A Unity Ticket Convert

Chris Bowers joins the burgeoning Unity Ticket Movement (by burgeoning I mean me, Chris, Todd Beeton and Ed Kilgore.) Chris writes:

I do know that we are not going to achieve a realignment unless we win all of the states where one candidate or the other is strong. We need Obama's strength in Alaska, Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon and Washington. We also need Clinton's strength in Arkansas, Florida, Missouri, Ohio and West Virginia. If we are going to truly realign the country, we need to win all of those states, plus a few others like Texas, North Carolina, Virginia and Indiana, four seemingly red states where both candidates are performing reasonably well.

In other words, we need to combine the Clinton coalition with the Obama coalitions, rather than arguing over whose coalition is superior. The nomination campaign is over anyway, so that argument is moot and academic. And, correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the most obvious way to combine the Clinton and Obama coalitions to put them both on the ticket?

Chris might get run out of the Creative Class for this one.

< Court Reinstates"Don't Ask Don't Tell" Lawsuit | Late Night: I Won't Back Down >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Indeed (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by andgarden on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:41:40 PM EST
    props to him for this one.

    No not so fast (5.00 / 7) (#15)
    by Salo on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:57:11 PM EST
    Alaska?  Montana? Nebraska?  North Carolina?

    These are not the same as Penn, Ohio, Missouri , Arkansas  and West Virginia.  She's likely to sweep all of them if she's the nominee.

    Bowers is conflating no hope states with battlegrounds.


    X (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by CognitiveDissonance on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:37:49 AM EST
    In other words, he wants Clinton to win OH, PA, WV, etc., for him. No way in hell does Obama win Alaska, Nebraska, North Carolina, et al. Face it, the map that Obama won in the primaries is the Republican map mostly. He doesn't get those states in the general. He can't win most of the swing states. Hillary might benefit him. But he doesn't bring a single thing to a Clinton ticket. Nor would a lot of her supporters want him within 100 miles of her ticket. He has so much baggage that will be exploited by the wingnuts in the general, that he would only drag her ticket down. Should he be the nominee, Hillary shouldn't want to be associated with the drubbing he'll get. (Please check all the available electoral maps before accusing me of wild fantasies).

    Montana and North Carolina are not no hope (none / 0) (#18)
    by andgarden on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:58:32 PM EST
    but they are low hope.

    And in any case, I have been pretty clear on what I think the important states are.


    Didn't he forget PA? (none / 0) (#4)
    by oculus on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:44:11 PM EST
    looks like the both get PA (none / 0) (#42)
    by coigue on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:22:00 AM EST
    Obama by 5 and Clinton by 10

    I wouldn't call him a convert (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by ksh on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:41:46 PM EST
    Here's a quote from Chris in the comments:

    "I'm not convinced of my own reasoning here-mainly I am just throwing out ideas."

    Well, that's Chris Bowers in a sentence (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by andgarden on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:44:30 PM EST
    For a minor chuckle (or sob) (none / 0) (#91)
    by ksh on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:39:22 AM EST
    Last night Dan Abrams asked Bob Franken what he thought about Clinton as VP and he said, "No, because McCain would get the racist AND the misogynist vote." I don't know who Franken supports, but the panel was pretty uniformly doubtful this would happen (they seemed to be mostly Obama supporters).  Some of the remarks were HRC's negatives were too high, Bill Clinton, leader confusion, she wouldn't want it.

    An interesting bit of data I saw was that in 2004, approximately the same percentage of Dems in KY who voted for Clinton in the primary crossed over to vote for Bush in the general.  I think it was 32%.  The message being that it's difficult for Dems to carry Kentucky and both KY and WVa are not necessarily states Clinton can deliver.  Of course, that doesn't speak to Ohio or PA. I'm not for it, but could be convinced, I guess. I think they both could be hit on experience, much the same problem with Edwards (although, Rosenberg commented at Open Left that Edwards out polls Rendell in PA, which was pretty surprising). I think Bill Clinton confuses things, too.


    Clinton Has A Good Chance In WV (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:32:41 AM EST
    but not KY. Clinton leads in OH against McCain and Obama is slightly behind McCain.

    Electoral maps indicate Clinton has a better chance of beating McCain. Obama might be able to pull it off but he is more of a risk.  


    The Quinnipac Poll out yesterday (none / 0) (#152)
    by ksh on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:46:11 PM EST
    supports this, I believe a couple of others show it closer.  I suppose Obama's argument is a different map/path to victory that includes Virginia and I think he's polling well there and, surprisingly in PA (but I heard about PA on the radio when they were discussing the Quinnipac poll and I could have heard wrong). Paul Rosenberg's assertion that Obama/Edwards out-polls Obama/Rendell in PA really surprised me.

    I think he means it though (none / 0) (#130)
    by ruffian on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:04:02 AM EST
    because it is the most coherent thing he has written for w while.  He is not having to tie himself up in verbal knots to make the argument.

    You could be very right (none / 0) (#150)
    by ksh on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:26:00 PM EST
    as he says, the map is "sweet."  So far I'm against it, particularly because Clinton (maybe cleverly or not so cleverly) is forcing it (in my opinion) and Obama may look weak if he agrees.

    Forget realigning the country. (5.00 / 6) (#3)
    by oculus on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:43:32 PM EST
    How about winning the GE first?

    no, no, no ,no (5.00 / 5) (#93)
    by pluege on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:56:22 AM EST
    you must get your priorities straight as the kreative klass has: its clearly much more important to de-throne the Clinton's as dem power brokers than it is to de-throne republicans from destroying the country through the power of the presidency.

    At this point (5.00 / 5) (#11)
    by cawaltz on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:51:04 PM EST
    I'll settle for itbut I think Clinton ought to get top of the ticket.

    Odd (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:54:08 PM EST
    If he knew those states well enough, he'd know that Obama only took the WA primary by 5 pts, and Clinton would easily take this state on her own.

    McCain was too connected to making sure Boeing didn't get several military contracts, and this state goes Democratic more often than not.

    The Unity ticket is not necessary for either candidte to take WA.

    I think Hillary would offer it to Obama, but I believe he would offer it to her only if he could find a way to make sure she'd say no.

    Heh (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by Steve M on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:54:14 PM EST
    I'm not sure if you realize this, but Chris was the first blogger to point out, way back before Iowa, that Obama's only path to victory would involve trashing the legacy of the Clinton Administration.

    I realized immediately that he was right.  I still didn't think it would work, though.

    Lucky for Obama (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by andgarden on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:57:37 PM EST
    that Hillary has crafted a new Clinton brand--one that can be useful to him.

    Too right (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by coigue on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:23:02 AM EST
    I agree with you.

    She is on fire since Feb.


    And, so this man of such high standards (5.00 / 5) (#20)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:59:16 PM EST
    who just told the media and everyone else to stay away from his wife took that path.

    Did Chris Bowers also know that doing so would permanently alienate so many millions of people from Obama and the Democratic Party?


    Well (5.00 / 7) (#28)
    by Steve M on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:04:43 AM EST
    BTD has long been advocating for Obama to run as more of a partisan Democrat and draw a clear contrast with the Republican agenda, as opposed to the Unity Schtick which pretends both parties are to blame and blurs the differences.

    I never really pieced the two lines of argument together before, but you have to wonder how much of the current unity problem could have been averted if Obama had run more of a partisan Democratic campaign.  It's hard to feel much loyalty after the campaign he chose to run.


    When it comes to calling oneself a (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:16:59 AM EST
    change and hope and unity candidate, isn't that a glaring contradiction?

    My 83 year old dad, and my 29 year old daughter both have great disdain for how Obama has done this (as do I, of course). I think that is a vision of the demographic this has negatively impacted.


    Obama, appea;ing to republicans while (5.00 / 3) (#94)
    by pluege on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:03:04 AM EST
    alienating democrats...unity, schmunity - complete pol blathering nonsense.

    oops: appea;ing should be appealing (none / 0) (#95)
    by pluege on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:04:02 AM EST
    This, in a nutshell (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by A little night musing on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:55:51 AM EST
    is the biggest problem I still have with the Obama campaign (if I ignore their having tossed me repeatedly under the bus, that is).

    I may have pointed it out earlier (5.00 / 4) (#25)
    by Salo on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:02:39 AM EST
    lol. HE certainly had to trash it didn't he?  

    Bowers is lala land comparing her strength in the battleground with his 4,000 caucus vote majority in Alaska.  What an amateurish comparison. Almost as poor DHinMI as calling Missouri Appalachian.


    Even without understanding the reason behind this (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by bridget on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:07:53 AM EST
    I wouldn't expect anything else from these bloggers

    name a single blogger in the club who didn't trash the Clintons

    they had to find something to put themselves on the map

    blame the Clintons


    I will not (5.00 / 5) (#17)
    by Foxx on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:58:23 PM EST
    vote for Obama under any circumstances.

    I'll vote for the Dem nominee (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by coigue on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:04:19 AM EST
    I am funny that way.

    Alternative: SGBTRv.W (none / 0) (#31)
    by oculus on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:06:21 AM EST
    The Dem Party (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:38:45 AM EST
    has been weakened by this election's tactics and IMHO will be further weakened if these tactics result in a win.

    Say goodbye to lots of court picks if we have a Dem for 4 years and Republicans for another 20.


    Huh? (none / 0) (#35)
    by coigue on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:13:03 AM EST
    "Say Goodbye to Roe v. Wade (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by oculus on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:14:54 AM EST
    That's one of the (5.00 / 5) (#44)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:22:54 AM EST
    Pocket Guide tactics :)

    Man (1.00 / 1) (#46)
    by coigue on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:24:58 AM EST
    that's pretty ugly.

    I just love that paTrolls' Pocket Guide (none / 0) (#62)
    by Ellie on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:46:31 AM EST
    You can't go wrong with the old standards!

    yes you can (3.00 / 2) (#67)
    by coigue on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:52:34 AM EST

    Anyone care to attack a Republican?


    Pretty insulting when (none / 0) (#66)
    by oculus on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:49:36 AM EST
    automatically applied to a Clinton supporter though.

    Once I declared Independence from my abusive party (5.00 / 4) (#81)
    by Ellie on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:41:12 AM EST
    No matter how often they throw me off the bus or threaten, guilt or attempt to pre-blame me for their own impending crap, it's theirs not mine.

    Whatever they want to do with it, be my guest.

    I don't belong to them, they don't belong to me. Since they never intended to represent me, the mutual indifference, once official, has a certain elegance.

    It's way cheaper, too. Insulting? Meh.


    good luck with that (1.00 / 1) (#83)
    by coigue on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:43:58 AM EST
    Same to you and other franchise police (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Ellie on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:51:33 AM EST
    Arbiting others' votes.

    I did that..how exactly? (1.00 / 1) (#87)
    by coigue on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:15:32 AM EST
    by pointing out consequences of your actions? Is that really so threatening?

    Yeah threatened and shattered by your disapproval (none / 0) (#92)
    by Ellie on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:53:03 AM EST
    Your hot button finger's off and your Self-Help for Thee but Not for Me psycho-caca never worked at all.

    You really suck at this. Clearly, I confused you with someone else in giving you the benefit of the doubt (to exploit).

    Off-side ID-borrowers and other cluttertrolls usually spread this level of tedium through way more posts than you've managed, so perhaps a refresher course for you.


    I suck at what, exactly? (none / 0) (#143)
    by coigue on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:48:15 AM EST
    What do you think I am doing?

    You are entitled to your opinion. (none / 0) (#134)
    by oculus on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:32:52 AM EST
    And I am entitled to mine, which is personal and not intended as a defense of Obama and/or the Democratic Party.  

    Yep. Pres is for 4-8 years (1.00 / 1) (#38)
    by coigue on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:15:36 AM EST
    SCOTUS is for a lifetime.

    Better talk to Obama who's playing 2-sides on this (5.00 / 4) (#86)
    by Ellie on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:59:12 AM EST
    Thugs an endorsement out of NARAL one day by calling for supporters to give him their money, reaches out to no-choice televangelists the next.

    I won't be fearmongered, guilted, bullied, threatened or played on SCOTUS any longer.

    Never got one spec of any affirmative representation from Dems on this in my adult life, and I didn't expect to see any from them if I continued to give them the considerable support they got in the past.

    Don't care anymore. Good luck to you shilling for them though. Not being snarky, I know you're golden. I'm done though.


    Perhaps (none / 0) (#43)
    by Foxx on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:22:28 AM EST
    that will bring a lot of women back to reality.

    Doubt it (5.00 / 6) (#48)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:27:29 AM EST
    most of the women who would want/need access are unaware of Roe v. Wade. Those of us who understand it no longer need it.

    They may have to lose it to realize the importance.


    Gawd, I hope not. (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by coigue on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:41:26 AM EST
    Of course lots of women have already lost it, essentially. Because many can't find a clinic within a reasonable distance of their home.

    That makes me sad. (none / 0) (#55)
    by oculus on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:37:38 AM EST
    Bring WOMEN back to reality? (5.00 / 8) (#103)
    by magisterludi on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:26:36 AM EST
    (counting to a hundred-must respect comment rules)

    Let me just say that was an incredibly asinine comment.


    What does that mean? (none / 0) (#47)
    by coigue on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:25:29 AM EST
    Montana is a sure thing for the Rs (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by eleanora on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:31:09 AM EST
    unless McCain does something tremendously stupid before November. His polls may fluctuate a bit, but I can't even imagine anything big enough to take him out here. Romney won the closed door Repub caucus because of his good economic pitch to state GOP bigwigs and backlash against Conrad Burns, but the state as a whole will practically adopt McCain in the fall.

    You have to admit, the Republicans sucked it up and are nominating the one guy in their field who could actually win this year. Should have been a cakewalk for the Dems.

    I don't think there will be a unity ticket (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by Grace on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:35:49 AM EST
    I think this is all smoke and mirrors designed to make Clinton supporters fall over and scream "We give up!"  

    I don't think Obama would offer Clinton the VP slot.  I doubt she would want it (though maybe she would).  

    I think her best bet is to win this time or try again in 4 more years.  

    She could come back in 4 years, you know?  Look at Gore.  People still want him to run now.  Practice makes perfect.  If she doesn't get the nomination now, she could try again.  I'd vote for her!!  

    The "unity" ticket I fear (none / 0) (#110)
    by Coral on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:49:15 AM EST
    is not Obama/Clinton. It is Obama/Hagel or some other "moderate" Republican. That will destroy the Democratic Party by completely abandoning the base and the core principles that keep me voting for Democrats as the less evil.

    That's when I go third party.

    So I would be very eager and enthusiastic about an offer of the VP position to Clinton and an attempt by Obama to reach out to the working and middle classes who are concerned with economic / kitchen table issues.


    Whenever I hear that mentioned (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by ruffian on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:49:12 AM EST
    I want to rip out my eyes.  If he puts a Republican on the ticket, no matter how "moderate", I will do my best to defeat that ticket.

    Hagel Is NOT, I Repeat NOT, A Moderate (none / 0) (#124)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:39:29 AM EST
    Hagel is a very conservative Republican on everything other than Iraq. Even on Iraq he tended to talk a good game and still vote with the Republicans.

    I do think that Obama is morphing the Democratic party into the Obama party aka Unity08 party so it wouldn't surprise me if he picked a Republican VP.


    I keep hearing this. Please, tell me he is (none / 0) (#126)
    by leis on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:46:29 AM EST
    not really saying he is considering R's for a running mate?

    Obama Supporters Have Been Suggesting This (none / 0) (#131)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:10:34 AM EST
    There was a recent poll conducted in NM looking at winning scenarios based on VP selection and Hagel was listed as one of the options for Obama (Sorry I don't have the link and my google skills are primitive). The idea of Bloomberg has also been tossed around. These ideas has been out there for a while. Obama has not done anything to dampen them down. Don't know if he would go this route but I wouldn't be totally surprised either.  

    You know I would never vote for McCain. (none / 0) (#141)
    by leis on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:36:33 AM EST
    I just intended on not voting for Obama if he is the nominee.  If he selects an R or another woman I will seriously consider doing what I have never done in my life. Vote R.

    Hillary doesn't need BO (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Prabhata on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:14:49 AM EST
    I don't care about a unity ticket, period.  But if anybody wants one, I will accept only if the woman is on top.

    Never happen. (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by margph on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:26:12 AM EST
    I find this basic premise in the parent entry to be false:  "The nomination campaign is over anyway, so that argument is moot and academic."  It is only academic to Obama supporters -- failing to consider how he refused to support revotes in MI and FLA, he looks like the Chicago style push-em-around-and-aside political opportunist that he is.  Unity ticket with Hillary as VP is what most entries seem to push here tonight.  Hardly....Hillary has more gravitas that Obama, and she would be better at the top.  To take second place to Obama???  Never happen.  I can see it now...four years of him saying, "Yea, what she said."  You are dreaming.

    Sorry, I've been out of it (none / 0) (#77)
    by coigue on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:31:02 AM EST
    Obama refused to support revotes?

    In short: Yeah (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by Regency on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:33:49 AM EST
    Long?: H*ll, yeah.

    Fron NPR: (none / 0) (#82)
    by coigue on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:42:40 AM EST
    Clinton said a complete re-do of the two primaries would be acceptable to her. But Obama says he's not sure that's such a good idea.

    "Our position consistently has been that the Michigan and Florida delegations should be seated [at the Democratic National Convention] and that we should come up with a system that is fair to all the parties involved," Obama says.

    "My understanding is that the full primary is just not realistic," he says. "It's not on the table because neither state wants to pay for it and there are all sorts of problems. In Michigan, for example, the Republicans control the [legislature] and they would have no reason to agree ..."

    It sounds to me like he didn't think it could happen (due to the wishes of the states), not that he actually refused it.


    Objections are Refusals too (5.00 / 8) (#85)
    by Regency on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:52:55 AM EST
    Chairman Dean made it repeatedly clear that any consensus for how to settle MI & FL had to be agreed upon by the DNC as well as both campaigns.

    HRC's campaign agreed with re-votes from the start. They even agreed to split the bill with BO's campaign. They came up with 96 objections to every solution posed. Firehouse Primary--objection. Mail-In vote--Objection.  It even got to the point where the DNC said they had no objections to a re-vote, if both campaigns agreed. Clinton's camp did. Obama's side had more objections.

    He ran out the clock. This was back in March. He never "refused" but he did give a hundred great excuses and not one solution save 50-50 or a caucus, which was a ludicrous suggestion given that they'd originally had primaries.

    It's comopletely possible to give an affirmative denial.  "Sure, we could do that, but what if...whatever happens?"


    I don't disbelieve you (none / 0) (#90)
    by coigue on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:18:43 AM EST
    I just cannot find anything on the internet to back up what you are saying, and I wasn't paying close enough attention at the time.

    There are a lot of posts (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by lilburro on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:45:47 AM EST
    by BTD on this subject with links to many articles.  The quote you gave above is particularly damning, as Obama blames lack of revotes on the $$$ issue.  Democratic donors were willing to pony up the soft money necessary to do it.  Money is/was the stupidest excuse, esp considering how each candidate is rolling in it.

    Obama's opposition to revotes was ridiculous.  Everyone's opposition to revotes was ridiculous.  And now, (dumb) Obama supporters say "you can't count the original primaries, everyone knew they didn't count.  Don't count the votes!"  There is plenty of evidence against that anyway, but in the context of Obama's opposition to revotes, the chance the Obama camp had to push for a primary nobody could peep about....it's just too much.


    OH yeah (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by coigue on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:01:52 AM EST
    and thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt.

    I am getting tired of getting jumped on. I've been a blogger since 2004 and have followed Armando from swords crossed and eventually to here. I don't appreciate being stomped all over for NOT knowing something and admitting it it.


    not snark, am i right? (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by lilburro on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:13:57 AM EST
    I enjoy reading your comments.  Checking out the archive on this issue might be interesting esp if the media has nothing better to do than focus on this until May 31.  

    One of the most interesting points (well, to me) about both elections is that of course the primary was held for races downticket too; people, DEMOCRATS, should've been arsed to go vote.  And they did!  


    not snark at all (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by coigue on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:42:23 AM EST
    hard to tell, I know. But thanks for making me feel welcome.

    I've been getting a barage of ones and am feeling pretty unloved. But I am just going to ignore them now.

    Good point about the downticket. I think it was exceedingly stupid for Obama to take his name off in MI. But I hadn't considered what that would do downticket.


    Well. (none / 0) (#142)
    by coigue on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:44:59 AM EST
    I have to agree. If Obama was against the revote, then that is pretty stupid, not to mention disingenuous of him.

    Hillary Bias (none / 0) (#151)
    by squeaky on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:37:12 PM EST
    HRC's campaign agreed with re-votes from the start.

    Maybe it is because I do not particularly care who gets the nomination at this point but this is not true. The rest is though.

    Hillary came late in supporting the revote. Here is BTD on the subject, in case you do not remember.

    Based on the lack of support the Clinton campaign has voiced for the Florida revote plan and its failure to propose, argue for or even discuss what to do about Florida and Michigan in concrete terms, it is my considered view that the Clinton campaign is not really interested in revotes in Florida and Michigan. Instead it appears that the Clinton camp merely wants to create some type of appearance issue against the Obama campaign.


    And here:

    I point the finger at the Clinton campaign for NOT FIGHTING for revotes in Florida. They need to stop this silly game playing and get out in front of this issue.

    Finally here:

    Today, we discover that Obama is blocking the MI revote plan and Clinton has embraced revotes in FL and MI.

    The Problem with the Unity Ticket (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by facta non verba on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:32:48 AM EST
    is that if elected they then have to work together and while an Clinton-Obama ticket may work an Obama-Clinton ticket I don't think will work. It is not a good fit. And if Clinton does lose, she is more valuable in the Senate. Obama, I hope, we can get to run for governor of Illinois or dog catcher in Chicago.

    BTD, I just had to say... (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by A little night musing on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:02:58 AM EST
    the burgeoning Unity Ticket Movement (by burgeoning I mean me, Chris, Todd Beeton and Ed Kilgore.)

    ...three is an organization. Fifty people a day is a movement ;-)

    Obama's people are doing everything possible (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by masslib on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:09:03 AM EST
    to make sure this never happens.  They are totally against it.  It's an insult, of course, but they want the Clintons completely illiminated from the Democratic heirarchy.  Kennedy asked LBJ as a courtesy. They really didn't like each other.  LBJ accepted the position and won them TX, so it worked out pretty well for JFK.

    Add another prominent Dem (none / 0) (#118)
    by brodie on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:24:09 AM EST
    and O backer, Sen Tom Harkin, to the list of those strongly opposing this Faux Unity Ticket.  From what I gather, so far, the overwhelming majority of major O supporters are against this idea.

    Re Kennedy, after Lyndon stunned him by accepting that purely pro forma offer, he sent Bobby down to Johnson's suite to get him to unaccept.  

    Liberals and labor were violently against him being on the ticket.  It nearly became the Disunity Ticket.  It certainly was an extremely poor P-VP relationship once in office with Lyndon acting in ways not conducive to building a relationship of trust and mutual respect.

    LBJ may have helped win in TX, which became key when JFK just barely failed to win CA and OH fell well short.  Not that the Dems won TX by a landslide.  And some say LBJ wasn't all that popular in his state, and that the ticket just got back the Dems that would have returned in any case once native son Ike was not running again.

    Whatever.  Lyndon definitely became a highly negative presence in the WH.

    I don't think Hillary would act like the power-hungry scheming Lyndon, but I do suspect Barack would not feel comfortable with her (and BIll around) and would always be looking over his shoulder and assume they were not acting in his best interests.


    Selfish Motives (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by OxyCon on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:36:53 AM EST
    Bower's needs Hillary's supporters so he can achieve his dream of having a monumental "Bower's Movement". That's what this is all about for him. He could give a rat's patutee about Hillary or her supporters, as he so eloquently has stated various times in the past.

    NO UNITY (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by DancingOpossum on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:36:57 AM EST
    No Unity ticket, period. There's no percentage in it for her. It would mean her saving his butt from certain defeat, doing all the work, shouldering all the blame for anything that goes wrong, and him taking ALL the credit for everything that goes well. F*** that. No way.

    She'd be far better off either a)helping him win and taking him on again after four years of his certain-to-be-disastrous presidency or -- more likely to happen -- b)McCain wins and she's a shoe-in in four years. As his VP, she is stuck with his LOSERDOM like an albatross around her neck.

    The bottom line is that he needs her, but she doesn't need him and indeed is better off without him. I think he should offer it to her, but I think she should turn it down.

    Thom Hartmann is on the unity bandwagon too (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by stefystef on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:45:46 AM EST


    Oh, many Obama followers are hot under the collar about this.  They have worked so hard to make Hillary the Demon of All Demons, but it's not working.

    Personally, I don't like a Obama/Clinton ticket.  Hillary is too good to be second fiddle to a newcomer.

    And you will hear from more than a few folks here (none / 0) (#5)
    by riddlerandy on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:44:27 PM EST

    Maybe not. Its getting late. (none / 0) (#7)
    by oculus on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:45:36 PM EST
    Nah...Pacific Time (none / 0) (#22)
    by oldpro on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:00:19 AM EST
    it's Boston Legal time!

    You win. See below. (none / 0) (#24)
    by oculus on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:01:54 AM EST
    Me too. (none / 0) (#8)
    by coigue on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:46:28 PM EST
    I want a unity ticket and have since before I voted in Feb.

    Care to disclose your gender? (none / 0) (#10)
    by oculus on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:49:50 PM EST
    Guess. (none / 0) (#12)
    by coigue on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:51:14 PM EST
    Then I promise to tell you

    Male. (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by oculus on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:59:42 PM EST
    My first baby was a c-section (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by coigue on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:02:54 AM EST
    after 8 hours of labor...all that work for nothing. He was breach. Foot down and butt up. Colicy baby but so cute that construction workers would stop working to remark at him.

    Want to hear about my second birth? It's a great story.

    I am also 39, white, and from California...in case you are collecting demographics.


    Funny. I had to read 41 of your comments (none / 0) (#29)
    by oculus on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:05:02 AM EST
    before I could even hazard a guess.  That Margaret Thatcher crack threw me off.

    LOL (none / 0) (#33)
    by coigue on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:11:53 AM EST
    I don't remember what I said about Thatcher. 41 comments probably goes back a couple of months, at least.

    My MO is mostly to ask people to back up assertions that they make about any candidate, or even anything. I think it's a useful role to play in the blogosphere.

    Not that I am always the best at providing links, mind you.


    Here's a link: (none / 0) (#36)
    by oculus on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:13:55 AM EST
    So why did that comment (none / 0) (#40)
    by coigue on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:18:07 AM EST
    make you think I was a man?

    Don't you know that woman think about looks MUCH more than men do?


    PS (none / 0) (#34)
    by coigue on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:12:30 AM EST
    People always guess I am a male.



    North Carolina is not winnable (none / 0) (#9)
    by ChuckieTomato on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:49:05 PM EST
    I'm not sure why it's always included by the analysts. But hopefully Dole is going to lose her senate seat.

    Alaska And Nebraska? - Come On n/t (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:00:27 AM EST
    In Nebraska the thought (none / 0) (#60)
    by IndiDemGirl on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:42:31 AM EST
    would be pulling an EV out of CD 01 or CD 02 which are currently toss-ups with Obama as the candidate in some polls.

    Sorry I Don't Understand This Comment n/t (none / 0) (#112)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:11:03 AM EST
    Nebraska awards Electoral Votes (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by IndiDemGirl on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:21:24 AM EST
    by Congressional District, not winner-take-all.  It seems polling currently shows Obama running strong in 2 of those CDs.

    I don't think the claim is that Obama would take the state itself, but that he could pick up 1 or 2 delegates, thus putting part of Nebraska in play.  

    Sorry I didn't make myself clearer in my first post.


    Did you see the SUSA (5.00 / 7) (#57)
    by eleanora on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:40:57 AM EST
    poll that BTD posted last night? Does seem unlikely, but Clinton beats McCain in NC right now by six, Obama loses by eight. I had to check twice and make sure it wasn't KUSA :)

    Neither.. (none / 0) (#19)
    by Alec82 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:58:34 PM EST
    ...of these candidates is going to provide any stellar realignment.  This is where the liberal nonsense of the so-called "creative class" shines through, and where this site's posters lose any measure of credibility.  Once the GOP decided to play it smart and run someone perceived as a moderate (or "maverick"), and the Democrats decided that their nominee would either be an African American male or a female with the last name Clinton, the lines were drawn.  Sorry but it is true.  The map will look similar to the 2000 and 2004 maps, with negligible differences.  

     Arkansas, Nebraska, North Carolina, Missouri, Alaska? What's next, Idaho and Utah? Does Senator Clinton's marginal win in Indiana show that she can win that state in November?

     If those states were ever going to be in play, they were going to be in play because of massive dissatisfaction with the GOP, not because of agreement with substantive Democratic policies.  Maybe high black and youth turnout will make a difference, that is possible.  And maybe high female Democratic turnout would make a difference. But I really doubt it.  

     A marginal change in the map, that is all you get this year.

    I'd never (5.00 / 6) (#30)
    by Salo on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:06:12 AM EST
    imagine her winning Indiana.  She could steal Missouri though. Florida is obviously a real target for her.  Ohio, West Virginia and Penn are all states she could very likely win.

    But Obama's offcial strategy is to win Colorado, North Dakota, Montana, New Mexico and Nebraska.  That's unimaginable.  


    Targets... (none / 0) (#41)
    by Alec82 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:19:38 AM EST
    ...are not the same thing as sure things, or even probablilities.  She has an organizational deficit.  

     Your picture of the Obama "official strategy" is, well...something.  Do you care to provide a link to an internal campaign strategy memo? Or something?

     Whatever they say in public, the battlegrounds were going to be the same.  It has more to do with McCain, IMO, than anything else.


    Obama winning (none / 0) (#49)
    by Grace on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:30:47 AM EST
    North Dakota and Montana?  Hahahahahahaha!  Why not go for Idaho and Utah too?  Perhaps Wyoming would like Dick Cheney's liberal cousin too?  :)

    Yup... (none / 0) (#53)
    by Alec82 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:36:35 AM EST
    ..and the same nonsense is touted when Senator Clinton claims she will win KY, TN, TX, WV, etc.

    She has a better shot (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by eleanora on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:46:47 AM EST
    of winning the states that Bill won in 1992 or 96, you have to admit. Might be unfair, but there it is. I'd say she'll take Arkansas, Kentucky, and has a good chance at WV and TN. I don't see TX for either, not against McCain.

    Hillary could carry (5.00 / 7) (#64)
    by Grace on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:49:00 AM EST
    KY and WV.  I'd have to research more before I could say anything on the other two.  

    Her husband carried KY and WV and the Clinton "brand" still means something to people there.  Things were pretty good all over back in the '90s.  


    One thing about the Clintons (none / 0) (#68)
    by Grace on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:53:26 AM EST
    is that they don't mess around with rural folks gun rights too much -- at least not the ordinary weapons that rural people keep.  

    Obama and gun rights is kind of an unknown.  

    Unfortunately, gun rights mean a lot in more rural states.  


    Uh (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Steve M on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:49:34 AM EST
    KY and WV are clearly winnable.  Talk about a false equivalence.

    And Obama.... (none / 0) (#69)
    by Alec82 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:55:31 AM EST
    ...outperforms McCain in CO and NM...those are unwinnable, to you?

     I really, really doubt WV and KY...maybe Arkansas, based almost solely on brand Clinton and dissatisfaction with Senator McCain.

     But if it is all based on brand Clinton, she'd win Louisiana, among others, yes?

     Primaries are not general elections.  Talk about a false equivalence.


    Uh (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Steve M on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:17:43 AM EST
    You responded to a comment that ridiculed Obama's chances in ND, MT, ID, and UT by claiming that Hillary likewise had no chance to win KY, TN, TX, or WV.

    Now you want to shift the goalposts and claim I think CO and NM are unwinnable?  Huh, CO and NM?  Could you please point me to the part of my post that suggests anything whatsoever about CO and NM?  NM was a Gore state, for Pete's sake.

    Likewise, you'll have to point me to the part of my comment where I assert that primaries are general elections.  I could have told you that Hillary has a good chance to flip WV and KY well before any primary was run.  However, it's rather elementary that these are both states with a large Democratic registration advantage, and that the key swing constituency is the Democrats who usually vote R in presidential elections - a group which clearly favors Hillary over Obama.  Other states have different swing constituencies which make the Democratic primary results less relevant.

    If you enjoy scoring points by making up arguments for me and then refuting them, that seems like kind of a lame hobby.


    This just shows... (none / 0) (#76)
    by Alec82 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:29:44 AM EST
    ...why your point:

    KY and WV are clearly winnable.

     was indeed pointless.  Look at the spreads in 2000 and 2004.  Then look at my comment about why it has more to do with McCain than anything else.  Then look to what I said about which will be battleground states in November.  Then consider my point about perception, liberalism and the problem with McCain.  

     KY and WV are not going Democratic.  Not with Senators Clinton and Obama.



    Heh (none / 0) (#139)
    by Steve M on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:50:29 AM EST
    We lost KY by 12% in 1988.  Then Clinton won it the next two elections.  The first of which was against the exact same Republican candidate!

    McCain is a different candidate from Bush, political history did not begin in 2000, and there has been a colossal sea change in Kentucky politics since the last election on top of it all.

    You're just being a naysayer, claiming that the other candidate has no possibility of changing the map because that's what you want to be true.  It would be exceptionally foolish for any political analyst to discount KY if Hillary were on top of the ticket.


    You're right in a way ... (none / 0) (#145)
    by Inky on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:13:11 AM EST
    KY and WV are not going Democratic.  Not with Senators Clinton and Obama.

    I doubt even Clinton could win those states if Obama is also on the ticket. The combination of Wright, the clinging comment, Ayers, the flag lapel business, his prior gun control position, his "elitist" demeanor, etc., has made him toxic in these states, even if he ends up number two on the ticket.


    Actually (5.00 / 4) (#99)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:58:37 AM EST
    she is polling way ahead of McCain in WV. She's tied with him in KY so she has a shot there but it's far from a sure thing. Latest poll from NM had Obama losing.

    Name the poll... (none / 0) (#101)
    by Alec82 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:09:56 AM EST
    ...and hope it is as accurate as Rasmussen.  

    Survey USA (5.00 / 3) (#102)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:20:48 AM EST
    Yup... (none / 0) (#104)
    by Alec82 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:31:18 AM EST
    ...definitely not enough to stake our primary on.  Of course, for hard core supporters who would disregard Democratic politics, I guess it is fair to say it isn't even our party any longer.

     I'll go with rasmussen.


    rasmussen's (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:53:40 AM EST
    record is actually worse than SUSA according to the polling report card.

    Disregard (5.00 / 5) (#106)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:55:27 AM EST
    Democratic politics? IMO, Obama doesn't even campaign for the party. Obama campaigns for Obama. Obama is about running everyone off who doesn't want to be part of the new Obama party.

    Re: Running People Off (none / 0) (#123)
    by creeper on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:38:35 AM EST
    Obama is about running everyone off who doesn't want to be part of the new Obama party.

    Well, you have to credit the man for sticking with what has worked for him all along.  When you start your political career by having all four of your opponents tossed out of your first primary, it's easy to learn the lesson that all you have to do is get rid of the people who oppose you.  

    Bad lesson.


    Two of these states are not like the others (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by Shawn on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:44:47 AM EST
    I'm in general agreement with your post, but Arkansas & Missouri should not be lumped in with the hardcore GOP states. Both have been carried by Democrats (Clinton & Carter) within living memory, were relatively close in the Gore election, and even Kerry's losses were in single digits. There's been, I think, a grand total of one poll that didn't show Clinton beating McCain in AR; she polls pretty well in MO too. Those are only write-off states with Obama, though he may have some small chance in MO.

    A westerner... (none / 0) (#70)
    by Alec82 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:58:53 AM EST
    ...would say the same about CO and NM.  I agree that some of them (MO, certainly, Arkansas if she is the nominee) will be battleground states.  But it is presumptuous to assume that a candidate perceived as liberal will win them.  The map is only marginally different.

    Obama == Eagleton (none / 0) (#51)
    by lambertstrether on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:35:03 AM EST
    So Hillary had better be at the top of the ticket, no?

    I agree Clinton should be (5.00 / 5) (#56)
    by oculus on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:39:30 AM EST
    in the Pres. slot, but I reject the Eagleton comparison.  

    Same here. (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by coigue on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:42:03 AM EST
    Hoped you'd be commenting on this (none / 0) (#54)
    by IndiDemGirl on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:37:33 AM EST
    Not seeing anything about it earlier made me worry that you had left the "UTM."  

    Well (none / 0) (#71)
    by Edgar08 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:09:55 AM EST
    Someone needs to keep that incompetent little man from screwing up the country.

    Ok.  I'm down for this too!

    Not into unity myself (none / 0) (#74)
    by Regency on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:19:28 AM EST
    I've really about had it with the unity schtick. It's five months later and I still ain't buying. I don't like the games he's played and I don't like the way my team's been treated.

    I will not forget.

    Don't threaten me with the Supreme Court because while I am pro-choice for anyone else I am pro-life for myself. I get pregnant, I'll do the best that I can. I'm tired of "civic responsibility" meaning that I have to validate other people's unwise decisions. I'm not doing it anymore.

    It's Clinton for Prez or bust. I have no doubt that having him as her VP would drag her down. I'd rather she got to pick her own VP. Evan Bayh whets my whistle. There ain't many options left since the majority of the party kicked her in the ovaries and called her a "cheater, cheater, voter eater."

    No, thank you, I graduated from middle school to get away from these kinds of people. No sense in handing the bully a mallet to beat you with.

    The elephant in the room. (none / 0) (#117)
    by leis on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:06:05 AM EST
    If the people that vote for Hillary are racist as the Obama camp and the media has been so eager to paint them;  Appalacahia, KY, WV, southern OH, PA, then does it not stand to reason they would also be unwilling to vote for a unity ticket?

     Or are they admitting the problem is not with the voters in these areas but with Obama himself?

    Because if having Hillary on the ticket brings these states into play, it completely refutes their argument that these people are racist and it supports the undeniable truth these people just like Hillary better.


    I don't disbelieve you (none / 0) (#88)
    by coigue on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:17:39 AM EST
    I just can't find anything to back up what you are saying, and I wasn't paying close attention at the time, so I don't know myself.

    I don't disbelieve you (none / 0) (#89)
    by coigue on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:17:42 AM EST
    I just can't find anything to back up what you are saying, and I wasn't paying close attention at the time, so I don't know myself.

    Carter is a MCP (none / 0) (#98)
    by Lisa on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:34:17 AM EST
    Always has been...

    Why do you say this? (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by A little night musing on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:09:33 AM EST
    I'm not defending his comments on this topic, but I'm not aware of any other evidence on his chauvinism or lack of it. (I'm really asking.)

    I do recall that when he was running for office and early on in his administration, he caught a lot of flak in certain quarters for having admitted that he consulted with Rosalynn, and she played a rather active role while he was President. Not quite as active as Hillary Clinton, but kind of a foretaste of that. It was one of the things I admired about the Carters.


    Unity (none / 0) (#100)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:03:49 AM EST
    ticket only works with Clinton on top. Obama would look like a kid who needs his mother to clean up after him if he put Hillary on the bottom of the ticket. Besides you don't put the stronger candidate on bottom. Obama/Clinton would look exactly like Bush/Cheney.

    Unity? (none / 0) (#113)
    by LefterNutter on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:21:46 AM EST
    I honestly don't get the whole "Unity" ticket thing. Can someone explain?


    Thom Hartmann in Favor of Unity (none / 0) (#114)
    by CoralGables on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:34:36 AM EST
    Add Thom Hartmann at Air America to the list of those that think the Unity Ticket is the way to go.

    If Clinton doesn't pull out the nomination with delegates; and if an Obama/Clinton ticket is in the cards down the road, Clinton backers that say they wouldn't support the ticket unless she is on top may want to check their ego at the door. I suggest you step back and think again about whether you would vote against your own candidate because she is running for vice president, thereby assisting in preventing the nation from it's first ever female Vice President.

    Thanks for the lecture! (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Dr Molly on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:37:31 AM EST
    Now stop telling people how to vote, kay? It only makes them not want to vote in concert with condescending jerks like you.

    I don't know how many times people have to say this - threats and lectures about voting can only backfire. It really should be obvious, it's basic human nature.


    Why Thank You Doctor (none / 0) (#129)
    by CoralGables on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:58:28 AM EST
    This condescending jerk is a Floridian that voted for Clinton and quite pissed that it doesn't count...but I don't let it take my eye off what's important in November.

    If Clinton doesn't win the nomination, then I will vote for whatever ticket can shutdown the disaster that the last 8 years have brought. If that's Obama/Clinton, I'll be first in line on November 4th.


    Well, good for you (none / 0) (#138)
    by Dr Molly on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:45:51 AM EST
    Vote however you'd like. And please let everyone else do the same instead of telling them how they should vote.

    Hartmann, a firm O backer, (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by brodie on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:50:59 AM EST
    has little cred with this HRC supporter.  For months on his show he's been denigrating her campaign, not as obnoxiously as some other Hill-hating AAR hosts, but rather consistently nonetheless.

    I sense he's tossing this unity nonsense out there as an easy way for him to score a few points with some of the HRC supporters in his audience.  He comes off as condescending to her, imo, as he tosses a few crumbs her way to show he doesn't hate her completely.

    And we'll see about what the cards have in store down the line, 2-3 mos from now when he has to decide.

    Right now, with so many prominent BHO backers against the idea and enough HRCers not thrilled with it either, the House of Obama seems to have stacked the deck heavily against the Faux Unity Ticket coming up.  


    And vote to silence her forever? No thanks (none / 0) (#140)
    by goldberry on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:05:03 AM EST
    Why would we agree to zapping her power?  
    It's a pretty good chance that she would never accept such a deal.  Much more likely for the other way around.  It makes more sense from an experience POV.  Of course, it means the anti-Clinton faction would lose which is why they are protesting so much.  But there is only one way a unity ticket would work and that is with Clinton on top.  

    Not only was Chris immediately dismissed by (none / 0) (#115)
    by halstoon on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:48:58 AM EST
    his readers, but you don't fare any better here. I think the lack of support among the most committed supporters is a sign that this unity thing is not going to pick up steam. Clinton will serve a role in President Obama's administration, but it won't be as VP, imo.

    Is Clinton really trying to 'muscle a VP nod', though? Maybe she agrees with your burgeoning movement.

    Maybe she has a better understanding (5.00 / 4) (#116)
    by joanneleon on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:02:14 AM EST
    of what it would mean to lose this election in November.  It would be an absolute disaster for this country.  That, IMHO, is the only reason why Clinton would push for and agree to a VP slot.  She knows the Obama campaign has alienated a huge portion of the electorate and she knows that if he continues on his current course, we're going to lose.  In fact, no matter what he does now, we're probably going to lose because he and his campaign have already done so much damage.  I think she is willing to join the ticket because she realizes that it's probably his only chance of winning.

    The Clintons know how to win a presidential election and it could be argued that they are the only Democrats in existence who know how to do it.  They also know the dangers of the current Republican party better than anyone else.  They know what we stand to lose better than anyone else.

    I remain convinced that the only reason Hillary Clinton would agree to run as VP is to do her best to save this country from a loss in November.  She has no other reason to do it.  She'll be tossed aside as soon as the election is over, and she knows it.


    Political Wire (none / 0) (#121)
    by DCDemocrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:35:57 AM EST
    has a story this morning that says Bill Clinton thinks Hillary deserves to receive the vice presidential nod.

    Well, I think she "deserves" to (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by masslib on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:23:48 AM EST
    be on the top of the ticket.  After all, she's the stronger candidate, won the swing states, swing voters, and the big electorals.  But clearly none of that matters anymore.  She does deserve the nod if she wants it.  No doubt about it.  But the Obama people are very much against it.

    How many times now (none / 0) (#120)
    by DCDemocrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:35:13 AM EST
    have I mixed it up with red meat Obama supporters who believe that Obama has utterly vanquished Hillary and annihilated the claims of her supporters?

    Looks to me like the Kibosh on that plan (none / 0) (#133)
    by befuddled on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:24:19 AM EST
    is written in this story:
    If Obama was considering a unity ticket he wouldn't need to be "vetting candidates," he'd know.

    Nevada and New Mexico, what the.... (none / 0) (#149)
    by gandy007 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:05:12 PM EST
    Why is the implication repeated ad nauseam  that somehow Obama is somehow stronger that Clinton in these two states?

    She did win those two states, didn't she.  Or, heaven forbid, am I drinking some kind of hallucinogenic Kool Aid like the Obama Nation.

    I venture to say, Obama possibly would also win those states, but I believe Hillary would do much better among Hispanics than he would and would almost surely win New Mexico.