Do Dems Want To Win In November? The Unity Ticket Is the Answer

Via Todd Beeton:

WXYZ-Action News/EPIC-MRA poll out of Michigan (600 LVs, May 19-22, MOE +/- 4%) finds Obama/Clinton beating McCain/Romney by 7 points.

Obama/Clinton 51
McCain/Romney 44

. . . Obama's numbers in a head to head match-up against McCain[:]

McCain 44
Obama 40

Hey Nancy Pelosi and Ted Kennedy, you want to win in November? Or do you want to purge the Clinton Wing of the Democratic Party? I am prepared to step in if Pelosi and Kennedy do not agree with me on this . . .

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Prepared To Step In And Do What? | How Puerto Rico Awards Its Delegates >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I hope we see lots more of these (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by andgarden on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:59:36 AM EST
    and soon.

    Come on SUSA, give us another round!

    And Do Clinton/.Obama This Time, Too (5.00 / 3) (#247)
    by BDB on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:51:09 PM EST
    If Clinton does this much good as VP, imagine her at the top of the ticket.

    Although I do question in the long run whether a VP candidate can carry the top of the ticket across the finish line.  Forget whether after the treatment she's received Clinton should do it, I'm unconvinced she can.  In the end, people vote for the top of the ticket and what this poll really tells you is that Obama at the top of the ticket is weak and needs help.  Given that historically Democrats' positive number decline over the course of a General Election and their negatives increase, this does not seem to be a good place to be starting out.

    And, BTD, to answer your question, Clinton cannot possibly be the VP because she raised Obama's assassination* in South Dakota and that makes her unacceptable.  I know because I heard the media tell me so and since we've decided to go with the media narrative rather than fight it, there will be no unity ticket (unless it's Clinton/Obama).  Or put another way, as lambert says, controlling the party is the must have of the election, winning in November is the nice to have.  So, no, they don't care about winning in November so long as the "right" people control the party in December.

    * You might have thought you heard Clinton say Robert Kennedy and not Barak Obama.  But as I think is clear at some point the media decided Barak Obama = Robert Kennedy.  And who can blame them?  What with his winning the California primary, his struggling to overcome the party establishment choice's lead in pledged delegates, his current holding of RFK's old seat, his support by RFK's kids, and his endless campaigning in Appalachia, the similarities are eerie.


    Absolutely! (none / 0) (#183)
    by Faust on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:23:59 PM EST
    Very curious to see more of these. I think Clinton if the better choice but I also think the Edwards data is interesting. Hell I'd like to see some Clinton/Obama polls also.

    The election is 5 months away (none / 0) (#306)
    by manish on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:10:50 PM EST
    These polls are meaningless.  The election is 5 months away.  Five months before Iowa, it was looking like Hillary would run away with it and it didn't happen.  We still have two conventions, a lot of attack ads from PACs and 527s to go.

    Hillary ran a bad campaign.  I've detailed some of the issues in this comment to a prior post, however, let me expand on them.

    Hillary had the most advantages coming into this election.  She had the Clinton machine behind her.  She had 100 super delegates lined up before a single vote was cast.  She had the Democratic nostalgia of the Clinton years, she had the big donors behind her, the name recognition, she had it all.

    And she blew it.  She blew it by running a bad campaign.  There is no reason in the world that Obama should have won some of the caucuses with over 70% of the vote.  The only reason is that his campaign out worked the Clinton campaign to get out the vote.  Clinton had no problem getting her supporters out to caucus in Nevada or Iowa.

    So after she blew it, we're supposed to let her and her campaign onto the general election ticket?  A general election where she won't nearly have the advantages that she had in the Democratic primary.


    Unity, Baby (none / 0) (#332)
    by BDB on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:15:15 PM EST
    Because what's important is destroying Hillary not electing Obama president.  Good to see the Obama folks have their eyes on the prize.

    How about we nominate (5.00 / 13) (#2)
    by madamab on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:00:20 AM EST
    the person who doesn't need any help to win?

    Cause the VP thing for HRC is nagahapin.

    But don't you see that (5.00 / 5) (#31)
    by IndiDemGirl on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:23:49 AM EST
    if somehow HRC were to wrest the nomination away from Obama she would need help to win too?  

    Don't you see that his supporters would feel cheated and she would need his help to unify the Dem party to win?


    No, I don't "see" (5.00 / 11) (#38)
    by madamab on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:26:15 AM EST
    what's not true.

    Have you heard the exit polls? Most of Obama's supporters would feel comfortable voting for Hillary.

    Have you noticed that the same is not true for Hillary's supporters?

    And how in the world is she "wresting" the nomination from Obama? He HASN'T WON IT YET!



    Most Obama supporters (5.00 / 5) (#57)
    by mattt on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:33:46 AM EST
    would vote for Hillary in the general if she clearly beat him in a straight-up contest.  If her victory were perceived to be awarded via an insider deal (ie, superdelegates overturning primary results) there would be big, big problems with her support.  And the superdels realize this.

    superdelegates overturning primary results (5.00 / 8) (#128)
    by mm on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:02:12 PM EST
    You mean like when Senator Clinton won WV by an overwhelming majority only to see both Democratic Senators and SD's announce their support for Obama?

    The funny thing is, it seems like SD's are and have been "overturning primary results".


    Do you really not see (5.00 / 3) (#175)
    by ruffian on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:19:56 PM EST
    that this characterization is pure Obama spin? :

    If her victory were perceived to be awarded via an insider deal (ie, superdelegates overturning primary results)

    1. Superdelegates voting their candidate of choice is not an insider deal.
    2. Superdelegates are delegates.  They don't overturn anything. They vote, and their votes are counted with all the other delegates. The only thing extraordinary about them is that their seat at the convention is "automatic" -  they are not selected and allocated according to  the primary/caucus results.

    First, Obama isn't saying (5.00 / 2) (#221)
    by IndiDemGirl on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:38:50 PM EST
    it.  So don't blame him.  

    Secondly, do you really think that if HRC could somehow convince the remaing Supers to come over to her side it wouldn't be seen by many Obama supporters as, well, unfair to say the least.

    You are correct in your description of the SuperDs role, but that won't change the perception.  And that is why she would also need "help" if, at this point, she were to win the nomination.

    I don't know why this is so hard to see.  


    Huh? (5.00 / 4) (#240)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:45:30 PM EST
    Suppose the rest of the Supers -- who have not declared one way or the other yet -- declared for Clinton.  Maybe they thought she was the best candidate and the best chance to win in November. That would be viewed as "unfair" by Obama supporters? Why? Because they held their decisison to thte end and they didn't follow the rest of the crowd? Do they not get to make their own determination of who to support? Must they now support Obama because he has a lead?

    That's one of the more absurd things anyone has said today.


    Yes it would be viewed as unfair (none / 0) (#262)
    by IndiDemGirl on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:02:30 PM EST
    The only absurdity is not to see that.

    Perception... (none / 0) (#274)
    by Mike H on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:17:35 PM EST
    Just because it will be perceived that way doesn't make it the wrong thing to do.

    I don't believe we should blindly get on the Obama bus just because Obama supporters will feel ripped off... when we don't believe the Obama bus has enough gas to make it where we need to go in the first place.


    Agreed. You should do what you feel (none / 0) (#308)
    by IndiDemGirl on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:12:30 PM EST
    is right and the SuperDs should do what they think is right.  

    But just as you won't blindly hop on the Obama bus, many Obama supporters won't be jumping on the Hillary bus.  They see supporting her as the wrong thing to do.  

    By the way, I'll jump on the Hillary bus or the Obama bus or the bus of whomever is the Dem nominee.  


    What if PR votes for Hillary this weekend? (none / 0) (#281)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:27:10 PM EST
    Is that unfair too? Must we all follow the current leader? We aren't allowed to think independently?

    Sorry, but I didn't check my logical thinking skills at the door.


    You're making my point for me (none / 0) (#309)
    by IndiDemGirl on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:16:21 PM EST
    No you don't have to follow the current leader.  But Obama supporters don't have to follow if she is the leader either.  That's the whole point of the Unity Ticket -- bringing both sides together.  I say it is needed if Clinton is the nominee and it is needed if Obama is the nominee.

    Any more unfair (none / 0) (#328)
    by MammaMia on Thu May 29, 2008 at 05:43:53 PM EST
    than Clinton supporters feel the rush to Obama by superdelegates so far has been?  Why do Obama supporters' feelings matter more than Clinton supporters'?  Shouldn't the facts and the ability to win the White House be what matters to the super-delegates?

    he certainly has said it (5.00 / 1) (#287)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:32:09 PM EST
    he was quoted a long tiome ago as saying he could get all of Clinton's supporters but he didn't think Clinton could get his.  He has also said he thought it would be "problematic" if the super delegates overturn the votes of the "pledged" delegates.

    I don't understand how Obama and his supporters constantly get away with claiming "Obama" didn't say something if it wasn't a direct quote on video out of his mouth.

    Obama's surrogates, supporters and the media say these thing FOR him all the time so that he doesn't have to say them directly. But he still benefits from having them said.  And then his cmapaign runs around claiming he is innocent.  He never said it.  Don't blame him yada, yada, yada.  Just how stupid do you think people are?


    That's why I said (5.00 / 2) (#224)
    by mattt on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:39:50 PM EST
    "perceived to be an insider deal."

    Superdels have the right to vote for whoever they want.  But, they are, for the most part, "insiders."  And if they vote contrary to the pledged delegate count a lot of people are going to question the legitimacy.  Clinton winning or tying in the popular vote would help with the perception of legitimacy, but I don't think that's going to happen (at least not if widely accepted methods of counting the pv are applied).


    Superdelegates (4.62 / 8) (#59)
    by madamab on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:35:32 AM EST
    are supposed to overturn primary results.

    That's what they're there for.

    How is Obama going to win the nomination without superdelegates overturning primary results? Without some kind of "insider deal" like, oh, I don't know, the DNC pretending FL and MI don't exist?!

    [cricket cricket cricket]


    It's very amusing (5.00 / 5) (#250)
    by Steve M on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:51:49 PM EST
    that AFSCME members were "campaigning for Hillary as surrogates," in your words, yet Obama supposedly didn't campaign in the state at all even though UNITE-HERE did the exact same thing for him.

    Anyway, I see your post includes all the standard lies about how Hillary violated the pledge by leaving her name on the ballot, blah blah blah, which are not going to fool anyone here.  There are many pro-Obama echo chambers in the blogosphere where you can repeat those claims to your heart's content and everyone will consider them gospel.


    Supposed? (4.00 / 2) (#113)
    by Demi Moaned on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:53:50 AM EST
    I don't think so.

    They have discretion to consider factors that are not reflected in the primary vote totals and may exercise their judgement independently.

    But there is certainly no mandate to overturn the primary results-- else why have the primaries?


    Um... (5.00 / 5) (#122)
    by madamab on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:59:00 AM EST
    the primary results have not produced a winner.

    So yes, they will be overturning primary results no matter whom they choose. They don't have to use that as their only consideration, but that's what they'll be doing.

    As for the "will of the people" argument, that's fine if you want to use it, but just remember that Hillary wins if all the SD's from the states she's won vote for her.


    Ehh... (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by mattt on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:11:50 PM EST
    but just remember that Hillary wins if all the SD's from the states she's won vote for her....
    ...and she adds them with all the superdels who previously endorsed Hillary, even though their states went for Obama.  A position consistent with the Lanny Davis school of fair compromise: "These are mine, and some of yours are mine."

    Supers were created to expressly (5.00 / 2) (#260)
    by americanincanada on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:59:25 PM EST
    stop another McGovern like defeat being foisted on the party. They are supposed to stop the party from nominating, in the primary, an unelectable candidate like Obama.

    first (none / 0) (#298)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:44:53 PM EST
    NO candidate made a pledge to remove their name from the ballot in MI, so please stop peddling that line of bull.  If you believe that candidate were required to remove their names from the ballot in MI, why were all their names on the ballot in FL?  The same no campaign pledge applied to both of these states.  There wasn't an additional pledge for MI.

    Next, Obama actually broke the no campaign in FL rule the day after he signed the pledge by interviewing with journalists which was against the rules.  He also aired TV ads in FL against the rules.  So technically, he should receive NO delegates from FL.

    Obama campaigned in MI by having his surrogates run ads in MI telling his supporters to vote for Uncommitted.  So he tecnically deserves no delegates from MI because he broke the rules.

    Obama had a chance to have what you describe as full/fair primaries in both FL and MI with revotes.  But, he intentionally blocked all efforts to revote.

    lastly, the voters in both FL and MI were not deprived of seeing and hearing Obama.  Those voters have access to cable, newspapers, the internet, the many televised debates that Obama likes to claim there were so many of that no more were needed.  The voters in those states were not living in a vacuum.


    It is true to them. I'm trying (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by IndiDemGirl on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:39:42 AM EST
    to get you to see things from another's perspective, not agree, just see.  Did those people listening to Rev. Pfleger seem like they'd be racing to the polls to vote for HRC if she someohow pulled off the nomination?  

    As to the exit polls,  Maybe Obama supporters feel more comfortable saying they'd support Hillary because they're being magnanimous since he seems to be closer to the nomination than her.


    No matter who wins (5.00 / 5) (#88)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:45:56 AM EST
    the nominee will have a lot of work to do to unite the party.  

    But this leads to another reason that I support Clinton: I think she'll do the work to unite the party. She's talked about it for literally months, and she's a Democrat through and through.  She has a long history with the AA community, and she will continue to reach ot to them.

    I do not see Sen. Obama reaching out in any comparable way, not do I expect him to. One of his spokesmen was quoted here a few days ago talking about how they would need Bill Clinton to unite the party, how he was uniquely qualified to do so.  Sorry, uniting the party is the responsibility of the nominee.  I don't think Sen. Obama can do it.


    Yes, yes, yes to your first sentence. (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by IndiDemGirl on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:06:18 PM EST
    As to your last, we shall see.  Are you open to his efforts if he tries?

    Yes, and here how he can start (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:29:40 PM EST
    1. Adopt a real universal health care policy.

    2. Quit trashing the only two term Democratic presidency of my lifetime.

    3. Quit calling women "Sweetie."

    4. Cut out the nonsense about the great crisis in Social Security.

    5. Lead a real conversation about race relations in this country, don't just give one speech and be done with it.

    I left off (5.00 / 1) (#214)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:36:06 PM EST
    6. Get more experience so that I can have confidence he can actually do the job. We all know that's not going to happen in the next six months, but this is also not a reaching out task.

    The longer she stays in the (none / 0) (#108)
    by Salo on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:52:23 AM EST
    more likely she will be the VP.

    There's only a few months to refocus on the general now.


    As to AA's, don't count on it. (none / 0) (#315)
    by Christy1947 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:51:35 PM EST
    I am aware that HRC is counting on unions and similar organizations beating AAs back into line and not letting them sulk, but don't hold dinner for that to happen. She has done too many things in this campaign for whatever the prior relationship was to be relied on for anything other than having been a mistake of judgment in her character. Whther it is 'hardworking Americans, white Americans' or his being 'not a Muslim, as far as I know,"  or the outright denial of any racism at all in the campaign, she cannot count on the AA community, by reason of her own badly judged acts. When she lists the groups that support her she correctly does not list AAs. Unless there is a procedure perceived to be honest and not manipulative or racist by which she prevails, and last minute switching by SDs is not it, she will be running at the top of a ticket which will be watched from home by AAs who may not be rude but will not support her financially or otherwise. Because she has already cut them loose.

    I'm afraid I don't get (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by madamab on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:47:55 AM EST
    what you're trying to say about the TUCC crowd. No, I don't imagine they'll vote for HRC no matter what. Oh no, that's 20,000 people out of 17 million!

    I am not interested in trying to guess what people are thinking as they exit the voting booth. The polls clearly show that the number of Clinton supporters who won't support Obama is much higher than the number of Obama supporters who won't support Clinton.

    Head-to-head state polling supports this conclusion. Heck, the primaries THEMSELVES support this conclusion. If Obama "is" the nominee, why is he getting defeated by 35 and 41 points in swing state primaries at this late date?

    Now, are Obama supporters going to hide their heads in the sand about the electoral facts? Or are they going to realize that the writing is on the wall?

    As BTD says, do we want to win in November? Because Obama as nominee is not the way to go.


    What's that say about Hillary's Supporters? (none / 0) (#171)
    by ibextati on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:18:10 PM EST
    That we're smart and refuse to (5.00 / 4) (#185)
    by samanthasmom on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:24:57 PM EST
    support a candidate with inferior credentials.

    Exactly. The guy doesn't have the resume. (5.00 / 3) (#194)
    by masslib on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:28:47 PM EST
    They recognize (5.00 / 3) (#193)
    by waldenpond on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:28:19 PM EST
    Obama is not qualified to be President.  No work experience, no resume, no character.  We are in the middle of two wars, have issues with the economy, foreign policy issues, a govt that doesn't represent the people.  Dems best idea?  a nobody with no experienc and a dash of hope.  It's pathetic.

    The polling suggests (5.00 / 8) (#50)
    by ChiTownDenny on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:30:46 AM EST
    she would be the strongest Dem candidate to take on McCain.  How is acknowledging this cheating Obama?  Do Dems want the presidency?

    This Dem wants the presidency (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by IndiDemGirl on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:02:36 PM EST
    I have said nothing negative about HRC.  In fact, I have said that I will support her is she is the nominee, even though I voted for Obama.

    I don't think that she will be, but I've been wrong before.

    I didn't say "cheated" and "wrest away the nomination" is very different from cheated.  Wresting away the nomination would be within the rules and is exactly what she is trying to do.
    Her own supporters (Rendell, etc.) say it unlikely that she will get the nomintation.  I didn't think it would be such a controversial statement.


    "Wrest away" (5.00 / 5) (#142)
    by Nadai on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:08:03 PM EST
    implies that the nomination is already in his possession and she's taking it away from him.  That is not the case.  No matter how unlikely you find a Clinton victory, the fact remains that no one has yet won.  The nomination, therefore, cannot be wrested away by either of them.  It can only be won.

    Fine, I said upthread (5.00 / 2) (#169)
    by IndiDemGirl on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:17:46 PM EST
    (or downthread - I've kinda lost my place) that I'll remove the wresting phrase if it so upsetting.

    The entire thread is based on the Unity Ticket idea of Obama/Clinton.  And I was commenting the strength of that ticket.

    However, I still say that many of his supporters DO feel the nomination is in his possession.  They may be incorrect, but their feeling is real nonetheless.  If he somehow doesn't win they may feel as if Obama was treated unfairly, disrespected. At that point she will need his support to win.


    Disrespected? (5.00 / 1) (#222)
    by kredwyn on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:39:23 PM EST
    I'm not in either camp. And right now it's a toss up as to who comes out with the nomination.

    But I have to say that if the Obama supporters really believe that the nomination is his when it's obvious to any outside observer that the vote spreads are huge on both sides, then they've only been paying attention to their own voices.


    Have you looked at the Orange (none / 0) (#266)
    by IndiDemGirl on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:08:41 PM EST
    site lately?  Yes, they are only paying attention to their own voices.  Disrepected is an understatement for how some would feel.  

    Haven't been to the Orange (none / 0) (#279)
    by kredwyn on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:22:38 PM EST
    in months.

    And frankly, both disrespect and disappointment are of their own making.


    the reason that many of his supporters (5.00 / 1) (#304)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:59:03 PM EST
    feel that way is because Obama, his campaign, his surrogates, the media and the DNC all sit silently by and do not come out FORCEFULLY and explain that the super delegates have NO DUTY whatsoever to merely rubberstamp the candidate with a majority of "pledged" delegates.  In fact, many of them keep parroting the same phrase that it would be "problematic".  That was a phrase that Obama himself coined and everyone else started using.  It was the Obama campaign that began the threats of the black vote staying home if he didn't get the nomination.  It was Michelle Obama who said she would have to "think about" whether she would support Clinton or not if Clinton were the nominee.

    the party has been being threatened about the black vote and the youth vote staging a revolt for far longer now than the much more recent phenominon of the Clinton backers voting for McCain or staying home.  

    In fact the media still likes to pretend that it wouldn't really happen with Clinton supportes but they warn it would likely happen with blacks and youth.

    You may have a point that the Obama supporters may feel it was taken away from him.  But, I can tell you that the Clinton supporters already feel she was treated unfairly by the DNC, the media and the Obama campaign.  All of whom perpetuated LIES about her and up until the Rev Wright flap, gave Obama a free pass on any critical reporting.


    So basically we're in trouble either way. (none / 0) (#276)
    by Mike H on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:21:30 PM EST
    Obama supporters would feel like it would be unfair treatment for him to not receive the nomination at this point, even though he's likely to fail against McCain.

    Clinton supporters ALREADY feel like the primary season has been unfair against her, and she is the candidate more likely to succeed against McCain.

    The question remains... do we want to win the presidency, or to we want to feel self-righteous about sticking by a candidate who will lose?

    (Oh, we're lefties, so I guess that answers my question -- we'd rather feel self-righteous and lose!)


    Not all polling says that. (none / 0) (#286)
    by Seth90212 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:31:04 PM EST
    Some even have her 26 points behind Obama nationally. This is the stronger candidate? Nice cherry picking of the polls.

    you're the one cherry picking (none / 0) (#310)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:17:06 PM EST
    the ONE poll showing Obama with a 26 point lead over Clinton is over 10 days old and now is outdated

    Wrest away? (5.00 / 7) (#64)
    by waldenpond on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:38:32 AM EST
    uhhhh neither was strong enough to get themselves over the finish line on their own.  The superdeez are to exercise independent judgment.  If you want to go with Obama talking pt 527, that's your right.  If you want to listen to the media lie and spread Obama's talking pt 527, that's your right.  Don't expect people that have read and understand the rules to get on that bus.  Heck, I stay clear of the bus stops.

    But over the last month (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by IndiDemGirl on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:11:29 PM EST
    the Supers have been endorsing Obama. Does he need more to win?  Yes?  But she needs many more than him.  Could it happen, of course.  But right now he seems headed for the nomination.  That isn't media lies, that's the way it looks right now.  

    And I'm not spreading anyone's talking points but my own.  


    and the reason (none / 0) (#317)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:56:25 PM EST
    that SDs have been coming out for him is because they have been frightened into believeing the hype about the threatened backlash that has been being pushed by the Obama campaign and the media.

    The media has been happily parroting Obama's talking points for him all along.  And, at the same time the media has taken anything that has come out of Hillary's or Bill's mouth and searched high and low fot the worst possible interpretation they could put on it.

    When Bill's fairytale comment was twisted intentionally by Michelle Obama into something she could call racist Donna Brazile should have been out there slapping Michelle down for doing that.  Instead Donna joined in the chorus with Michelle.

    When people called Mr Shaheen a racist for talking about Obama's drug use, those people should have been put in their place.  there is NOTHING racist about talking about Obama's drug use.  Nobody had any problems in '92 when they talked about Bill's drug use.  They didn't have any problem in 2000 talking about GW's drug and alcohol problems.  Is is just black candidates we aren't allowed to talk about drugs with?


    Shaheen didn't have any problems (none / 0) (#329)
    by IndiDemGirl on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:25:44 PM EST
    supporting Gore in his 2000 campaign despite his previous drug use.  So I didn't understand his fear of Republicans hitting Obama on his admitted teenage drug use.  So why did Shaheen think Obama's teenage drug use was enough to disqualify him, but not Gore's.  Nor did I understand why he brought up the question of "selling drugs"  when that isn't the case at all.

    Now I don't think it was racism, it was just one campaign hitting another to gain points.

    And I think the Hillary supporters have done their fair share of looking for the worst possible spin on every word coming out of Obama's mouth.  


    the point being (none / 0) (#331)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:58:29 PM EST
    it wasn't a racist statement by Shaheen.  But the Obama campaign called it racist.  That was the point when the Obama campaign started calling every comment racist in order to drive Clinton's numbers down with the black voters.  And everyone in the media and the DNC went right along with him on it.

    Baloney (5.00 / 4) (#83)
    by cal1942 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:44:12 AM EST
    What do you mean "wrest the nomination"?

    He doesn't have the nomination. No one can have the nomination when the pledged delegates are so closely split.

    You are completely missing the content of Obama's support. I suggest you look closely at the detailed results of the primaries and caucuses to get a thorough picture of the situation.


    He will "more likely than not " be the (5.00 / 3) (#119)
    by IndiDemGirl on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:57:34 AM EST
    nominee.   Heading towards "beyond all reasonable doubt."

    But is "wrest the nomination" away upsets you then I take that phrase away.

    My point is that the Dem party needs both Clinton supporters and Obama supporters to win.  I don't see why that is a controversial statement.  

    Are you implying that she would have no problem winning without his supporter?  Or are you implying that he really doesn't have much support because his support came from caucus wins?  I disagree with both of those, by the way.


    "they"don't think they need both (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by zfran on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:07:51 PM EST
    sets of supporters to win.

    Have to disagree (5.00 / 1) (#283)
    by Mike H on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:29:48 PM EST
    I think Obama cannot win against McCain without the majority of Clinton's supporters, but I believe Clinton could win against McCain without the majority of Obama's supporters.

    Obama, should he be the nominee, will almost certainly pick up zero disaffected Repubs and a serious minority of independents.  His inexperience and clumsiness will hurt him in the end.

    Clinton, on the other hand, has a much stronger record of building coalitions -surprisingly- across party lines, and the fact that she is a more moderate and less liberal Dem will appeal to independents more.  Her more hawkish stance on security issues will also negate some of McCain's only real advantage in the race.

    In regards to caucuses, I have severe reservations about their ability to truly reflect the will of the people in the same way a regular straight up primary vote does.  Caucuses have weird and confusing rules, typically draw substantially less people because they take so much longer, and just don't seem representative of their counties.  I think it's long past time to retire all caucuses and their elaborate confusing rules.

    In particular, the Nevada caucuses really pointed out to me how skewed they could be.  Remember, the union of hotel workers (that endorsed Obama) was allowed to caucus in their workplace, whereas the teacher's union (that endorsed Clinton) was not allowed the similar convenience.

    When we place hurdles to one group of caucusers that we don't to another group, we are absolutely not getting a fair reading of the will of the people.  Many state caucuses have similar imbalances in their setup.


    It's not his nomination (4.66 / 12) (#39)
    by Salo on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:26:37 AM EST
    I also thionk he's run a deeply deceptive campaign.

    he's not a post racial candidate.  He's milked his strange church and racial identity for all it's worth.  His central narrative is a crock.  eventually he'll pay dearly for the deception.


    by not winning the November election. (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by Salo on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:27:37 AM EST
    Of course he'll get a fat book deal anyway, so what does he care about the eventual outcome?

    Not too much more before he won't be able (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:43:11 AM EST
    to give his books away.

    Deception? (4.40 / 5) (#49)
    by contrarian1964 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:30:14 AM EST
    Every politican's narrative is "deceptive"; the truth-as-message never wins elections.    If you think your favorite politican is different, you've been duped.  HRC and BHO are both skilled politicians, good liberals, and fine candidates.  One ran a better primary race this year.  That's all.  

    Enough with the demonology already.


    Barrack claims to be different (5.00 / 6) (#56)
    by Chimster on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:33:26 AM EST
    He's not the old washington politician. He's the new hope for change. Now, pass me some of that Goofy Grape<sup>TM</sup>.

    If there's a book to be written about this (5.00 / 3) (#84)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:44:48 AM EST
    primary, the underhanded, dishonest bussing, and bullying will be the central theme.

    I'd buy ten copies of that (none / 0) (#215)
    by blogtopus on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:36:29 PM EST
    to send out to all my friends and family.

    Then it would be OUR turn to ask 'Have you read the book?'


    NOOOO! (3.66 / 3) (#65)
    by Salo on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:38:32 AM EST
    This was a complete mischaracterization abou t something very fundamental about Obama.  he's a former radical aggitator with a penchant for loopy race based churches.

    You can't be be post racial with that sort of background.


    milking his church (none / 0) (#278)
    by Ovah on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:22:05 PM EST

    ...so you're saying his church has helped him? or being African American is an added extra bonus?


    The problem is that they do need each other. (5.00 / 1) (#241)
    by sarissa on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:46:09 PM EST
    Right now, lots of hard working Hillary supporters are feeling alienated since it appears that their horse is going to come in second (or so say the announcers anyway - it remains practically neck and neck).

    If media had annointed Hillary rather than Obama, then his supporters would need to be placated if she wanted a surer shot at the White House.


    Oh and by the way: (5.00 / 9) (#3)
    by madamab on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:00:58 AM EST
    I am prepared to step in if Pelosi and Kennedy do not agree with me on this . . .


    Do Dems want to win in November? (5.00 / 13) (#4)
    by masslib on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:00:59 AM EST
    Clearly not.  Rather than have Hillary carry Obama piggyback over the finish line, let's nominate her.  Obama can run as VP.

    I don't like to (5.00 / 9) (#37)
    by davnee on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:25:59 AM EST
    fall back on stereotypes, and I hate to sound at all like Maureen Dowd, but the gender bending in this race has reached tragicomic proportions.  The weak little woman, who apparently never did anything more strenuous  than host tea parties, now is fully expected to have the Herculean strength to carry a grown man on her back all the way to the most powerful house in the universe.  Of course, when she gets there she'll just be asked to cut his meat for him, or maybe do it bird-style and chew it for him too, and then exit quietly so that the men can talk.  She'll be expected of course to have left a crib sheet behind, preferably with "remember there are only 50 states" written in bold at the top.  Carville was completely right when he said if HRC would loan Obama one of hers they'd both have two.

    No one is talking (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Lesser Dane on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:55:55 AM EST
    about Hillary carrying Obama but her supporters - as far as I know.

    Um... (none / 0) (#145)
    by madamab on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:09:10 PM EST
    BTD has repeatedly advanced the idea of Hillary as VP for the sake of Unity and winning in November.

    You don't think he's a Hillary supporter, do you?


    There's a difference (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by Lesser Dane on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:15:46 PM EST
    between "Unity ticket" and "Clinton carrying Obama". I was reacting to the latter metaphor.

    Difference? (5.00 / 3) (#188)
    by davnee on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:26:33 PM EST
    Since we know Clinton would not be the preferred choice of Obama for a host of reasons, then the only reason to select her is to put him over the top electorally.  So she'd be carrying him.  If the situations were reversed, he might be needed to carry her over the finish line electorally.  

    For Clinton supporters, and I'd suspect most non-Obama partisans, there is an additional irony in a O-C ticket, which is that the lesser candidate, if one went by experience, performance, competence, issues, and now electability, is being put at the top.  Add to that the ratification of classic gender roles and you get a rich stew of disappointment and dissatisfaction with such a ticket.


    This is yet another set of metaphors (none / 0) (#242)
    by Lesser Dane on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:46:30 PM EST
    the original post was about Hillary to

    "carry a grown man on her back all the way to the most powerful house in the universe"

    - which is quite different from "put him over the top" or "carry her over the finish line". It simply doesn't acknoledge that Obama can walk, or run, on his own.


    He can't. (none / 0) (#245)
    by davnee on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:50:49 PM EST
    Speaking for me only of course.

    Given that the argument being made (5.00 / 2) (#200)
    by tigercourse on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:30:00 PM EST
    is that Obama will lose unless Clinton comes in and saves him, I think "carry" is the right term.

    Is He An Obama Supporter? (none / 0) (#264)
    by daring grace on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:03:51 PM EST
    Really, I don't know who he supports.

    I'm new here and haven't noticed an explicit reference from him on this.

    I recall back in 2004 (I think) he was a Clark supporter and I guess I assumed he was for Clinton because General Clark is on her team.

    But now that you mention it. I have no idea who BTD is for.


    Were these polls taken (none / 0) (#6)
    by madamab on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:05:22 AM EST
    prior to the latest pastor disaster?

    Ted has bigger concerns now. And I (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by tigercourse on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:04:31 AM EST
    maintain that Clinton is not a saint, so we shouldn't expect her to step in and pull our bacon out of the fire.

    The added benefit of the Unity Ticket (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by IndiDemGirl on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:13:36 AM EST
    is that once both candidates are on the same side you'll see much less of the Rev. Pfleger kind of comments.

    those terms (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Edgar08 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:25:45 AM EST
    are unacceptable.

    Not to mention (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by madamab on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:28:19 AM EST
    that the media will run with that stuff independent of what HRC's supporters do or don't do.

    What terms? You mean (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by IndiDemGirl on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:32:20 PM EST
    that DEMOCRATS will stop attacking other DEMOCRATS?  You mean that Democrats will be on the same side against the Republicans?  You mean that we can stop playing "gotcha" over every comment the other candidate makes?  You mean we can focus on John McCain and all his flip flops and his pandering and his support of Bush and his support of the war...  

    Politics in general is a slug fest.. (none / 0) (#218)
    by zfran on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:37:51 PM EST
    this primary season has been a travesty..Pelosi doesn't want a unity ticket, she wants to be able to have full control. I don't matter, you don't matter, the country doesn't matter.

    please explain (5.00 / 4) (#105)
    by Josey on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:51:18 AM EST
    >>>once both candidates are on the same side you'll see much less of the Rev. Pfleger kind of comments.

    So Pfleger is only delivering hatemongering for Hillary from the pulpit until she withdraws and "unites" with Obama?
    You don't seem to get it - Hillary is the target in this video - but the church condones bashing other people and other entities and Obama has listened to it for 20 years!! It's a part of him and he's demonstrated those beliefs throughout the primary.


    So when he bashes Cindy McCain that will be cool. (5.00 / 4) (#120)
    by davnee on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:58:06 AM EST
    Don't you get it?  Bashing white women to induce an hysteria of hate is cool so long as it serves the interests of the precious.  Of course, the poster could alternatively be suggesting that no white women bashing will ever pass Pflegler's lips again once HRC is put in her place.  But I don't think the poster is that willfully stupid.

    I can't wait for (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by Salo on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:15:48 PM EST
    Th efather to start muttering about imperialistic running dogs like McCain and his family of slave owners and militarists....he won't be able to keep his mouth shut about that particular scion of the Imperial US Navy.

    But Michelle Obama is (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by IndiDemGirl on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:28:19 PM EST
    regularly bashed on this site.  Why is that ok?

    TalkLeft is not a church with a pulpit (5.00 / 2) (#268)
    by Josey on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:11:04 PM EST
    but please provide the evidence for your assertion.

    So you're (5.00 / 4) (#110)
    by rnibs on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:53:32 AM EST
    saying she has to subjugate herself to a less qualified man so that his church will stop trashing her on a regular basis?

    I can't wait to hear what that church will be screaming about her when he loses the GE (or she wins it!).


    Subjugate? Come on (5.00 / 2) (#190)
    by IndiDemGirl on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:27:05 PM EST
    IF he wins the nomination it is not an insult to ask her to be the VP.  

    And IF she wins the nomination she will need his supporters - some of which were in that church - if she wants to win.

    Don't you think that HRC supporters trash him on a regular basis? But you're ok with that because you agree with it. Yes?


    And what of the seven (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by Lahdee on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:02:51 PM EST
    pages of Wright, Trinity Church, et al videos that come up on a utube search? You can bet those will be fodder for some republican 527 that mccain will denounce as he winks and nods for the faithful.

    Really? (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:11:42 PM EST
    You mean the Republicans won't be able to find stuff like this?  Oh right - because they have no experience in finding this kind of stuff....

    No. I mean that Dems (5.00 / 2) (#180)
    by IndiDemGirl on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:22:05 PM EST
    will be working together to direct their fire onto McCain where it belongs, instead of at each other.

    And, a Unity Ticket, no matter who is at the top, signals that they are on the same side. Signals to their supporters that is.  


    Not against (5.00 / 4) (#213)
    by Arabella Trefoil on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:35:06 PM EST
    a candidate. Have we sunk this low that we must have a "hatred tartget" (McCain) in order to be effective? I vote FOR a candidate based on qualifications. I vote FOR Hillary.

    Obama is dangerously inept and inexperienced. I fear for my country if he becomes CIC.

    Obamabots hold out the yummy marzipan carrot of hate. They try to tantalize us with the prospect of "fighting against McCain." As a "united" borg.


    Hillary as VP on an Obama ticket (3.00 / 2) (#219)
    by samanthasmom on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:38:04 PM EST
    will signal to this Hillary Supporter that it's time to get the McCain sign out on the lawn.

    Feh (5.00 / 5) (#12)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:15:30 AM EST
    the party wants to commit suicide I think. It's the way it looks right now. The fact that Obama would have to have Clinton on the ticket so she could push him over the finish line speaks pretty poorly of Obama's chances. In the end I don't know that even she would be able to do it. After Obama's campaign joking about how they would need food testers if she was the VP, I think it is a moot point and the VP slot will not be offered.

    Hillary can win in November (5.00 / 5) (#14)
    by Prabhata on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:16:56 AM EST
    It's absurd to make her a VP when she is the best candidate.  If Obama wants to be POTUS, let him win it on his merits.  I will not vote for a unity ticket that puts Hillary as second fiddle to an incompetent.

    Clinton/Obama or nothing (5.00 / 7) (#15)
    by goldberry on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:17:02 AM EST
    Obama/Clinton will not mollify the people who got dissed by the Obama campaign.  OTOH, I have found that most normal Obama supporters are amenable to switching to Clinton without much anxiety.  
    If he offers her the VP slot, it is my hope that she turns it down.  I'd rather suffer through four years of McCain than a lifetime of second class citizenship.  

    Either/or? (4.00 / 4) (#67)
    by mattt on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:38:51 AM EST
    I'd rather suffer through four years of McCain than a lifetime of second class citizenship.
    Considering who McCain would appoint to the SCOTUS, I'm not sure that's an either/or.

    Then younger women should think about it (5.00 / 4) (#205)
    by goldberry on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:31:24 PM EST
    The Roe v Wade threat has lost its punch.  With O'Connor gone and Kennedy being the ego that he is, there is absolutely nothing stopping the SCOTUS from overturning Roe now.  And as for commerce and civil rights protections, we are already outnumbered.  
    But the psychological damage due to a much more qualified woman once again passed over for promotion by a hotshot man who shmoozed his way to the top?  Incalculable.  I do NOT want that idea to be solidified into something I have to look at.  Plus it sets a really bad precedent for other men to just go ahead and play dirty tricks and get the old boys club behind you to stomp all over a better qualified woman who is in your way.  This election has the potential of setting gender equity back 4 decades.  Either she leads the ticket or she tells him to shove the VP position where the sun don't shine.  When he comes back to ths senate after losing to McCain, I hope she makes his life a living hell.  

    You bet. (5.00 / 3) (#231)
    by Arabella Trefoil on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:42:38 PM EST
    Roe v. Wade? Sorry. I'm not afraid of the wire coat hangers the Obamabots wave in my face. Let the younger generation sort out reproductive rights for themselves.

    If Roe v. Wade is overturned, abortion won't be illegal. It will probably be a state issue. Any way, I have no faith that Obama would nominate liberal judges.


    Thanks (none / 0) (#284)
    by mattt on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:30:16 PM EST
    for replying and stating your opinion frankly.  Too often these issues are swept under the rug, and one of the great things about this campaign has been the opportunity to discuss issues of gender (and race) openly.  We come from different persepctives and one of the reasons I remain engaged here is to try and understand what it is that drives this deep commitment to Clinton and her candidacy, so thanks for sharing.  (seriously, that expression is too often used snarkily but not in this case)

    I submit in reply that election to the Presidency is not a promotion from the Senate.  There's more to it than the resume.  If this primary had been decided entirely on qualifications like time in the Senate or legislation sponsored, the winner should have been Biden or Dodd.  With executive experience in a large state, George W. Bush was arguably more "qualified" than either Clinton or Obama.  One of the reasons Obama backers have chafed at Clinton's use of the "experience" card is that if she succeeds in making that the dominant issue the most experienced candidate in 2008 is....John McCain.

    Sure, Obama's done some schmoozing.  "Schmoozing" is as good a word as any to describe how Clinton lined up about 100 superdelegate endorsements before the race even started, including many from states that later voted for Obama.

    As far as dirty tricks, Obama (and his campaign) has more than once said and done things they shouldn't be proud of.  So has your candidate.  As Hillary herself has said (in effect): 'If you can't stand the heat...'

    I really doubt that many potential candidates, male or female, with the ambition to run for the presidency, with all the mudslinging and loss of privacy and other burdens that is known to entail, will be discouraged by Hillary's experience.  If they are, they almost certainly aren't tough enough to beat the Republicans or govern effectively.

    I think this campaign has been a boon for gender relations, over the long term.  A few years ago there was doubt as to whether a woman could be an effective candidate; Hillary proved that wrong.  By running she exposed a lot of latent sexism in the establishment whichis necessary before it can be rooted out.  Now, people like Chris Matthews (and more importantly his employers) can see that his BS really is not acceptable to millions of (potential) viewers.

    And by "long term," I don't think we'll have to wait a generation for the next strong female candidate.  2 out of the top 5 governors as rated by Time (or was it newsweek?) last year were women.  I read another article that asked: "If not Hillary, who?" suggesting a lack of women lining up behind her.  My thought in reply was: "Who'd ever heard of Barack Obama, 4 years ago?"

    Hillary broke down important barriers, and revealed others that had been well hidden.  She wouldn't be the first trailblazer who didn't quite make it to the promised land, but battered at the gate until it was ready to fall off its hinges for those who'll follow.  Her campaign should be celebrated.


    What? (3.40 / 5) (#22)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:20:42 AM EST
    I'm sorry but if Obama/Clinton is second class citzenship, then how would asking the perosn who won the majority of pledeged delegates, be anything less than telling Obama, and the base of the party to get up and move to the back of the Bus?

    The base of the party (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by madamab on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:24:08 AM EST
    is with Clinton.

    The "majority of pledged delegates" means nothing.

    And enough with the race-baiting, MMMkay? Back of the bus, indeed.


    I disagree (3.66 / 3) (#81)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:44:11 AM EST
    Wait, I'm getting called out for "race-baiting" when the origianl poster raises the specter of "second-class citzenship" I mean c'mon that's a laughable assertion, and frankly it demeamns both Hillary clinton, and the Office of the Vice President, seriously now being given a shot at the second highest office in the executive branch after finishing second, is equal to Jim Crow, or pre-19th amendment status of women.

    Oh, and the base of the party is a fungible term, if you defined the base as he most loyal democratic voters, those who stuck with the party through thick and thin, the demographic that we have depened on for a generation-- then Obama wins it, if you define the base as the wobblies who turned their backs on us for Reagan and the Bushs's then Hillary has them, personally I think the former seems like a more sensible definition of "base" but that's just me.


    Dude... (5.00 / 3) (#118)
    by kredwyn on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:57:33 AM EST
    I suggest you re-read her post. She wasn't race baiting...if anything, she was referencing gender.

    And, she is winning with the base. (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by zfran on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:25:23 PM EST
    If you think it's fair,... (5.00 / 5) (#220)
    by goldberry on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:38:08 PM EST
    ...to cut 2.3 million people out of the process and slow her momentum down or award sparsely populated states a disproportionate share of delegatss or act like hooligans during a caucus or even win by caucuses, then of course you see no problem with telling the voters in the densely populated and swing states who voted for her to take a hike.  
    Personally, I see no problems telling Obama, the weaker, less experienced candidate who did not win CA, NY, NJ, OH, TX, MA, PA, FL, or MI to take an old cold tater and wait.  
    The delegate system is meaningless this year.  The states he won carry no weight for Dems in the GE and he is going to lose- big time.  
    Millions of people will not vote for him.  
    You still have a choice and a chance to pick the right candidate.  But don't expect the rest of us to go along with your suicide after we tried to warn you.

    The representation of the pledged delegates (none / 0) (#70)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:39:43 AM EST
    to the will of the people has been discussed on this site at length, and recently. It's an argument that holds no water.

    I do not want Barack Obama as my president no matter who he puts on the ticket as VP.


    you travel business class! (none / 0) (#25)
    by Salo on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:22:08 AM EST
    It's in your comments.

    Whoo-Hoo! I should be an Obamaphile! (5.00 / 4) (#229)
    by goldberry on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:42:01 PM EST
    Yes, I am a member of the creative class who is Obama's age who should be for him 100% and yet I can't stand the guy.  
    Women everywhere, no matter what their profession, will have to worry from now on if Obama gets the nomination and Clinton doesn't.  If they can do it to the most qualified person who is also one of the most powerful women in the world, they can do it to anyone and we no longer have any hope of achieving parity.  
    Clintonistas know this; female Obamaphiles are completely clueless.  

    I have very liberal friends who don't want.... (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Dadler on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:18:47 AM EST
    ...Hillary on any ticket with Obama.  Had dinner last weekend and argued vehemently with them.  I said it was weird that so many Democrats are now on the Clinton hatred bandwagon the nutcase right wing invented in the early 90's.  I'm convinced this party is going to chew its own legs off and very soon.  

    They'll get over it fast (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by IndiDemGirl on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:25:37 AM EST
    if she is on the ticket and we crush McCain.

    This. (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Llelldorin on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:03:23 PM EST
    If O/C wins as a joint ticket, Clinton's national reputation will be as veep. She'll be a shoe-in in 2016; at that point both sides of the current split will be pulling hard for her.

    Personally, I like forced unity tickets. I've always thought that one of the strengths of the Democratic Party is that we have a lot of vastly different supporters. Having Obama and Clinton cross swords on policy for eight years will make for better policy, and avoid Republican-style groupthink.


    She'll be 68 years of age (5.00 / 2) (#164)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:14:43 PM EST
    in 2016.  You really think a 68 year old WOMAN would win any presidential contest?

    If so, you're a lot more optimistic than I'll ever be.


    Depends (none / 0) (#191)
    by Faust on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:27:48 PM EST
    lets say they wind up having a good 8 years. Then...why not? If she's in good health then she'll be sharper than ever. It would all depend on how the 8 years went.

    Then why not the other way? (5.00 / 2) (#263)
    by samanthasmom on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:03:16 PM EST
    In 8 years after Hillary has cleaned up after the shrub, Obama will still be a young man, and the age issue isn't one.

    I think Clinton/Obama makes more sense (none / 0) (#301)
    by Faust on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:49:56 PM EST
    from an age perspective certainly. I think it's probably a better ticket overall. But I'm fine with either version.

    However, if it does wind up being Obama/Clinton I see no reason that she could not then become president if they have a good run.


    Well, yes. (none / 0) (#238)
    by Llelldorin on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:44:56 PM EST
    A few years ago I wouldn't have believed that the party was torn between a woman and a black man.

    We have a 68-year-old woman as Speaker of the House right now, for example.

    I think we're actually drifting in the right direction on this one, despite a lot of rearguard BS that's cropped up in this election. I really do think the country would elect a 68-year-old woman in 2016.

    (Particularly one who had been Vice President for eight years!)


    The presidential race (none / 0) (#330)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:42:37 PM EST
    is a much harder contest.

    Only if she is on top (5.00 / 2) (#237)
    by goldberry on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:44:39 PM EST
    Do not delude yourself.  There will be vengeance and retribution otherwise.  There are some who will vote for McCain just to make sure this incarnation is destroyed.  I can't make them not do it.  They have to do what their conscience dictates.  But believe me, if the DNC goes through with the coronation, they will all be out in December.  Count on it.  

    If Obama loses... (none / 0) (#21)
    by Salo on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:20:01 AM EST
    ...these chumps will feel the cat.

    I don't know them, but (none / 0) (#27)
    by eric on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:22:16 AM EST
    my guess is that your friends are as liberal as they think they are.

    correction (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by eric on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:23:23 AM EST
    are NOT as liberal as they think they are.

    no, they ARE, that's the irony (none / 0) (#321)
    by Dadler on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:45:16 PM EST
    they are pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, anti-war, you name it, they loved Bill Clinton, hated the right wing vitriol they tood (I remember well how they did)...but they are just enthralled by Obama and really detest they way they perceive the Clinton campaign to have conducted itself.  If they weren't as liberal as they are, their Clinton thing would be nothing to be surprised about.  

    Unity it is. (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:18:53 AM EST
    Unity at this point appears to be the only way to win, neither canidate has a prayer without the other. So, as much as I dislike I guess I'm Obama/Clinton now!

    how you can be here (none / 0) (#324)
    by ccpup on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:39:50 PM EST
    on this site, be a fairly regular Poster (I think) and still assert something as asinine as "neither candidate has a prayer without the other" shows you need to go several Threads back (yesterday perhaps?) and look at the one about her Electoral Strength in comparison to his.

    She blows him out of the water ... without him on the ticket.  That he needs her to prop him up and carry him across the damn Finish Line should be your first warning bell that he ain't a strong candidate.


    You are unconsciously (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Salo on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:19:01 AM EST
    admitting that Obama is a poor candidate. He doesn't need her to win, surely?

    I don't think (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by madamab on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:22:32 AM EST
    he'd win even WITH her.

    One poll is not going to convince me. And, it's only May. What happens if he gets selected and three months of scandal follow?


    Agreed (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:54:20 AM EST
    He cannot even win with her on the ticket.

    It is pretty obvious that Obama supporters of all levels (mild to strong) really don't understand that the people who feel so personally insulted and attacked and discounted by the vile campaign he has run truly will not vote for a ticket with his name in the top spot, and would have to hold their nose to vote for him in the VP slot.

    There are women who are actually trying to start their own political party they are so furious with the DNC. I don't believe this feeling is unique to women, myself.

    I'm not scared of SCOTUS or Roe v Wade, so Obama trolls can forget that argument, too.


    Obama supporters will feel the same way (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by Llelldorin on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:09:48 PM EST
    If the superdelegates vote en masse for Clinton, Obama supporters will feel exactly the same way. I think Clinton supporters are ignoring this entirely, at the moment. That's reasonable enough, if you're working on a "one problem at a time," basis, but it's worth keeping in the back of your head.

    It's going to have to be one Unity Ticket or the other, or we'll have two Democratic parties come the fall, and President McCain.


    No, we are not ignoring this (5.00 / 2) (#177)
    by madamab on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:20:38 PM EST
    and neither is our candidate.

    She has constantly and repeatedly reached out to Obama's supporters. She has sworn to campaign for him if she is not the nominee. She has been promoting Party Unity the whole time.

    I would look to the exit polling and the primary results to see which group feels more strongly about not voting for their candidate.

    Yes, I would indeed.

    And if I were Obama AND his supporters, I'd stop blaming voters for not voting for Obama instead of blaming Obama for not appealing to the voters.

    IACF won't work in the General Election, ya know.


    Right now keeping the public in the (none / 0) (#195)
    by zfran on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:28:55 PM EST
    dark about what really is going on is to Obama's advantage and that's one of the reasons he wants to get her out, especially since super tuesday..there are many other reasons to keep us in the dark..I say, count all the votes, let the lights shine through and let the country decide, as I believe is our right!!

    I do think I understand it (none / 0) (#127)
    by Lesser Dane on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:01:32 PM EST
    I just think that people here tend to overestimate the size of the group which feels this strongly about it (and will continue to do so through November).

    I was surprised at the breadth of the opposition (5.00 / 1) (#277)
    by goldberry on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:21:45 PM EST
    Steve Corbett of WILK started Operation Turn Down protesting being called a racist because he didn't want to vote for Obama and for 2 days, he got hundreds of calls from people all over the country, both male and female, who said they are diagusted with Obama and will not vote for him.  
    They are tired of being insulted and called stupid, old working class bigots.  These are people who do not frequent the blogs.  You have no idea how angry people are.

    With all the "talking points" sent (2.00 / 1) (#253)
    by zfran on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:52:59 PM EST
    out to all the Obama supporters who are here, may I suggest you look to past elections and see how it was done and is done. It is not enough to say he has, she doesn't, the sd's can or cannot..This is a contest of sorts, with magic numbers to be played out in August, no matter what you hear. Do your homework!!!

    lol (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Faust on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:21:55 AM EST
    Good one:

    I am prepared to step in if Pelosi and Kennedy do not agree with me on this . . .

    Subgroup polling performance - not a reason (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by contrarian1964 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:27:11 AM EST
    I'm personally agnostic about HRC on the ticket.  

    The argument for her should not be based on which subgroups she'll bring it....the argument should be something else.

    But I'm not concerned with subgroups at all, unlike the majority on this site.

    Good piece today, NY Times:  "Veteran Democratic pollster Mark Mellman makes an important point today on this subject: "[T]here is no relationship between how candidates perform among any particular group of voters in primaries and how they do with that segment in the general election. In 1992, Bill Clinton lost college-educated voters to Paul Tsongas in the early competitive primaries, but he went on to win that group in November by the largest margin any Democrat ever had. Similarly, John Kerry lost young voters in the competitive primaries in 2004 before going on to win them by a record margin in the general election."

    time to stop worrying about who won which primary (5.00 / 1) (#312)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:43:54 PM EST
    and start looking at the Electoral College polls.  The National polls mean nothing.  talk about which sub group voterd for who in which primary means nothing.  Yes either candidate will win NY and CA.  Yes, neither candidate will win Idaho, Utah or Alaska.

    Now, start looking at the elctoral college polls which currently show Clinton thrashing McCain and Obama not able to get to 270 votes.

    This is the poll data Bill Clinton was talking about being mostly blocked out ofthe media ona daily basis.

    That poll has been out there, updated on a daily basis for several weeks now.  I have NEVER seen a daily result that shows Obama performing better than Clinton against McCain in that poll.  But, I've also never seen this poll reported on TV anywhere.

    270 votes are needed to win.  That poll currently shows Clinton getting 327 to 194 for McCain.  With 17 votes in MI where they are tied.

    That poll shows Obama with 266 against 248 for McCain with 24 votes in IND and VA where they are tied.


    as long as the SDs (none / 0) (#325)
    by ccpup on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:46:12 PM EST
    know about it on a day-by-day basis (thanks, Ickes!), I could care less if our clueless Media practices their information Black Out and opts for more backstrokes in the kiddie Kool-Aid pool.

    It will be the Shock of the Century when the SDs support Hillary for the Nomination -- for strong Electoral Reasons and not some vague Unity Pony talk -- and she ends up beating McCain in the General all after the Media and Obama politically and dismissively buried her for months on end.

    I still trust that not all the SDs have drank the Kool-Aid and aren't being swayed by Axelrod's Pony Promises/Threats.


    No (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:31:05 AM EST
    I don't want her anywhere near a ticket with Obama's drama.

    At this point, if she can't win the nomination, I am so angry at him, his campaign, and the Dem leadership, I want to see him get squashed in November.  I admit I will take some great pleasure in seeing him defeated. There is no going back for me.

    I'm with you cmugirl (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by MMW on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:46:09 AM EST
    I feel badly about it sometimes, but never bad enough to change my mind and it's never for very long.

    No not really (5.00 / 5) (#103)
    by waldenpond on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:50:31 AM EST
    I looked at all of the candidates very early.  Obama's votes sucked but then you could tell someone tucked him under their wing and he knocked it off.  Obama sucked in the debates.  The messianic campaign was a huge turn off.  He was never a blip on my radar.  I knew a couple of years ago I was not going to hold my nose again.  If the party can't uphold Dem principles, doesn't represent me on issues, there is no way I am voting for another one of their lame candidates.  My vote is mine and I'm not throwing it away yet again.  Screw em.

    This is so well done (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:01:06 PM EST

    This is one of the better videos on why Obama should not be on the top of the ticket. Nothing over the top, or sermon-related. Just his own words.


    So for you, it isn't postions, its personality (none / 0) (#74)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:41:35 AM EST
    Given that Hillary herself has said:

    Hillary Clinton on Wednesday reiterated her vow to stay in the Democratic presidential race, but she said it would be a "terrible mistake" for her supporters to vote for John McCain over Barack Obama. "Anybody who has ever voted for me or voted for Barack has much more in common in terms of what we want to see happen in our country and in the world with the other than they do with John McCain," Clinton said on CNN's "The Situation Room."

    "I'm going to work my heart out for whoever our nominee is. Obviously, I'm still hoping to be that nominee, but I'm going to do everything I can to make sure that anyone who supported me ... understands what a grave error it would be not to vote for Sen. Obama.

    Obama is closer to her positions than McCain. It appears from your statement, it is more important to have Hillary than to have a candidate whose positions most closely resemble hers. That is all I can conclude.


    No (5.00 / 8) (#123)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:59:28 AM EST
    It's about competence.  We've had 8 years of someone getting on the job training. And of course Obama agrees with Hillary 95% of the time - he waits for her plans to come out, changes a few words, and passes it off as his own!  What's he gonna do when she's out of the race.

    It has nothing to do with personality - hell, that's all Obama IS - personality.  He has done nothing to demonstrate that he would be a better choice for this country than any other candidate.  He hasn't shown he'd be a better choice for this country than I would as POTUS.

    And Hillary herself could ask me in person and I still wouldn't vote for him.  I find him to be dangerous.


    I do believe (none / 0) (#136)
    by Lesser Dane on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:05:07 PM EST
    that an incompetent or right-leaning  Democrat (or both) would be a better choice than McCain.

    Luckily, I don't believe any of those are among the options.


    Why? (none / 0) (#168)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:17:35 PM EST
    You don't think an incompetent Dem would destroy (what's left of) the Democratic Party with a bad 4-year term?  Geez, how about in 2010 - you don't think we could see a swing back to a Republican Congress?

    Obama has shown he is not interested in / can't do the jobs he's held to date.  He can't hold hearings on a part of the world that is vital to national security and involves our allies and NATO, he can't be bothered to show up and vote (the only one who's missed more votes in the Senate has been McCain, so he's no prize either), he did nothing in the Illinois Legislature until his last year, when he was fed all the legislation to sponsor (and where he worked for 5 months a year).  What happens on January 21st when he, you know, has to actually work?


    I will reply to the first half of your post (none / 0) (#255)
    by Lesser Dane on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:56:49 PM EST
    Keep in mind that I do not share your views of Obama as incomepetent.

    That said, I think an incompetent president could do some damage to the Democratic Party (destroy is a very strong word). Or he/she could be more of a figurehead, carrying out the politics of the Dem congress, with not much damage done.

    I still think this is vastly superior to 4 years of McCain - whom I look at as a more competent version of Bush.


    Yes, on the first point. (5.00 / 3) (#259)
    by Mshepnj on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:58:46 PM EST
    Obama is closer to her positions than McCain. It appears from your statement, it is more important to have Hillary than to have a candidate whose positions most closely resemble hers. That is all I can conclude.

    Speaking only for myself...

    I haven't totally ruled out voting for Obama even though I've been told personally that as a middle-aged white woman, I am irrelevant to the Shiny!New!Hip!Democratic party, and that Obama doesn't need Hillary's supporters to win, even though they presume we will support him.

    It feels different this year. I am actually enthusiastic about my candidate (Hillary) for the first time since Bill ran in the GE in 1992. But as a long-time Democrat, I have "settled" for the lesser of two evils in general elections more times than I can count. Frankly, there's been too little payback for that and I'm tired of it.

    I'm really tempted to make a protest vote this year (that doesn't require voting for McCain). I may just write in Hillary.

    I have resisted the temptation to vote for the Green party candidates in the past even though its platform is closer to my own views on many issues. I will consider the Green party candidate this year (unless it's Nader).

    The thing is - every time some Democratic pol says "you'd better tow the line in November or ELSE you can kiss your reproductive rights goodbye," it reminds me of blackmail. Sometimes the right to say "no" is more important than acquiesing to the bullies.

    I don't take kindly to threats, especially from a bunch of (mostly) men who seem to think they can take me and my sisters for granted. If we don't take a stand and say "enough is enough", what's to stop them from compromising our interests if it suits a political purpose later?


    RE: Reproductive Rights (5.00 / 1) (#326)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu May 29, 2008 at 05:00:20 PM EST
    It may seem like blackmail, but Democrats are only reporting what McCain said- that he would appoint more Scalias. Scalia is on the record as Anti-Roe.  

    Since that is the case, the next thing to do is look and see is anyone aged or ill on the court. The answer is yes- Stevens is 88, and Ginsburg is in ill health. It is very likely that the next President will get one, maybe two appointments.

    Do you trust congress to deny the President an appointment, given their weak response to Roberts and Alito? I don't. And to be fair, the GOP game plan is not to appoint someone like Bork. They look for a cypher- a cypher to the public, which makes the nomination harder to oppose.

    This situation is likely to remain this way for awhile longer, because the GOP Presidents have gotten more Supreme Court picks since 1968. Democrats have had two picks, Republicans have had 13 (I think). They tend to appoint young justices, because they last longer on the court. If we can hold on the presidency for two more terms, we might reach parity. We might  not. It might take longer.

    If during those Republicans win, it will take that much longer to remake the court in  more moderate fashion.

    You may think this is blackmail, but I am only laying out the facts. You make up your own mind. In the mean time, look up the justices, their positions on Roe and their ages and health.


    for me it is more important (none / 0) (#314)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:46:18 PM EST
    to not reward the DNC for their behavior by voting for Obama.

    This sort of thinking astonishes me (none / 0) (#181)
    by ItsGreg on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:22:51 PM EST
    Even Hillary says that Obama is by far more preferable than a McCain presidency. In effect you seem to be saying "I respect Hillary so much that I won't pay any attention to her recommendations if she doesn't get the nomination."

    I understand the anger and resentment. But it seems to me that the short term pleasure of seeing Obama defeated isn't compensation enough for a McCain presidency. If you believe McCain will implement better policies than Obama in regard to Iraq and Iran and Afghanistan, if you believe he will make better nominations for the Supreme Court than Obama, if you believe McCain will be better for the environment than Obama...then I think you have an obligation to vote for McCain.

    But if you choose to vote for McCain, or even sit out the election, because Hillary doesn't get the nomination, then that seems awfully short-sighted to me.


    We are not going to be (5.00 / 4) (#217)
    by Kathy on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:37:19 PM EST
    the reason Obama would lose in the ge (which might not even happen as Clinton is still in this)

    Obama would lose the ge for his own failings: his associations with inflammatory characters, his own words insulting middle class voters, his perceived elitism and his inability to connect with the party base-Jewish voters, Hispanic voters, women.  Democrats don't lose because a handful of people like me are sick of the party and decide to take a moral stand.  Democrats lose because they do not energize the base.  Gore didn't do it.  Kerry didn't do it.  The biggest problem Obama will have is apathy.  It won't be people voting for McCain, it'll be people staying home instead of voting for Obama.

    None of these factors, by the way, have anything to do with Clinton.


    But you don't have to like Obama... (5.00 / 1) (#323)
    by ItsGreg on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:21:57 PM EST
    ...to see how bad McCain would be as president.

    You're right...a candidate hasn't been selected yet. But IF it's Obama and IF Hillary supports him (and I've no doubt she would), then staying home on election day seems like nothing more than pique.

    Personally, I intend to vote for the Democratic candidate, whoever it is. I come from a family that has a long tradition of military service; I want the war in Iraq to end. I don't want to see another war begin in Iran. Either Hillary or Obama would, I believe, be more effective in getting the troops home. If that means voting for the lesser of two evils, that's what I'll do.

    How can people stay home when matters like the war and the Supreme Court are at stake?


    Would any here other than BTD (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:32:11 AM EST
    accept a unity ticket with Hillary as the VP?

    I think, if Hillary had not run and did not have passionate supporters who want her at the top of the ticket, some of whom threaten to sit out, or worse, vote for McCain,  Obama would win without Hillary on the ticket.

    I am not saying Hillary should not have run.

    The problem is, the party is divided between two passionate camps. The candidates themselves have been pretty good- much better than many of their supporters.

    So the real questions of the day  are:

    1. would you as a Hillary or Obama supporter accept a unity ticket, if YOUR preferred candidate was not at the top?
    2. would you as a Hillary or Obama supporter accept a unity ticket, if YOUR preferred candidate's opponent  was the VP nominee?

    I was a Ted Kennedy supporter in 1980. 28 years of paying for that mistake is more than  enough.

    For me, I will vote Democratic regardless of who is on the ticket. I will not vote for McCain under any circumstances,  I will not sit out.  I will not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

    I've always been a Loyal Dem (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by brodie on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:38:42 AM EST
    -- just don't test that loyalty with a Veep pick like Judas Richardson.  

    VP Sam Nunn also would cause me to reconsider party loyalty.

    Ditto for Charlie Hégel in the #2 slot.  Or Mayor Bloomberg.


    That wasn't the question (none / 0) (#79)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:43:23 AM EST
    As a loyal Dem, can you vote Obama/Hillary or Hillary/Obama?

    I can and will.


    MB, I meant to highlight (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by brodie on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:11:09 PM EST
    my lifelong Party loyalty, and by listing certain other names in the #2 slot how that loyalty would be severely tested.  Obama was not on that list.  Though I do need time right now, human nature and all that, to properly "assimilate" the current political situation.

    O/HRC wouldn't happen in a vacuum.  Both sides supporters would need plenty of PR "prepping" prior to that unusual, mindbending announcement, which I find highly unlikely to ever occur.  And even with some advanced notice and all the soft conciliatory language and the hugging and kumbaya moments between the two which would be required (twice as publicly touchy-feely as Kerry-Edwards, no doubt), I'd still have some cognitive dissonance issues to work out.

    A few months of therapy 3x/wk,  some heavy-duty prescription drugs, with the optional electro-shock therapy, and I'd be back on my feet.


    Count this Obama supporter in (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by IndiDemGirl on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:45:29 AM EST
    and that would be no matter which was on top of the ticket.  I'd vote Dem even if neither of them is on the ticket.  I'll be voting Dem in the fall no matter what.  There is no Repulican in the country that would get my vote for President.

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#216)
    by Steve M on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:36:45 PM EST
    I will be eating whatever the Democratic Party decides to serve me.

    I'll be be voting (5.00 / 3) (#267)
    by alsace on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:10:21 PM EST
    third party.  That is the equivalent of voting "Present."  Surely no Obama fan could object to that.

    As a fan of positions not personality (none / 0) (#327)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu May 29, 2008 at 05:07:08 PM EST
    As a fan of the positions espoused by both Democratic nominees, I object. If you believe in the positions espoused by Hillary, don't kid yourself as to the meaning of a "present" vote.

    Neither (none / 0) (#338)
    by alsace on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:03:02 PM EST
    personality nor policy.  It's about competence.

    You of course operate from (4.71 / 7) (#91)
    by davnee on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:46:59 AM EST
    the assumption that Obama is qualified to be POTUS.  Not everyone here would make that same assumption.  I know I don't.  Even if he kissed Clinton's feet and begged her to bless him by her divine hand and make all his decisions for him, I wouldn't vote for him.  This isn't about Clinton.  This is about Obama.

    He is constitutionally qualified (5.00 / 4) (#117)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:57:10 AM EST
    So, can you support a nominee, who isn't your preferred nominee, but who is close to your preferred nominee's positions. Closer to Hillary on the issues than McCain.

    Or is it a question of personality over issues?

    I vote issues. Ergo I can vote for either.


    I'll give you that. (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by davnee on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:03:00 PM EST
    He's constitutionally qualified.  Then again so am I.  So is GWB.  So is Jeremiah Wright.  etc. etc.

    Politics and ideology are important (5.00 / 2) (#154)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:11:15 PM EST
    as a means to an end- governing and the quality of life in out country. In the end, what should matter, is voting for the candidate who most closely represents your positions ideologically.

    Presumably you like Hillary for her positions on the issues of the day, not just her personality.  If Hillary is not the nominee, your choices:

    1. shoot your ideology in the foot, allow more mis rule by those whose positions you presumably abhor which can have long term consequences
    2. vote for the candidate who is not perfect from your view but closer to your perfect candidates positions.

    I remember 1980 all too well. 28 years is a long time of unintended consequences.

    Like Hillary, I intend to vote for the Democratic nominee regardless of who that person is.


    Actually, (none / 0) (#140)
    by Lesser Dane on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:07:25 PM EST
    the question works fine without that assumption. Of course your doubts about his qualifications will influence your answer.

    Ridiculous (5.00 / 5) (#60)
    by cal1942 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:35:49 AM EST
    It still comes up the same way.  It takes Clinton to win.

    So why nominate Obama?

    This has gone beyond ridiculous. Once again. If Obama is at the top of the ticket I won't support the top of the ticket no matter who despises me for it.

    Current polling seems to indicate (none / 0) (#146)
    by Lesser Dane on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:09:32 PM EST
    that both have a chance, and Clinton the better one.

    Of course the two camps will both argue that their side is stronger than indicated by the polls. But stating it as fact seems a little over the top.


    I'd like to see numbers for an C/O ticket (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by ineedalife on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:38:03 AM EST
    I bet there would be some eye-popping numbers if they did swing state surveys of a Clinton/Obama ticket versus McCain/Anybody.

    Hey - Is it an Obamanation? (none / 0) (#80)
    by MMW on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:43:29 AM EST
    Did you get your interest yesterday? Or are you out on bail? (:o)

    Beeton's update: (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by mattt on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:40:49 AM EST
    OK, so Survey USA has added Clinton to the Obama tickets they're polling and their new Michigan poll contradicts my thesis above. The poll shows Obama/Clinton losing to McCain/Romney by 5 points, performing 1 point worse than Obama performs on his own. The best VP pick for Obama, according to Survey USA, would be Edwards...

    See Romney there (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Salo on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:45:06 AM EST
    He splits the Foundry sates like no one else, even with Clinton.

    He'd lock down the west with the Moron base working their tails off and he'd challenge in New England.

    Hopefully the Mormonism would piss off a few Southern baptists though.


    I don't know about Michigan (none / 0) (#102)
    by CST on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:50:23 AM EST
    He would NOT challenge in New England.  We do not like him here, he is a big part of the reason we have our first Dem. Governer in MA in over a decade.

    I don't know why people think Romney would help.  He is even further to the right than McCain (these days) and a serious flip-flopper as well.

    But we don't like him in New England for personal reasons.   He spent his last year as governer travelling around the country and bashing MA to anyone who would listen.  Didn't make him too many friends up north.


    Romney on the ticket ... (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by Cassius Chaerea on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:10:02 PM EST
    would be a big favor for Obama in Massachusetts. It might even offset the hit he would take from being identified with Deval Patrick.

    flip flops only work on (none / 0) (#143)
    by Salo on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:08:37 PM EST
    Democrats.   GOP do it all th etime and the media doesn't care.

    Flip flops were Kerry special millstone.


    Not entirely true (5.00 / 2) (#163)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:14:23 PM EST
    It might be the religion thing, but I believe Romney had the lowest "trust" numbers among GOP contenders.

    I hope McCain picks Mitt (none / 0) (#161)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:12:48 PM EST
    Seriously, yuo think we're divided, picking Mitt, would if Hillary and Obama play's well, possibly give us a landslide. The is a visceral hatred for Romney is the Evangelical base that majkes the racism and misogyny we've seen look like a pillow fight (seriously, Romney was a horrible canidate who was liked by the net and the media, look at his numbers outside mormon strongholds and his own "home states" he was a slightly more sucuessful Guiliani), Romney could actually put the South in play (also, it'd be Hilarious to see him try and argue against Healthcare after sheparding arguably the most succuessful government comprehensive healthcare plan in America)

    You are in a time warp (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by Salo on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:29:06 PM EST
    If Obama is seriously worried about New england we are completely screwed already.

    Additionally Obama's only hope is to convert Colorado Nevada and New Mexico. (he's blown it in the south already) A Mormon veep pretty much ends the hope of a Western offensive by obama.   They'll cold clock him with their cash and volunteer base.  

    Then you have the Romney name in Michigan.  He does well with industrial workers and managers. His old man is/was very popular in Michigan and that will carry over into Ohio.  That's a very good map for McCain.

    Also the white evangelicals are likely to detest  a black candidate from a loopy church more than they would detest a Mormon.  At this point Mormons and Baptists groups have coordinated within the GOP effectively.


    liked by the media? (none / 0) (#178)
    by Salo on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:20:40 PM EST
    er no.

    Papa Bush liked him though. So did Coulter of all people.


    Mormonism? (none / 0) (#210)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:33:47 PM EST
    Yeah, it would tick off a few southern baptists but for some reason the fundamentalist crowd really likes Romney. Hewitt was pushing him and so was Coulter for President.

    Heck, as bad as Obama is polling in MA, Romney might be able to deliver that state for him.


    I meant to comment before posting... (none / 0) (#95)
    by mattt on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:47:26 AM EST
    Clinton has shown she's stronger than Obama among certain demographics we could really use in November.  But, other potential VP picks would be even stronger, especially in combination w/Obama.  Clinton as VP wold help unify the Dem base, but unfortunately her negatives would complement Obama's almost perfectly in the GE.

    there is no evidence of that (none / 0) (#204)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:31:15 PM EST
    regarding other potential VP picks.

    Well, (none / 0) (#291)
    by mattt on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:36:48 PM EST
    in the SurveyUSA MI poll Obama/Edwards does better than Obama/Clinton, though the difference is within the margin of error.  And a lot of the other possibilities are artificially low at this point due to name recognition.

    The longer the nomination contest goes on, the more Clinton squeezes the calendar and makes herself (or a big name like Edwards or Gore) the only choice for VP.  Which I suppose may be point.


    I'm always (none / 0) (#98)
    by Salo on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:48:13 AM EST
    cautious when thinking about a running mate for Obama.  I do think he's a drag on the party now.

    Rendell, Edwards, Biden etc would help with repping for Obama in a way that Clinton might not.

    Richardson would be a disaster.


    I like (none / 0) (#112)
    by mattt on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:53:48 AM EST
    Wes Clark.

    I wrote about that poll last night (none / 0) (#201)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:30:31 PM EST
    Beeton is wrong, once you look at the cross tabs.

    Sorry, but this blog is more on the ball on this thatn Beeton. In fact, you were in the post thread and know this already. this is trolling on my book.


    The RFK nonsense (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:47:08 AM EST
    After that, I pray she runs as an independent.  The Democrats are trying to shove her out of the party and they're doing it with every ounce of force they have (um Pelosi not included, LOL, she's a negative).  She has every right, even a responsibility to run as an independent.

    Boo! Hiss! (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by Demi Moaned on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:05:38 PM EST
    I couldn't disagree more.

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:11:08 PM EST
    we all have our opinions.

    Um (none / 0) (#197)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:29:34 PM EST
    I have a feeling that could set up John "48 State" McCain and I might be generous giving Obama and Clinton there home states.

    Um... have you read the comments here (5.00 / 3) (#100)
    by IndiDemGirl on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:48:46 AM EST
    Clinton supporters on this site are not shoving it down his throat.  They'd like to shove the idea up his ###

    I think they are wrong, by the way.

    Succinct (none / 0) (#124)
    by Nadai on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:00:46 PM EST
    and accurate, too.  I literally LOL'd.

    Well, perhaps (none / 0) (#173)
    by Lesser Dane on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:18:31 PM EST
    the 2 camps of Clinton supporters could meet half way?

    People seem to forget (5.00 / 4) (#107)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:52:01 AM EST
    That the VP, just like the President, serves the American people, not the nominee. The nominee gets to choose, but she or he would do well to remember that she or he is choosing someone for all of us.

    So don't feed me BS about "forcing" the choice upon Sen. Obama. He's not choosing the person who is going to file his taxes or do his laundry. He's choosing someone that, if we assent, will govern us and serve us. He da** well better care what we think.

    Obama's problem is not people who won't (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by tigercourse on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:09:56 PM EST
    vote for him out of spite. Many Clinton supporters will line up behind Obama, even if they despise him.

    His problem is with people who won't vote for him because they think McCain is more qualified.


    That's a very serious point (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by Salo on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:11:24 PM EST
    If people are serious about Experience being a decisive factor, some evidence of sacrifice and duty--McCain wins those votes without asking.

    This "we need to get Clinton's angry, (5.00 / 2) (#172)
    by tigercourse on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:18:12 PM EST
    bitter, hateful and ugly supporters on our side" argument that has cropped up over the past weeks is simply a smoke screen for Obama supporters who have suddenly started paying attention to facts on the ground which have been evident for OVER A YEAR.

    Clinton and her "bitter, angry, hateful, racist" supporters will be blamed for Obama's loss whether she is on the ticket or not, whether she takes this to the convention or not, whether she breaks her @$$ campaining for him or not.


    Amen (5.00 / 1) (#227)
    by davnee on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:40:38 PM EST
    This is not about Hillary.  I didn't even like her until a few months ago.  I'd wager that the vast majority of her offline supporters among seniors, working class whites, Latinos etc. are responding to her because they like her platform, respect her moxie and believe she is qualified to be president both in terms of experience and patriotism.  It's not because they think she's their messiah or the only person that could possibly be their president.  

    Yes Obama is closer to her platform than McCain.  But I seriously doubt many of these voters think Obama is closer to her than McCain in the moxie department and most importantly the experience and Americana department.  If what I listed were your three most important voting criteria - issues, character and experience - would you go with the guy that fulfills 1 out of 3 or 2 out of 3?  Oh and keep in mind that McCain wins on the cultural issues like guns and God!


    Indeed (5.00 / 1) (#303)
    by Mike H on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:58:10 PM EST
    If Obama is the nominee, he will lose AND his supporters will refuse to allow him to take responsibility for his loss.  They will cry that it's all Clinton's fault.

    This kind of behavior -- exaggerating Obama's positives, ignoring his negatives, holding him to a different (and lower) standard than Clinton, blaming any perceived stumble on anyone BUT the candidate himself -- is part of the reason I cannot take Obama supporters seriously.  And why he is a FAR weaker candidate than his supporters understand.

    I am 100% convinced that an Obama nomination will lead to a McCain inauguration.


    what Vitriol? (none / 0) (#150)
    by Salo on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:10:26 PM EST
    This is a small club of refugees discussing their perceptions of the upcoming calamity of November.

    Well, if Clinton wins (none / 0) (#249)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:51:36 PM EST
    I'm not going to lead a call for eliminating from the party or trying to win without all the Obama supporters who have spewed hate and vitriol toward my candidate. Instead, I'm going to support the Clinton/Obama ticket, because she will instantly put him on the ticket. Clinton certainly knows the importance of Obama's coalition, even though some of its members have behaved in a hateful manner

    Yes, unfortunately... (5.00 / 1) (#300)
    by slw0606 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:49:53 PM EST

    the passion on BOTH sides has led to unfortunate remarks from Clinton and Obama supporters toward each other.

    Some disaffected supporters of the losing Democrat will never forgive.

    Most will lick their wounds and relaize McCain and the Republicans are the real political opponents and unite to return the White House to Democrats

    even as I campaigned for John Kerry in 2004 as a passionate Howard Dean supporter. I never liked Kerry, that much, but I pounded the pavement for him.


    no problem (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by Josey on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:58:49 AM EST
    >>>how would asking the person who won the majority of pledeged delegates to take the second slot

    Obama gamed the system and "won" the most pledge delegates by focusing on rich-delegate red states that will still be red in Nov. - and delivering college students to undemocratic caucuses.
    If Obama really had a 50-state strategy he wouldn't have begun in mid-February demanding Hillary GET OUT.
    And that was before Wright and before Bitter/Cling-gate which have impacted the primary.

    gaming the system? (none / 0) (#232)
    by vrusimov on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:42:39 PM EST
    none of what you say absolves Hillary of her responsibilies for her failures, and i fail to see how her short-sighted and poor campaign planning is'nt to blame here...

    Obama made hay on the ground in all these states with a superior ground game and closed the deal...Hillary simply did'nt think that she needed the smaller states.

    Let's face it, Hillary fully believed that this would be over by February 5th...she even said so herself:


    To deny this as her mindset in the leadup to the primaries is an exercise in self-delusion...she squandered campaign funds and chose loyalty of competence...

    An unnamed "senior Clinton official" went off to tell reporters at the Washington Post, "Absent some sort of miracle ... it's going to be tough for us. We lost this thing in February. We're doing everything we can now ... but it's just an uphill battle."



    most of the candidates (5.00 / 1) (#275)
    by Josey on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:17:53 PM EST
    thought it would be "over" by Feb. 5.
    John Edwards even admitted that on Leno last month.
    Sure, Obama focused on red states, deceiving supporters that he could win them in Nov., rather than the truth - to game the system for more delegates.
    Obama didn't win states that Dems need to win in Nov. You know - those states that "don't matter" to Obamamites.
    And after trashing the Clinton administration and falsely accusing the Clintons of racism - he'll expect them to carry him over the finish line in Nov.

    I certainly prefer Hillary... (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:03:14 PM EST
    ... on the top of the ticket. But Obama has most likely won, and if Hillary can't persuade enough super-D's to change that, it's not really reasonable to ask the winner to say "I can't win, and wouldn't make the best President, so you take it." I'm not sold on voting for Obama, but I'd be more likely to do so with Hillary on the ticket. Or even with Hillary having been offered it and declining. It would show some acknowledgement on Obama's part that he genuinely does need her supporters.

    Democrats have the pursestrings (5.00 / 2) (#144)
    by Jim J on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:08:48 PM EST
    they don't want the headache of the White House. That would mean people would actually expect something from them.

    Think about it: They're about to be rewarded for doing absolutely nothing of import for the past eight years. They will be rewarded by even more seats in Congress -- for doing zip.

    As long as they have access to the bottomless ATM, they don't give a fig for passing reform legislation. And as long as people cheer at the idea of Dems padding their majority, instead of seeing it as the same path to ruin that is sinking the Republican Party, the trend will continue.

    Worrisome signals (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by fctchekr on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:12:26 PM EST
    That the Party stands by and allows her to be so maligned by the media, just to put him in a good light, is an inescapable truism about the party and the frontrunner. He tells the media to back off his wife, but it's okay to trash Clinton? This isn't moral, it isn't even civil. It's reprehensible.

    I'm personally appalled. The Democrats can no longer claim higher ground when comparing themselves to Republicans.

    The hypocricy of running ads for a united party showing both Clinton and Obama and asking for money while they are pushing her out, is breathtaking.

    Not to acknowledge that they have probably already lost a considerable number of Hillary's supporters, they continue to push her out though the numbers say keep her in...

    By Logic, the Stronger GE Candidate Will Be.. (5.00 / 2) (#179)
    by slw0606 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:21:29 PM EST
    the nominee. Right?

    If Clinton or Obama cannot win the Democratic nomination, how in the world does that losing candidate claim to be the better GE candidate?

    So, for the sake of argument (I am an Obama supporter), we do NOT have a nominee yet. Until Clinton or Obama have the requisite number of delegates needed (those who are pledged or supers who have made their preference known), neither is the "presumptive" nominee.

    I am fairly confident that number will be higher then 2026 and lower then 2210. After Saturday, we will at least have the most current "majority" number with the preliminary FL/MI decision.

    I am confident if FL/MI are not resolved to the Clinton campaign's position (which is seat 100% as voted in January), they will go to the Credential Committee in July and the floor in August, as needed.

    So, technically, we will not have an official nominee until sometime during the evening of August 27.

    But in the end, the candidate that has the most delegates will be our nominee and by definition is the strongest GE candidate. Why? Because if the losing candidate was unable to garner the majority of DEMOCRATIC delegates, how on earth can that candidate win in the general?

    I know some people will argue with this logic.

    I also know that GE polls at this time while the Democratic candidates continue their battle (thus raising the other person's negatives) and we are not focused on McCain are of relative value in predicting the November winner.

    To be sure, Obama will win states Clinton could not, and Clinton will win states Obama cannot. But in either case, that does not mean one Democrat is a sure winner in November and the other a sure loser.

    We also do not know yet the full impact of the extreme voter discontent with the Republicans and how that will assist whoever the Democratic nominee is, as well as the increased energy level of voters who want change, the youth, brand new voters, African Americans, women, etc.

    This primary is quite unique. Yes, the race IS close, but there will be a winner and that person will win, however narrowly, because they ran a better campaign and/or were a more appealing candidate then the loser.

    The loser will hopefully unite behind the winner as we all look to defeat John McCain in November.

    Not True at All (5.00 / 2) (#207)
    by Richjo on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:32:34 PM EST
    The problem with your argument is that it ignores the process of the primary, and how it differs from the process of the general election. Winning the most delgates is not the same as winning the most electoral votes. If the primary were run the same way as the general election(winner take all) then Hillary would be winning by a large margin. Obama has masterfully gamed the system by taking advantage of the caucuses and by getting the press to delegitimize the role of the superdelegates whose whole purpose was to step in when a candidate was able to game the system and come out in the lead even though their appeal is limited to a small segment of the base. The primary process can easily hide a candidate's weaknesses. Ponder the following scenario's and you realize how superficial Obama's advantage in this race really is:

    1. If Florida and Michigan had been treated like the Republicans treated them and held recognized contests in January Obama would not be the nominee today. Hillary would have seized the early momentum and Obama would have been done.
    2. If the Democratic system were winner take all like the Republican one Obama would not be the nominee today.
    3. If Obama had allowed revotes in Michigan and Florida he would not be the nominee today.

    Credit the Obama campaign for a great strategy for winning the nomination, just don't be so ignorant as to equate that with strenght as a general election candidate.

    "Obama has masterfully gamed (5.00 / 1) (#225)
    by slw0606 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:39:58 PM EST
    the system"?

    I'm not sure if you are complimenting Obama or not. You say masterfully, which to me means he was a more skilled candidate, more strategic, yet you say "gamed" to somehow delegitimize him.

    How does one "game" a system by following the rules as setup?

    Seems to me if you want to win "a game" you play the strategy that best positions you according to the rules.

    It is hard for Clinton supporters to admit the key failure of the Clinton campaign was their arrogance and hubris assuming "it would all be over by February 5" and therefore not adequately planning for after February 5. The Obama campaign planned for the long slog and if fact came real close to their predicted performance in that leaked Obama campaign spreadsheet.

    Yes, once the Clinton camapign came out of their shell shock on February they worked their behinds of to try and catch up, and have not quit yet. But February was THE lost opportunity for the Clinton campaign.


    It is a compliment to some extent (5.00 / 1) (#271)
    by Richjo on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:14:00 PM EST
    I have to admitt Obama is a skilled candidate, but don't forget that so was George W Bush, so that doesn't mean a whole lot. And I am only willing to admitt that Obama is a skilled primary candidate, one of the points I was making was that does not equate to winning a general election. Bush was good at winning elections, and not much else. Obama has shown he is good at winning a primary, and not really all that good considering how close it is and how ill prepared the Clinton campaign was for this battle. I am worried that Obama's strategy was great for winning a primary but maybe terrible for winning a general election. And let's be realistic, anything short of a blowout for the democrats this year should be seen as a disappointment considering the last eight years. I guess in the final analysis I can give Obama that he is a good primary candidate, I am just worried he won't be a very good general election one, and even worse I have no confidence that he will be a good president.

    I agree, in principle... (none / 0) (#305)
    by slw0606 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:09:47 PM EST

    doing well in the primary does not predict GE performance, so your concern is well noted.

    All I can say in response is when you consider Clinton and the Democratic power base she had behind her, her 8 years of preparing to run, the media and Republicans dubbing her the near certain nominee, the HUGE amount of money AND name recognition she had

    And Obama, a complete unknown 4 years ago, an insurgent who had virtually no Democratic supporters within the power circles not only raised more money then Clinton from far more small donors, but, as you admit, was more masterful in his campaign stategy and is on the verge of one of the most stunning defeats in intra-party history.

    As an Obama supporter last fall, I did not call Hillary Clinton merely the 2008 Democratic nominee, I called her the 44th President of the United States.

    Even I bought the Clinton and media hype about Clinton.

    I was pleasantly surpised at how Obama pulled of this upset and you will be pelasantly surprised when he wins in November and he goes toe to toe with McCain HARD during the campaign.

    Obama will be no "gentleman" John Kerry. He will enjoy the sparing.


    Well He Learned Well From Bush (none / 0) (#316)
    by Richjo on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:56:05 PM EST
    Claim to be a uniter not a divider. Claim you are going to change the tone in Washington. Criticize others for doing the exact same things you have done, but which you can get away with because people don't know anything about you.

    The right got to elect an inexpereinced, unaccomplished, unqualified, unethical opportunist who climbed to power on the backs of those "some of the people you can fool all of the time", and by exploiting identity politics. I guess it is our turn to do the same. I have given up hoping we were any better or any smarter then they are, but at least Obama had to game his way to his nomination and was rejected by roughly 50% of the party, not embraced fully and warmly the way Bush was by the Republicans. I guess we are a little better than them, but not much.


    So Hillary Clinton refused to learn... (none / 0) (#334)
    by slw0606 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:05:38 PM EST

    from GWB's 2 successful campaigns and actually win a nomination?

    We can debate till we are blue in the face whether Obama will be just another lying politician - but the name of the "game" as you call it is to win and "apparently" Obama is better then Clinton on that.

    So, does that not give him a better chance against McCain then Clinton?

    Think this through logically, and not emotionally. The candidate able to beat the establishment Democrat, by definition, has better campaigning skills then the establishment candidate and should be the stronger GE candidate.


    Absolutely Not Because (none / 0) (#337)
    by Richjo on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:49:51 PM EST
    you don't have to win the same coalition in the general election that you did in the primaries. Furthermore, the Republicans don't have to worry about alienating Obama's base because those people are never going to vote Republican anyway. The right is going to rip Obama to shreds in ways no democrat would ever dream of, and they are going to cry foul when Obama's friends in the media attempt to defend him rallying their own base against the liberal media in addition to Obama. The demographics of Obama's coalition will allow you to sneak through in a democratic primary, but they are not sufficent to win the electoral college. he is going to need the very people he is demoninzing now. His only hope will seem to be to get those people madder at the Republicans them him, but that seems to be a pretty difficult task to me. His inexpereince and weaknesses as a candidate are going to be more than sufficent to unite the Republican base around McCain. I am sorry but McCain is not George W Bush, and all he has to do is be better than that flithy incompetent boob to get moderates and independents to give him the benefit of the doubt. That is going to be a much easier job than Obama mending the bridges he and his supporters (especially those in the media) have burned.

    Uh (5.00 / 1) (#226)
    by Steve M on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:40:15 PM EST
    The argument that the Democratic primary necessarily produces the strongest GE candidate is really silly. Why on earth would you find that to be logical?

    OK, Why bother having a primary then... (none / 0) (#335)
    by slw0606 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:12:53 PM EST

    what is the purpose of the primary? Let's just go back to smoke filled rooms.

    I think you are being disingenouous when you refuse to admit a successfulf primary campaign does not have SOME relevance to the general election performance predicted.

    Is it 100% the same? No. But to call it silly is in itself a silly comment.

    And the key here is Obama was not the "establishment" candidate with the universal name recognition and backing of the Democratic power structure and yet he still is winning.

    I understand it is hard for passionate Clinton supporters to admit she ran a poor campaign and refuse to see why that is a "not good" predictor of a fall campaign against McCain.


    Never (5.00 / 3) (#203)
    by tek on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:31:12 PM EST
    happen.  It'll never happen.  The Obama Dems are already starting a chant that Hillary won't be able to even go back to the Senate.  

    I personally believe the Obama Dems do not want to win if it means having Clinton in the WH.  I think their whole campaign so far has been do anything to keep Hillary from having the nomination--even lose the GE.

    Re-read the post (5.00 / 4) (#212)
    by ineedalife on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:34:06 PM EST
    Experience was a factor in the posters judgement. Asking the more experienced woman to take a backseat to a less experienced man.

    In your response you only factor in race. You do say winner but, since the race is not over and there is no winner, that is just a fantasy to provide cover for your race-baiting.

    One of the things that turn people off of Obama's campaign is the constant subtext, and ongoing intimidation attempt, that if you do not vote for him you are racist.

    It's hard to imagine that the Dems want to win (5.00 / 1) (#235)
    by kempis on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:43:58 PM EST
    when the party leadership has done its damnedest to nominate the weaker candidate.

    I really think they don't want to win. Maybe their "win" is to nominate the first AA for president, which truly will be historic and good. But I fear they're being awfully shortsighted if they think that Obama is going to be well-received, thanks to Reverend Wright and his other Chicago connections. And, worse, I fear the Obama campaign will continue to play the race card and stoke some even nastier sentiments in the nation-at-large than they have in the Democratic party.

    Obama's people have run lifelong Dems out of the party at an alarming rate. I'm one of them. If they've been willing to push buttons to this extent in their own party, imagine how they'll run against Republicans. Soon, everyone not residing along the blue coasts will be branded as a bunch of rednecks, and the Democratic party will be right back where it was in the late 70s and the 80s: a small, haughty party of the arrogant, self-righteous left.

    Weaker candidate is obviously.. (3.66 / 3) (#257)
    by slw0606 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:57:02 PM EST
    an opinion and I can appreciate why you say that as a Clinton supporter.

    To be sure, Obama style of leadership and how he would reach across the isle to Republicans WILL drive some hard core Demcorats out of the party.

    The question is, how many independents and moderate Republicans will support Obama, both in November and as President.

    Time will tell.

    But as an Obama supporter I am 100% certain he will really piss people off on both the extreme left and the extreme right.

    As to Obama's so-called scandals, have you noticed how Obama's campaign has not brought up the many "issues and controversaries" of both Bill and Hillary Clinton, both while he was President and Hillary was First Lady as well as since 2001 (including many of Bill's questionable business dealings)?

    Do you really think Republicans who have been salivating (more like foaming at the mouth) for a Hillary Clinton nomination since 2004 will not realease a barrage of terribly negative stuff if she is the nominee.

    For Hillary Clinton to suggest she has already been vetted is either disingenuious or naive.

    No, whether Obama or Clinton, the Republicans will make the Swift Boating of Kerry look like a Sunday School picnic.


    Hmm (5.00 / 2) (#269)
    by Steve M on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:12:30 PM EST
    As to Obama's so-called scandals, have you noticed how Obama's campaign has not brought up the many "issues and controversaries" of both Bill and Hillary Clinton, both while he was President and Hillary was First Lady as well as since 2001 (including many of Bill's questionable business dealings)?

    Actually, I noticed that the Obama campaign brought up the Lincoln Bedroom, Whitewater, and Hillary's profits from futures trading, just to name a few vintage 90s scandals.  Apparently you didn't notice any of this.


    You are correct (none / 0) (#288)
    by slw0606 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:32:37 PM EST

    I did not hear "Obama" supporters bring those things up.

    But my point was either candidate will have their hands full with garbage thrown at them from Republicans.


    Can't notice what didn't happen (none / 0) (#294)
    by Seth90212 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:39:35 PM EST
    If you really think that Obama has attacked Clinton on her myriad scandals then you are not paying attention. Maybe staying positive and not attacking is simply a campaign tactic. If so it has worked for the most part, as he is now on the cusp of the nomination. Clinton chose another tactic: essentially the kitchen sink strategy. That turned off a lot of voters and caused many SD's to declare for Obama.

    Look (5.00 / 1) (#320)
    by Steve M on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:44:09 PM EST
    It's a demonstrable fact that the Obama campaign has brought up all three of those "scandals."  Saying that I'm the one not paying attention, because I'm aware of something and you're apparently not, is high comedy.

    Obama has run a totally positive campaign? (none / 0) (#318)
    by kempis on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:17:56 PM EST
    "She'll do anything to win."

    She's a racist.

    She was just a corporate attorney while he was on the streets helping the poor.

    She's trying to steal delegates, and pledged delegates are sacred (unless they switch to Obama).

    She's staying in the race in hopes that someone assassinates Obama.

    And on and on and on.

    Oh, and Obama's smirk when his supporters booed Edwards' mention of Hillary during his endorsement of Obama. Classy, "new politics" kinda guy.

    Look. I started out an Obama supporter. I used to defend him on blogs like you guys are doing. But when I snapped out of it, I realized that he's selling vats and vats of snake oil.

    There is no new politics, just the same old thing.

    There is no new coalition, just the same old losing Mondale-Dukakis one.

    There is no groundswell of support for him, just  a bunch of people with megaphones who sound like a crowd, but illusions don't vote. I don't know how on earth his supporters expect him to win in November with a passionate but SMALL base--having alienated a large portion of oldtime, New Deal Dems from the party. It's going to be interesting. For the country's sake, I hope McCain doesn't win.  

    So I'm not in the mood right now to hear fairy tales about Obama and what a classy practitioner of "new politics" and wildly popular guy he is to all but "hicks and chicks." I know better. I know what I've seen and read--outside the protective, Obama-fandom shell of some other blogs.



    You're making up most of these "attacks" (none / 0) (#319)
    by Seth90212 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:39:51 PM EST
    and you know it. You are regurgitating these fictitious attacks which certain deadenders are responsible for spreading. People are not that stupid.



    oh please... (none / 0) (#322)
    by kempis on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:48:26 PM EST
    What on earth are you talking about?

    "She'll do anything to win" was an "I'm Barack Obama and I approve this ad" radio spot that his campaign ran in South Carolina.

    Accusations that the Clintons of "racial insensitivity" was something the Obama campaign circulated in a four-page memo that one of the debate moderators waved around at one of the debates.

    Obama's smirk during the boos of Hillary during Edwards' endorsement was right there for anyone with eyes to see....

    Want me to go on?

    His campaign circulation KO's latest pathetic bile-fest?

    I'm not fabricating these examples; they don't come from "dead-enders"; and surely you know that.


    Right now (none / 0) (#292)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:37:11 PM EST
    Obama gets almost no Republicans and 40% of indepdents. He can't unite the party either garnering only about 70% of the party.

    It's not Black vs. White, (5.00 / 2) (#236)
    by ChiTownDenny on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:44:12 PM EST
    and it's not male vs. female.  She has the resume; he doesn't.  How does she take the "intern" role given these facts?  

    I don't put much stock (4.33 / 3) (#23)
    by brodie on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:21:36 AM EST
    in that poll.  

    No matter who the Dem nominee is, s/he is going to carry MI given the dreadful economy.  Michiganders aren't going to want to trust other than the Dems to deliver an improved economy.

    Obama also is going to look back at that "Unity" Ticket of 1864, Repub Abe + Dem Andy Johnson, and conclude, rightly, that that one turned out to be a disaster (talk about lack of assassination insurance ...).  Not that I'm saying HRC would turn out to be a fall-down drunk like Andy was, but wrt the overall working atmosphere of the WH it was an awful experience.  

    Ditto for that more recent "Forced Unity" ticket of 1960 where the more experienced VP made working life a much greater burden for JFK than it would have been had he been allowed to govern with his preferred pick, Stu Symington.

    Forced or Faux Unity tickets don't work, historically, at least in the governing.  And Hillary as VP is likely to draw plenty of incoming from the MSM, far more negativity than the press-blessed Obama would otherwise have received with a less "controversial" selection.

    Right now, the best bets are Obama/Sibelius (my preference), or O/Jimmy Webb.

    Wow (5.00 / 4) (#46)
    by Steve M on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:29:57 AM EST
    Yeah, if we hadn't gone with that unity ticket in 1960, life probably would have been much easier for the President.  His name would have been Nixon, though, which is sort of the point.

    Is she as big a fixer as LBJ? (none / 0) (#75)
    by Salo on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:41:43 AM EST
    Is she in that league of Parliamentary Giants?

    You see (none / 0) (#202)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:30:54 PM EST
    why I'm sure we're going to lose in Nov? It's this kind of talk and I think it's indicative of the way Obama thinks too.

    There's definitely not (none / 0) (#244)
    by brodie on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:49:36 PM EST
    a lot of trust between O and Hillary and their two camps, both the political operatives and the supporters.  Another reason why the (Faux) Unity Ticket seems very improbable.  

    I'm not saying it's probable (5.00 / 1) (#290)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:34:56 PM EST
    I'm just saying that I believe Obama is clueless on how to win in Nov. And going around saying I'm the winner seems to be his only strategy. He's been bleeding support for months and hasn't reacted to it.

    In 5 of the last 6 polls, McCain has beaten (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by tigercourse on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:30:01 AM EST
    Obama. This 4 point lead is the same a a 4 point lead in a SurveyUSA poll that came out the same day.

    Obama can easily lose Michigan.


    The "forced Unity" ticket of 1960 WON (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by IndiDemGirl on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:30:08 AM EST
    Yes, but it's impossible to say (none / 0) (#58)
    by brodie on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:34:09 AM EST
    with certainty that a JFK/Symington ticket also wouldn't have won -- different strategies, different states, possibly roughly similar results in the traditionally Dem southern states, more emphasis on winning CA, etc.  

    LBJ was a defacto Prime Minister though. (none / 0) (#76)
    by Salo on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:42:26 AM EST
    And he was a master pol.

    IS she?


    The closest we've got (none / 0) (#85)
    by andgarden on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:45:00 AM EST
    is Barney Frank. And he's obviously not going to be on the ticket.

    LBJ was not (none / 0) (#111)
    by brodie on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:53:42 AM EST
    a PM under JFK.  Though he tried even before being sworn in as VP to get the P to agree to a power sharing arrangement, which was ignored by JFK.  As for "master pol" he failed to deliver the goods when JFK gave him his first duty upon taking office (a procedural change which nonetheless was key to unblocking progressive legislation).  

    By 63, Lyndon had been relegated by Kennedy to ceremonial duties and overseas "fact-finding" trips, which kept him reasonably busy but, more important, out of the WH.

    An Obama/HRC admin would present a different yet similar set of challenges in governing.  Doubly so since it would be Hillary plus ex-prez Bill.

    Almost impossible to foresee all the potential headaches.

    Of course, it's almost impossible to see the Clintons living at the Naval Observatory after 8 yrs in the WH ...


    he was the master of the Congress. (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by Salo on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:17:49 PM EST
    And one of the most unique legislative fixers in US history.

    It's NOT impossible to say. (none / 0) (#184)
    by masslib on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:24:08 PM EST

    It's certainly the CW that (none / 0) (#228)
    by brodie on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:40:47 PM EST
    LBJ helped get us TX, and the argument in favor is not unreasonable.  But it's conjecture nonetheless.  Impossible to say exactly how many Dems there came back to the fold because of Lyndon's presence or because they wanted to vote their loyalties again or because they didn't trust Tricky, etc.  We'll never know.

    LBJ didn't bring home TX with his (none / 0) (#248)
    by masslib on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:51:35 PM EST

    The best bets are Obama/Sibelius (5.00 / 2) (#299)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:49:34 PM EST
    or Obama/Jimmy Webb?  You evidently don't put any stock in this and the other polls that show Obama/Sibelius is one of the lowest polling options. So what are you basing your bet on?

    Since I'm not in favor of a unity ticket, maybe you will get your wish and the Dems will decide to try and replace one woman with another. That would not be the strategy I would employ but who would want to argue with all the highly educated, high information Obama supporters who seem to think this is a good idea.


    This is where Romney comes in. (none / 0) (#30)
    by Salo on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:23:23 AM EST
    I swaer they would win Michigan with Romney there talking about the good old days and promising to retool the auto industry.

    If Webb is on the ticket, (none / 0) (#252)
    by Esme on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:52:57 PM EST
    I will most assuredly not vote Dem under any circumstances. He is a mysoginistic b*stard, and of Obama picks him as VP, it will cement my belief that the DNC is full of woman haters who shove sexist candidates down the throats of women, and then expect them to be "good little girls" and vote.

    As for Sebelius, I'm sorry, but just because someone has boobs, it doesn't mean I'll be voting for her.

    Truly, I think BTD is right. The ONLY VP candidate who would made me vote for Obama in a heart beat is Hillary.

    But it's not over! Let's nominate the presidential candidate who can win!


    I wouldn't put it quite as crudely (none / 0) (#258)
    by brodie on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:58:35 PM EST
    re Sibelius.  My view is that HRC's historic candidacy and coming so close and blazing a trail, makes it possible for someone like the KS Gov to be a plausible candidate.  And, meanwhile, it would be a dubious career move for Hillary to be VP.  

    Webb is another imperfect pick.  And a case where the ticket would need to have already done considerable repair work wrt Dem women before that one's announced.


    Not one choice would be the slap (none / 0) (#265)
    by masslib on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:04:17 PM EST
    in the face Sebelius would be.  It would also be an extremely weak ticket.  Two candidates with zero foreign policy experience.

    Expiration date (none / 0) (#289)
    by Mike H on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:34:27 PM EST
    Please do NOT forget that the press will turn, and turn HARD, against Obama if he truly, fully wins the nomination.

    Anyone assuming that the relatively free ride Obama has gotten so far would continue past the convention is amazingly naive.  Regardless of who his VP choice is.

    In fact, choosing Clinton may be the ONLY way to keep bad press from him (since they'd be focusing on her).


    Unity ticket (4.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Coral on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:47:55 AM EST
    If it can put the Dems over the top in Michigan, with Clinton's strength in the rust belt and the east, and Obama's strength in the west, it could mean a landslide victory for the Democratic Party in November.

    Why would the DNC and the Superdelegates oppose such a ticket?

    Why would Obama?

    Why would any down-ticket Democrat?

    Hatred of the other candidate, (3.33 / 3) (#104)
    by IndiDemGirl on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:50:32 AM EST
    Revenge on the other side, Insistence on being right, hurt feelings, immaturity, take your pick.  Hopefully the candidates are better than some of their supporters.

    Um... (5.00 / 5) (#116)
    by madamab on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:56:14 AM EST
    did you ever consider that maybe we don't think Obama represents Democratic values?

    I know I sure don't.

    All this nonsense about only "true" Dems supporting Obama. What a load of baloney. Most of us Clinton supporters have been voting Dem before Obama's supporters were born!

    The Clinton Dems ARE the base of the Party. The point of the Democratic Party is to fight for the rights of the working class. Obama hasn't ever done that. Hillary has, over and over again.

    I have NEVER considered not voting for a Dem in a presidential election. How bad must Obama be for someone like me to withdraw my vote?

    Pretty darn bad.


    You sound like a preacher who tells thier flock (4.00 / 1) (#176)
    by kindness on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:20:25 PM EST
    that only they are able to be saved because the flock picked the right messenger.

    Let those among you who is without sin be the first to cast a stone.

    I'm not religious but I'll be damned if any one group, person or candidate can claim to be the only representative of the Democratic Party.

    I'm an active Democrat.  I'll vote for whom ever the Democratic Party nominates this August.

    It's too bad you can't say the same.


    A lot of us here (5.00 / 1) (#280)
    by samanthasmom on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:24:39 PM EST
    who have been Democrats for a lifetime have already withdrawn from the party.  There is no longer a party loyalty issue for us to consider. It's all about choosing a candidate now - not about which party the candidate belongs to.

    Dem values (none / 0) (#199)
    by ibextati on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:29:48 PM EST
    How about Obama, the Harvard lawyer who passed on Wall street jobs to help out people in southside chicago.  In your eyes, that doesn't count as a democratic value.

    Oh Lord, please spare us the Axelrod (5.00 / 2) (#211)
    by masslib on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:33:59 PM EST
    talking point.  Obama's a millionaire, in case you haven't noticed.  he did this same thing with Deval Patrick.  All the little people should be so thankful Obama decided to "community organize" instead of taking a high paying job.  Really, it's tiresome and silly.

    Damn do-gooder! (n/t) (none / 0) (#302)
    by slw0606 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:53:54 PM EST
    What the hell is that supposed to (none / 0) (#311)
    by masslib on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:38:56 PM EST
    mean?  I am saying he's nothing special.  he did what anyone who wants to go into politics does.  

    Further, what on earth did he (none / 0) (#313)
    by masslib on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:43:54 PM EST
    achieve with his organizing?  

    It was suppose to be funny,.. (none / 0) (#336)
    by slw0606 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:17:04 PM EST



    Oh well, we will always have (none / 0) (#261)
    by IndiDemGirl on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:59:30 PM EST
    our moment of unity of Karl Rove in the orange jumpsuit, remember?  LOL!

    First, HRC herself has said that Obama is much better than McCain.  That it would be foolish to vote McCain and that she will be working to elect Obama IF he is the nominee.  Obama has said the same re HRC.

    Secondly,  I undertand that you are offended and hurt by the Obama and some of his supporters.  If hurt and offended aren't the correct words to describe your feelings, I apologize.  I understand SOME of your criticisms.  

    However, some Obama supporters feel equally hurt and offended by HRC and her supporters.  Whether they are right to feel that way isn't as important as the fact that they do.

    My point is that "repair" is needed no matter which one ends up getting the nomination.  I think a Unity Ticket is one good way of doing that.  


    Can you stop this routine? (5.00 / 5) (#254)
    by masslib on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:53:40 PM EST
    I think Obama is the Democratic equivalent of Mitt Romeny sans the experience.  It's not about "hurt feelings", "being right" or "immaturity".  It's about thinking POTUS ought not be someones first full-time job.

    Qualification (3.00 / 1) (#246)
    by ibextati on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:51:05 PM EST
    You Clinton supporter always use experience as for reason to vote for her. Some of you even say you would vote for McCain because he is more qualified than Obama. If experience is your  criteria, why didn't you support Joe Biden? or Bill Richardson? Because both men have more experience than Hillary or Obama.

    Some of us did. (none / 0) (#285)
    by samanthasmom on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:30:50 PM EST
    My earlier choices dropped out (none / 0) (#307)
    by Mike H on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:12:30 PM EST
    I was for Kucinich first, then toyed with Dodd and Biden, but finally decided on Edwards.  Once it was down to two it seemed to me Clinton was the better choice.

    And, frankly, everything that Obama and his supporters have said and done since then have only confirmed my decision!


    "polls after polls indicate that... (3.00 / 2) (#251)
    by sarissa on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:52:32 PM EST
    ...more of Obama's supporters will vote for Hillary than vice versa."

    I would submit that were the current roles reversed (Hillary the presumptive nominee and Obama the scrappy, "cheated" underdog) the polls would then reflect that more of Hillary's supporters would vote for Obama than vice versa.

    The reasoning - people that are angry don't think as rationally as those that are satisfied.

    What can I say... (none / 0) (#8)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:08:20 AM EST
    it's the only way I will push my chad for the Dems.  I believe in checks and balances.  Don't trust the party to the newbies, or actually Kerry, Daschle etc.  (

    OT.  Heard that Kerry is pushing to be the Secretary of State.  Yikes, bore the others to death and confuse them with waffling.  

    ain't gonna happen (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by ccpup on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:13:47 AM EST
    if Barack is the Nominee, his loss will make Kerry's in '04  look like a love-tap by comparison.

    I still wonder what everyone in the DNC is so afraid of with Clinton as the Nominee?  She's intelligent, tough, a hard worker ... oh, I got it.  She's not a big blob of political Play-Doh willing to be molded and sculpted into pretty, pleasing shapes.

    They might actually have to WORK with her as President.

    But Kerry as Sec of State will make Condi look good.



    It could go two ways (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by Salo on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:17:44 AM EST
    Obama drags her down with him. Or they go on to triumph. I say, he ought to keep it straight and simply purge her from the ticket.  he's done it intellectually and spiritually he may as well do it in reality.

    She's deeply loathed by his team.  I thought it was just superficial electioneering until they dredged up the the RFK comments and made hay from them. He obviously has some real antipathy toward her.


    I also see the RFK incident (5.00 / 6) (#26)
    by ruffian on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:22:10 AM EST
    as their way to kill the unity ticket idea. It was so clearly contrived outrage, it can be nothing else.

    If there is a unity ticket, it will have to be forced on Obama. Is Nancy Pelosi going to step in and do that? Kinda doubt it.


    She prolly wants to be on the damn ticket herself. (none / 0) (#34)
    by Salo on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:24:22 AM EST
    Ha! Could be. (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by ruffian on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:27:20 AM EST
    All this talk of Sibelious and not this Alaska governor is just a red herring - Obama/Pelosi '08!

    That would be a great Unity Ticket - for the Republicans.


    oops 'now this' instead of 'not this' (none / 0) (#43)
    by ruffian on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:27:51 AM EST
    I think (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by magisterludi on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:18:55 AM EST
    they are afraid of populism.

    I disagree. (none / 0) (#71)
    by madamab on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:40:17 AM EST
    John Kerry would not show up in dominatrix gear to negotiate with foreign leaders.

    Besides, if they refused to agree to his terms, he could bore them into submission. :-)


    She spoke today by the way (none / 0) (#223)
    by BarnBabe on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:39:43 PM EST
    The most ineffective Secretary of State we have ever had, she came out in defense of her husb, er, President, in regard to McClellan allegations.

    Stop wondering, its the (none / 0) (#256)
    by sarissa on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:56:52 PM EST
    pledged delegate metric.

    If it's overturned there will be problems.  

    Nothing so overblown as rioting but serious, long-term problems.  The DNC does not want these sorts of problems.  

    I dare say they would be better off taking the hit this year then fielding Clinton or some other strong GE candidate against a possibly senile McCain in 2012.


    I say Purge the Clinton's (none / 0) (#11)
    by Salo on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:14:00 AM EST
    here's why. Obama could win by doing it. Quids in there if he does. He could also lose--very badly. If he loses McCain has four years tops. Then the dimwits who ensured the losses will be counterpurged in December 08. At that point it might be seen as Orthodoxy for presidential candidates to offer a single payer or at least UHC.

    Does anyone have a whetstone?  I'm sharpening my dagger collection.

    Obama's the Future of the Party, Win or Lose (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Dan the Man on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:31:41 AM EST
    When Obama loses in November, I predict Clinton supporters will still be purged from the Democratic Party.  Then Obama will win the nomination again in 2012 and lose in a bigger landslide to McCain's successor.  This will lead to 20 years of Republican rule beginning with Bush in 2000.

    Yup. (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by madamab on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:38:52 AM EST
    The Democratic Party has already "purged" a lot of us Clinton supporters. More to come if they don't make the right choice for the nominee.

    I think we're very far down the path to destruction, and it's entirely the fault of our Party Leaders.

    The Party of Obama doesn't want me. I'm inclined to take it at its word.


    He would not politically survive a loss. (5.00 / 3) (#72)
    by Salo on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:40:21 AM EST
    he'd be washed up.

    Of course he would (none / 0) (#126)
    by Demi Moaned on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:01:31 PM EST
    And I'll have no sympathy for him if he loses.

    There's way too much egotism from both Clinton and Obama supporters (as I repeatedly say over at the GOS). It's a total bore.

    I want to win, and I have no patience with anyone who has other priorities. The worst aspects of Clinton and Obama combined are far preferable to McCain.


    We can't be fired if we quit first, (none / 0) (#167)
    by Anne on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:15:57 PM EST
    - and some have already done so - which may be one factor in why Obama will lose if he is the nominee.

    And the last thing Obama will do if he loses is run again; heck, I'm betting he won't even be able to get re-elected to the Senate in 2010.

    No, he'll finish out his last 2 years in the Senate the same way he started: indifferent to actual work, with plenty of excuses.  He'll be too busy writing his book and figuring out whether he should play himself in the movie, and if it would be totally post-racial to get Angelina Jolie to play Michelle (heck, she played Marianne Pearl, so why not?).

    I wish he would just go away already.


    My oh my.... (none / 0) (#295)
    by slw0606 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:39:54 PM EST

    Democrats have just won 3 special Congressional elections in a row in solid Republican districts,

    81% of the country feels we are headed in the wrong direction..

    Generic party identity is 50% Democratic, 37% Republican..

    Both Obama and Clinton are competitive is preliminary GE polls (even though neither has really focused on McCain yet)

    And you not only consign Obama to a loss in November, but the Democratic party to 20 years in the wilderness.

    May I suggest you do not get involved in any Democratic campaign activities this fall or rallies - you would be a real downer.


    This post is in reference to (none / 0) (#296)
    by slw0606 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:41:15 PM EST

    Dan the Man's pessimistic prognosis

    rendell is his best bet. (none / 0) (#45)
    by Salo on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:29:04 AM EST
    An earthy brawler is needed.

    Rendell (none / 0) (#52)
    by madamab on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:31:11 AM EST
    carries the Clinton taint.


    I am betting that should Obama be the nominee, he will pick Chuck Hagel or some milquetoast corporatist like "Independent" Mike Bloomberg.


    Clinton's people (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by waldenpond on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:47:06 AM EST
    keep getting proposed.  Someone close to her is considered the way to get her voters. eh... but then they keep pushing others such as Warner (who I think will be pushed to run in 2012) but I can't see him getting Clinton's states.

    Rendell-not going to happen (none / 0) (#270)
    by ibextati on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:13:05 PM EST
    GOP has a tape of Rendell prasing Louis Farakhan and the nation of islam. check youtube

    IMHO there is no way that Hillary will accept (none / 0) (#55)
    by athyrio on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:32:17 AM EST
    a VP position after this destructive primary...She will be better served going back to the Senate and designing a good health bill for Obama to sign....

    That he won't sign (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by cal1942 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:38:03 AM EST
    If Obama is the nominee and is elected there will be no real UHC.

    The insurance industry hasn't invested in Obama for nothing and David Cutler wasn't chosen by the Obama team for nothing.


    I hope so (none / 0) (#82)
    by smott on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:44:11 AM EST
    ...for me the HRC as VP is too strong a metaphor.

    The better qualified, more experienced female gets to take a back seat to the under-qualified wet-behind-the-ears male boss.

    Too much for me.


    Sounds like a good plan (none / 0) (#106)
    by Lesser Dane on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:51:22 AM EST
    since I prefer Obama as president, and Hillary's health care plans.

    Obama (none / 0) (#109)
    by pie on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:53:19 AM EST
    would have little say over who gets to be VP.  A group ofadvisors would make the decision based on who would best help the ticket.

    Not so (4.00 / 1) (#174)
    by Llelldorin on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:18:48 PM EST
    The group of advisors will present Obama (assuming he's the nominee) with options, and poll like mad to figure out the positives and negatives of each. It's up to Obama to choose which option to take, or to demand that the advisors consider other options. The same will be true if Clinton is the nominee.

    Neither candidate is an idiot, so we aren't going to see a repeat of "clearly the best candidate is... ME!!!!!" that the Republicans terrified us with in 2000.


    Obama's mai advisor is Axelrod, who has (none / 0) (#186)
    by tigercourse on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:25:17 PM EST
    done his best to destroy Clinton both politically and morally.

    He main backers are Kerry, Pelosi, Daschle, Brazille, Dean, Kennedy, etc. All people who want to see Clinton gone.

    His wife hates Clinton.

    His support structure does not want to see Clinton as the VP.


    He should picjk Deval Patrick. (none / 0) (#162)
    by Salo on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:13:48 PM EST
    That balances the ticket.

    Axelrod 1.0 Axelrod 2.0.

    I don't see Obama winning w/out Hillary (none / 0) (#182)
    by Exeter on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:23:15 PM EST
    Even with Hillary it would be a tough climb, but w/out Hillary and the Clinton brand, he will look very, very, very inexperienced standing next to McCain.

    To be sure, the experience card (none / 0) (#239)
    by slw0606 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:45:21 PM EST

    will be the number one card McCain will use against Obama (besides the Muslim/Wright/Ayers/Rezco card the 527s will use ad naseum).

    But I believe the Clinton campaign used the experience card from day one and, well, it has not resulted in a landslide nomination victory.

    "Ready on Day One" I recall has been the Clinton campaign mantra.


    Primary voters are alot different than GE (none / 0) (#273)
    by Exeter on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:15:53 PM EST
    ...though. There will be many more voters that vote on experience and many fewer that don't.

    you miss the point (none / 0) (#282)
    by Salo on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:28:57 PM EST
    If Experience is the decider for a voter Obama can't win that vote at all.

    If it is the decider for clinton voters in a slice of her returns it's already showing up as a liability.


    The GOP (none / 0) (#297)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:43:09 PM EST
    is already playing the experience card. They're already running with some of Obama's more clueless statements.

    The fact that enough Dem primary voters were willing to overlook the experience argument doesn't mean that the general electorate will. There are plenty of voters who won't vote for someone as unqualified as Obama. The qualification issue alone could be why 30% of dem voters abandon the party with Obama on the ticket.


    BTD;'s Broken Record ... (none / 0) (#189)
    by Robot Porter on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:26:58 PM EST
    keeps on playing.

    Don't think many here will seriously listen until we have a clear winner.

    BTW, Some Clinton Supporters May Find.. (none / 0) (#208)
    by slw0606 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:32:36 PM EST

    this hard to believe, but I sincerely believe that if Obama is the "presumptive" nominee after next week, he WILL include Hillary Clinton in his short list of VP running mates.

    He will take her through the exact same vetting process as any other person in that list (including looking at Bill Clinton's business dealings since 2001 - unfair? Talk to Geraldine Ferraro about how her husband became a campaign issue in 1984) as well as how each VP candidate can in fact help elect a Democrat to the White House and I believe if Hillary proves to be the strongest VP choice, Obama WILL chose her despite opposition from many of his supporters.

    Obama is strong enough personally to have a strong woman like Hillary on his ticket. But the real issue will be, IS she the best choice for winning in November?

    In the end, it is Obama's choice. Of course, the convention could not ratify his choice, which is something he needs to consider in picking this person.

    This ASSUMES Obama will be the nominee, of course.

    I doubt she'd take it (none / 0) (#209)
    by jarober on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:32:53 PM EST
    I still suspect that Hillary doesn't want the VP slot, and won't take it if offered:

    -- if Obama wins, she can't run in 2012
    -- if Obama wins reelection after a victory, she'll be 8 years older, and the country rarely elects a sitting VP (the elder Bush was the first since Van Buren)
    -- If Obama loses, and she's the VP choice, her odds in 2012 go down (losing candidates tend not to get another nod)

    If, on the other hand, she's not on the ticket, she has a better chance of coming in in either 4 years (if Obama loses) or 8 (if he wins two terms).

    Politicians are all about gaming the odds, and taking the number 2 slot right now simply doesn't serve her interests.

    As an Obama supporter... (none / 0) (#243)
    by slw0606 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:48:42 PM EST

    I disagree. If Obama offers the VP to Clinton, she WILL accept.

    I agree (none / 0) (#293)
    by Mshepnj on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:38:03 PM EST
    that she would accept. And it will increase the likelihood that I will vote for Obama/Clinton in November, yes.  

    So, I guess that's a qualified yes from me to a Unity ticket.

    I'm not convinced that he will offer it to her. In fact, I think the posturing about Hillary's RFK comment was the lay the excuse for the Obama campaign to justify not offering her the Veep spot.

    I can't promise I'll vote for Obama without Hillary on the ticket.


    Obama would be stupid not to at least (none / 0) (#230)
    by sarissa on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:42:09 PM EST
    make a public offer of VP to Hillary.

    No way he can win without OH and FL.

    You left out a few adjectives (none / 0) (#233)
    by Foxx on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:42:58 PM EST
    like more qualified and experienced. Clinton as VP is asking the more qualified and experienced woman to be second. Obama as VP is asking the less qualified and experienced black person to be second. Former is sexist, latter is not racist.

    I don't agree, however, that your comment was race baiting.

    Superdels need to talk Obama into VP slot (none / 0) (#272)
    by scorbs on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:14:25 PM EST
    The superdelegates need to do their job and step in and talk Obama down from the presidency, to the VP slot.  I could support that, since I see no other choice.

    However I will never vote for Obama as President.  He is too inexperienced for the job, he leaks gaffes everytime he speaks, he lacks basic knowledge about American geography and World history, indicating he doesn't read enough or have any curiosity of the world.


    Hillary Clinton is clued in, wired up, a National Merit Scholar contender, ready to go.

    Give Obama time to get some seasoning and he might be good.

    But trying to put him at the top and forcing a far superior individual to shill for him is beyond tasteless.  It is an abomination and I won't vote for that hideous hydra.

    Obama Hillary Ticket (none / 0) (#333)
    by rmurray4574 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 04:05:30 AM EST
    I am a Republican and have to agree with the Obama Hillary ticket if he wants to win in the long run. His past has become way to controversial and I do not think he can get the White House without the Hillary supporters. Now whether or not she accepts it even if he does ask her is another topic.

    His church has hurt him tremendously whether he agrees with what they are saying or not. To believe otherwise is naive. I believe that the Republicans have held back their attacks on Obama, for the most part, until after he wins the nomination because they want him to win it. I think that his lifetime association with certain individuals will hurt him enough to make an easier win for us. In my opinion Obama needs Hillary to win but she does not need him.

    In closing I would just like to say, I know that alot of us voters disagree on alot of different issues but in the end I think that we all have this country's best interests at heart.

    Veteran , USA