that, I think he will exercise that right and pick someone different.

    Finally, I also believe that even if Senator Clinton decided on a kamikaze strategy of getting nominated for VP at the convention anyway, that enough of her own superdelegates and even pledged delegates would reject and vote against that bid.

    So I think our different ideas of how this play out are going to be tested on the rocks of reality: Obama will pick a different VP, and we'll have this conversation again after the November election.

    I don't know if you're the wagering type, but I'd put $100 bucks on it.


    Bradley supporter amounted to 15% (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:30:55 AM EST
    of the Party at best.

    Fair enough (none / 0) (#131)
    by The Field on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:39:17 AM EST
    But 90+ percent of 15 percent and 90+ of 50 percent is still 90 percent.

    Senator Clinton as veep can't ensure that the Democrat wins "white males" or any of the other demographics in a general election that she's won in a much smaller primary sub-set. Nor does picking someone else increase the chances that Obama would do worse among any of those demographics.

    I just think that most Clinton supporters - the rank-and-file women and men - will vote in their self interest based on economic and other issues (we may disagree on that, okay).

    And, in any case, I don't want to hijack your thread. I think I've made my point already. Thanks for conversing!


    Sure (5.00 / 0) (#163)
    by Edgar08 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:59:05 AM EST
    But for the folks in question taking self-interest into account means voting against Obama.

    And (5.00 / 0) (#169)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:02:59 PM EST
    Bradley and McCain were knocked out early.  In this case, the convention is only 9 weeks from Election Day.

    Not gonna happen for Obama and his drama.


    they will come back on their own (none / 0) (#46)
    by TruthMatters on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:05:26 AM EST
    months from now when they are faced with decisions based on issues.

    if in the end they do want to vote to extend the bush tax cuts, or continue Bush's policy in the war and McCain wins, well then that was the will of the country.


    If Obama projects that attitude (5.00 / 10) (#86)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:17:02 AM EST
    He will lose. His supporters are actually the worst enemies he has right now.

    On This We Agree To Agree n/t (5.00 / 4) (#96)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:20:09 AM EST
    I agree with him (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:22:08 AM EST
    I think he can win without Hillary. But I think he will NEED her counsel as President. To me it is not about winning over her voters, it cannot be. If her voters are so fickle that they would stay home or vote "right" than the issues aren't as important as they portend. I cannot think of a better candidate than Hillary and that includes John Edwards. Hillary isn't owed anything, but our country is "owed" her leadership.

    He is more likely to lose (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:30:13 AM EST
    without her imo.

    well thats your opinion (none / 0) (#123)
    by TruthMatters on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:31:43 AM EST
    and you are free to have it. I disagree
    and we shall see in the fall.

    but even now at the height of HRC supporters saying they won't vote for Obama they are going to McCain, Obama is still polling well against McCain.

    so excuse me if I don't jump on the doom and gloom train.


    Indeed (5.00 / 4) (#147)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:48:41 AM EST
    Your problem in a nutshell - you think your opinion, as an Obama supporter, is reflective of the opinion of Clinton supporters.

    So blind. Just so blind.


    no I think my opinion (none / 0) (#152)
    by TruthMatters on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:52:16 AM EST
    is my opinion and I know it can be wrong, and I know you can be wrong also though you seem to always think your opinion is right.

    You believe (5.00 / 6) (#164)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:59:32 AM EST
    against all evidence, that there is no need for even a unifying and conciliatory gesture towards Hillary Clinton and her supporters.

    You predict there will be no hard feelings at all.

    And you wonder why I think you are projecting your own views onto Clinton supporters?

    LEt me put it this way. I surely hope Obama is more aware of the problem than you are.


    And thank you for illustrating why democrats will (5.00 / 5) (#106)
    by Marvin42 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:22:58 AM EST
    always lose. This kind of attitude and blindness.

    Really (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by dissenter on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:42:00 AM EST
    He wants to raise payroll taxes. He takes shots at social security all the time. I could go on. But you are missing the central problem for him and it is this. I am a lifelong dem and I will vote for McCain because Obama is UNQUALIFIED and I DON'T TRUST HIM.

    That will be my guiding principle. You guys are really in fantasy land here. And as for whether Obama offers Hillary the VP spot I don't care. I am not voting for a VP. Secondly, I would lose all respect for her if she took it. And she won't.


    Right (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by Evie on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:53:06 AM EST
    that's exactly why Bush didn't win a second term!



    Haven't heard Obama's Plan B (5.00 / 8) (#31)
    by Fabian on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:59:15 AM EST
    yet.  The one where he successfully woos and wins all the Clinton supporters in spite of the anti-Clinton narratives that his supporters have pushed for months.

    Still waiting for my Unity Pony.


    Look above, Fabian.... (5.00 / 5) (#70)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:12:06 AM EST
    ...plan B is just to rely on our own better judgment. He doesn't have to do anything, promise us anything, just be better than McCain on the issues. We will just fall into place, we always do. Apply massive doses of cynicism and call it hope..there you have the Obama plan.

    Al, my good friend (5.00 / 6) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:00:18 AM EST
    I know that you and many others want to stamp out the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party.

    I think you are nuts to want to do that.

    I expect this reaction from you. Here's the thing, you and people like you will vote for Obama no matter what. It is the Clinton Wing of the Party Obama needs to worry about. Not you.


    See my reply, above (1.00 / 0) (#64)
    by The Field on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:10:20 AM EST

    I don't wish to banish the Clintons or even the most annoying of their team from the party (okay, maybe with the exception of Lanny Davis and other extreme race-baiters). But I do think their power - and that of the money interests that largely funded that campaign - have to be happy with one seat apiece at the table rather than displacing so many others as they've done for years now.

    Let's not forget that during the first Clinton White House years, the Democrats lost by every metric: House members, Senate members, governors, state legislators and municipal officers. That had the effect of concentrating too much power in the hands of one group, and was noxious to policy and politics alike.

    There is room for them in the "big tent," but no longer to be the gatekeepers of that tent, and imposing one of them as VP would send the signal that nothing, absolutely nothing, has changed.


    Your reply seems to suggest that you.... (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:16:50 AM EST
    ...value party over country. The fact is that the Clinton years were pretty good for America on just about every metric. The Democrats lost their power in Congress largely on their own, by the way, by being unresponsive to the will of the people and, frankly corrupt in many instances.

    Gore won. (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:02:31 PM EST
    ...And my point was not that Hillary was Bill. My point was that it this notion that Bill Clinton killed the Democratic Congress is false.

    No, he really didn't (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:08:42 PM EST
    Everyone in the know agrees that had Bill campaigned for Al, the election wouldn't have been close and we wouldn't have had Bush v. Gore.

    The VP offer is (none / 0) (#73)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:12:44 AM EST
    the back seat.

    This will be Obama's Party . . . IF he wins in November.

    Everything he does from now on must be calculated to improve his chances of winning.

    First requirement, a united Democratic Party.


    Ah yes, Obama's Party. (5.00 / 8) (#120)
    by madamab on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:31:00 AM EST
    That's exactly why he's not getting my vote...and why Hillary won't be his VP.

    Obama should be a representative of the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party is supposed to represent a set of core (FDR) values.

    The Democratic Party does not morph into Obama for America if he is elected President. If the Party goes that way, it is a huge, huge mistake.

    The Republicans can get away with that sort of nonsense because they are authoritarian in nature. The Democrats are not authoritarians and don't want a Dear Leader.

    How can people not understand that?


    Oh, dear. (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by Fabian on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:48:27 AM EST
    I read this first as snark.

    But then I realized you could be completley serious.

    Which one is correct?


    I am completely serious. (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by madamab on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:58:40 AM EST
    I am a Democrat because I believe certain things. Like, the Democrats should represent the middle class and the poor, not the rich and elite.

    Obama has not made the case that he stands for these values. He also appears to be incredibly exclusionary in his goals for the Party, which I also don't support.

    I don't want the Democratic Party changing to become Obama for America, because then they will lose the core values that make them Democrats. I don't see what's so strange about this point of view.

    And demsforlife? You have no idea who I am or how many people agree with me. Your comment is stupid and divisive.


    The same influx of voters (5.00 / 0) (#165)
    by Evie on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:02:12 PM EST
    that gave Obama his commanding 1% lead?

    You can start now....leave us behind..... (5.00 / 2) (#178)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:06:21 PM EST

    Really? (5.00 / 2) (#180)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:06:51 PM EST
    Plus, you represent the fringe and become distraught when things don't go your way. Its time we left those like you behind and worked together with the new influx of voters the dems have acquired this year.

    I'll believe the whole "new influx of voters" thing when I see it in the fall.  His "new influx of voters" didn't seem too interested in the caucuses to stay and vote on party business or to vote downticket, so something tells me when November rolls around, these people will not be there in the numbers you expect.


    And "this whole new influx" (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by tree on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:49:37 PM EST
    has'nt been enough to win him PA,OH,TX, or WV in the primary. It's hard to see how they are going to translate into winning in November. It sounds like sour grapes on the part of some Obama supporters to me.

    Bye, bye! (none / 0) (#160)
    by Molly Pitcher on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:57:24 AM EST
    I am putting the party out for pick up on trash day.  Oh--what fluxes in often fluxes out shortly.

    LOL (none / 0) (#108)
    by Edgar08 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:24:05 AM EST
    You think Obama represents change in this regard.

    Some expert (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by herb the verb on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:09:15 AM EST

    Apparently you haven't seen the math, which is surprising, since you hold yourself out as an expert.

    Whoever loses this battle will be in such a powerful position it does not matter what "appearences" are to the winner. The loser will have the political strength to dictate their terms of supporting the winner. That will include: deciding whether or not to accept the VP slot (after being asked both publicly and nicely), veto power over the VP if they decide not to take the position, and/or other terms guaranteeing their rightful position as leading nearly half the party, and guarantees to their supporters such that those supporters do not bolt supporting the nominee.

    Obama fantasy-land is not reality, and 51% is not and never will be enough to make the loser irrelevant within the Democratic party.


    When I say supporters (none / 0) (#74)
    by herb the verb on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:12:46 AM EST
    I mean delegates, pledged delegates, super delegates and elected officials.

    Weak (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:11:07 AM EST
    or capitulate. To whom and why? I don't buy that argument, nor do I buy that change cannot come with an establishment VP. Change does not mean cut the head off and let the body fend for itself. Hillary's political capital, sagacity, world wide respect and leadershup are not questioned. Her ability to twist arms and if need be fracture a couple along the way is a necessity for Barack to have a successful presidency. Forget the "race". I think Barack can beat McCain without her. I think he will be an average to below average president without her and an average to above average president with her. Hillary would be one of the more influential VP's in our history and in direct contrast to the type of influence we have seen from Mr. Cheney. Barack should be happy to have that type of counsel and capital at his side. Methinks the "votes" she brings in for the GE is a bonus, the real value of Hillary in the VP slot is Barack's legacy as president if elected. I for one, would go with being an above average president with one of the more respected politicians in the world than a politically expedient choice such as a governor from a state that is in question. Presidents are most successful with strong administrations, as a supporter of Obama I cannot think of a stronger VP candidate than Hillary.

    I will agree with the last part (none / 0) (#42)
    by TruthMatters on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:03:18 AM EST
    the more people try and force it the less Obama can realistically do it without seeming weak. I use to be for a unity ticket but for many different reasons

    I say let Obama choose his own, and he shall live and die, by his choice and the voters in the fall.

    but I also think he can win, and I like democrats chances.


    Ignore 2000 Hillary delegates at your own risk. (none / 0) (#72)
    by lyzurgyk on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:12:22 AM EST

    Could make for a very ugly convention.

    Contempt breeds contempt.


    It is not bargaining (none / 0) (#82)
    by waldenpond on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:15:51 AM EST
    in any sense of the word.  You join up just to be condescending?  This is just another 'get over it' comment.

    I actually put this article in the open thread because I realized it is the reality.  

    Clinton has, in fact, earned those delegates, those are her votes.  They will vote for her if she wants it.  The fact is Clinton is such a close second, Clinton calls the shots on this one.  Clinton has the power over the VP spot.  It is hers to accept or refuse otherwise it is going to the convention.  That will be ugly as she earned the VP spot.  Obama supporters are just going to have to deal with the possibility Obama can't control the VP spot just as Clinton supporters may have to deal with the possibility Clinton can't get enough popular votes to get the nomination.


    I don't think he's nuts . . . (none / 0) (#98)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:20:37 AM EST
    but I don't think he will offer it to her.  I think he and his campaign truly believe that her political style is completely antithetical to the message he is running on.

    I think it's a mistake not to offer the VP slot to her, both because she's earned it and because the two of them would form the most formidable ticket.  But I think it's a mistake he going to make.  

    What would nto surprise me would be for the party to step in and force her on him.  The supers can decide who the VP is.  Obama has no leverage.

    Won't want it (none / 0) (#138)
    by jarober on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:42:33 AM EST
    As I've said before, Hillary doesn't want VP, and won't take it if offered.  There's no upside to her career if she does so.

    Dick Morris: "Terminal insanity"..... (none / 0) (#204)
    by cardcarryingmember on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:53:11 PM EST
    .... for Obama to pick Clinton for VP:


    I can see Obama OFFERING Clinton VP in order for her to save face, but only under the assurance that there's no way she would accept it.

    Just a perspective (none / 0) (#205)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:10:02 PM EST
    If Obama would pick Edwards - the shape of things to come....

    (From The Corner) - (yes, I know - the house of Satan, but it's always good to know what the enemy is thinking)

    "McCain should pray that Obama picks (he won't) John Edwards as VP--he brings no executive record of experience, and offers less ideological balance; he has a poor record of winning primaries over two failed runs for the Presidency, has never appealed to working-class whites, hurt the Kerry ticket as a mediocre VP candidate, did poorly in past and present debates, and went even harder to the left (in scripted fashion) in the primaries. Moreover, he adds to, rather than ameliorates, the sense of elitism and out-of-touchness that plagues Obama. For all the talk of growing up the son of a mill worker, voters remember 'the haircut' and that gargantuan house with the "John's room" inner sanctum. I'm afraid all that outweighs the photogenic youthful appearance and occasional glibness."

    I think that a good part of the reason that (none / 0) (#206)
    by Chesserct on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:22:06 PM EST
    many Oboma supporters are totally against a joint ticket is the biased media picture. By my count, Obama has lost about six of the last eight primaries, the last by 41%, but the media keeps making him out to be having incredible momentum. So to people in Oboma-land, there is no reason for him to try to use his "unity" skills on Clinton voters.

    Quite frankly (none / 0) (#207)
    by CognitiveDissonance on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:25:15 PM EST
    I see absolutely no reason in the world that Hillary would take a VP slot. What would that give her? Absolutely nothing. And it certainly won't help Obama win. I wouldn't vote for such a ticket. It would just rub in the dynamic that all women are too aware of - the unqualified man who gets promoted above the overly qualified woman and becomes her boss. Often, the woman is even expected to train the man. Forget that scenario. It won't wash with women.  She could do more good as a Senator and would certainly have more power. Plus, most Hillary supporters are absolutely convinced that BO can't win a General election. So let him crash and burn if the DNC shoves him down our throats. She can run again in 2012.

    Check this out (none / 0) (#208)
    by sas on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:09:56 PM EST
    Please pass this on folks....our future depends on it.  I can't bear the thought of Obama.
    This was sent to Riverdaughter.....keep it going.....

    "This little ditty was sent in by commenter Nana. It looks like the Obamaphiles have pushed the envelope:

    WooHoo...................Wilk talk radio here in Scranton, PA is going wild this afternoon. Host Steve Corbett has had it with being called a racist for supporting Hillary Clinton and has stated he will not vote for Obama. The lines are going crazy with calls from people in NE PA who feel the same way. They will not vote for Obama and will vote for McCain if they have to to stop him. The mementum is starting against the Democratic Party. Keep it going all over the USA"

    Most Clinton supporters (none / 0) (#209)
    by Rainsong on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:39:46 PM EST
    will come home and be good Dems by November.

    I just dont think Obama can win enough of the swing-vote, but is banking on the common meme that a lamp post could lead the Dems to victory because the Repubs are so unpopular, and they have so much money this year.  Along with the Republicans imploding, by running a poor campaign perhaps, broke and broken, and McCain unable to mobilise his own base etc.

    Even if that is true, it only makes the Dem Party's behaviour during this primary season even more unethical in my mind.

    So, no problem for me, in sitting it out, they'll win anyway.  Perhaps thats how Gore lost his own state back in 2000. Too many Dems stayed home thinking he had it in the tank, and one more vote wouldn't matter etc.

    VP - HIllary? (none / 0) (#210)
    by eagleye on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:28:32 PM EST
    Why would Hillary want the VP spot?  The person in that office spends most of their time attending funerals in places like Madagascar and Guam and Mongolia on behalf of the President.  I would hope that she has loftier ambitions.