home

Ed Kilgore For The Unity Ticket

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:11:41 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg This!! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Ed Kilgore on why a Unity Ticket is a good idea:

I know this is a deeply unpopular, even infuriating, suggestion to many Obama supporters who've watched the Clinton campaign savage their champion for many months. Indeed, some of them think the vanquishing of the Clintons from power in the Democratic Party is the whole point of the Obama "movement." Why, many ask, should Obama take on Hillary's "baggage" after finally defeating her at the cost of so much blood, sweat, tears, money, and approval-ratings points?

More...

The answer is simple, and for me at least, overwhelmingly compelling. Right now the Democratic Party is deeply divided, as evidenced by the steadily rising number of Democratic primary voters threatening to take a dive in November. Those divisions are, in fact, John McCain's most important political asset. Yet they are not about ideology, or about policy issues, really; they are about these two Democratic politicians, and all the symbolic freight each has assumed. The easiest way, the fastest way, and the only sure way, to heal these divisions is to unite their sources on a single ticket.

What he said. See also Tom Watson.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

Comments closed.

< How To Solve The Problem | The Electoral Map vs. the Primary Map >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Ed Kilgore For The Unity Ticket | 223 comments (223 topical)
    I think (5.00 / 20) (#6)
    by hlr on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:18:51 PM EST
    all the men writing these Obama/Clinton unity ticket arguments fundamentally don't understand Hillary's base.

    I'm with you.... (5.00 / 6) (#25)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:26:53 PM EST
    Clearly the media doesn't share the admiration a good share of the democratic party voters have.

    They are continuing on this afternoon claiming Hillary is saying the whites won't vote for him. They are ignoring that it is a segment of the white demographic, not simply "whites" who won't vote for him. Not one word out there about how Obama believes the Clinton's cannot capture the AA vote back. If they can't, it's because they were painted as the enemy.


    [ Parent ]

    Yes (5.00 / 10) (#32)
    by Emma on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:28:01 PM EST
    I think you're right.  Asking the more qualified woman to take second fiddle while the less qualified man is promoted over her -- it sticks in the craw.

    The question asked to every woman who's ever complained about the younger, less experienced, less qualified man promoted over her:  "Do you think you're entitled to a promotion?"

    Don't underestimate how many women "of a certain age" have lived through this more than once.

    [ Parent ]

    If Hillary were to accept the VP (5.00 / 5) (#93)
    by Boston Boomer on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:41:13 PM EST
    under Obama, I would lose a lot of respect for her.  I would not vote for Obama even if Hillary is on the ticket as VP.  If Hillary were on the top of the ticket with Obama as VP, I'd vote for them, but with a heavy heart.  I'm afraid the ticket would not win with Obama weighing it down.


    [ Parent ]
    how do you think (none / 0) (#129)
    by leftygogo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:48:49 PM EST
    Hillary would win over Obama's supporters?

    [ Parent ]
    if she ironed his shirts (5.00 / 3) (#134)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:50:11 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I think Stella was making a joke (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by leftygogo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:08:29 PM EST
    Everyone knows Hillary would curb stomp any man dumb enough to drop a load of wrinkled shirts on her desk.

    [ Parent ]
    Why are you so confrontationaL (none / 0) (#150)
    by independent voter on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:53:53 PM EST
    today? I am immune to you being a Clinton partisan, but the comments are truly coming across as spiteful this evening. You are better than this.

    [ Parent ]
    Maybe an astro-troll wore on her last nerve ... (4.20 / 5) (#210)
    by Ellie on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:11:36 PM EST
    ... or the sheer time-wasting factor of Team Obama's other transparently idiotic super genius strategies made her [grouchy, problematic, angry, bitter, clingy and say "I I I" instead of "we we we"].

    Could be a bad period or a hot flash though.

    [ Parent ]

    so just so I am (none / 0) (#158)
    by TruthMatters on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:56:04 PM EST
    aware how was this NOT a sexist comment?

    in fact you made a sexist comment while trying to attack Obama supporters as being sexist.

    just wow.

    [ Parent ]

    I am confident (5.00 / 2) (#224)
    by echinopsia on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:48:38 PM EST
    she will get his votes if she's the nominee. It's not clear he would get the votes she got if he were the nominee.

    [ Parent ]
    {raises hand} along with being told . . . (5.00 / 4) (#99)
    by nycstray on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:42:25 PM EST
    I make a fine salary for a woman . . .

    heh, we've come a long way baby . . . .

    [ Parent ]

    Wasn't LBJ more (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by IndiDemGirl on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:43:54 PM EST
    experienced than JFK?  Obama is getting "promoted" over her.  He has won the nomination  - or will.  At that time, asking her to be VP is not an insult.  It is a sign of respect for an strong campaigner.

    [ Parent ]
    JFK and LBJ were both men . . . (5.00 / 4) (#137)
    by Palomino on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:50:43 PM EST
    . . . so your analogy ignores the crucial aspect of sexism, that is, misogyny, that is, socially sanctioned, institutionally perpetuated, psychotic hatred of women, with all that this attitude implies.

    [ Parent ]
    There is a contest and (none / 0) (#207)
    by IndiDemGirl on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:09:17 PM EST
    one candidate wins.  The 2nd place candidate is a damn good candidate with strong supporters.  Winning candidate should offer position to 2nd place candidate.  That could/should  happen no matter what gender the candidates were.

    So if HRC was a man it would be OK for Obama to offer him the vp slot?  

    TO me it is sexist to NOT OFFER her the slot.

    [ Parent ]

    LBJ (5.00 / 2) (#178)
    by Emma on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:59:46 PM EST
    also got 409 delegates on the first and only ballot at the Democratic Convention in 1960.  He wasn't competitive against Kennedy like Clinton is against Obama.  And he wasn't offered the VP until after he lost the race fair and square. Let me emphasize the fair and square part.

    [ Parent ]
    BTD opened the discussion (none / 0) (#193)
    by IndiDemGirl on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:04:40 PM EST
    about the unity ticket.  Are you suggesting he is also against the "fair and square" argument?  

    But let's just say it is an entirely hypothetical argument.  In that case if Obama gets the nomination, I think it would be wise to offer the nomination to HRC.  

    [ Parent ]

    Actually, yes, but (none / 0) (#160)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:56:21 PM EST
    as I remember it, LBJ resented JFK tremendously.

    [ Parent ]
    Yep, but he stepped up to the (5.00 / 2) (#176)
    by IndiDemGirl on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:59:27 PM EST
    plate like an adult and did what the party needed. JFK wasn't a big fan of LBJs either, but he did what was necessary.  It's time for both sides to do the same now.

    [ Parent ]
    yeah, problem is that BO is no JFK. (5.00 / 4) (#191)
    by kangeroo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:03:57 PM EST
    not in a million years, not by a longshot.  wishful thinking won't make him so.  that's why the analogy doesn't fit.

    [ Parent ]
    Um. (none / 0) (#172)
    by ChiTownDenny on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:58:57 PM EST
    Didn't JFK have significantly more national experience that BHO, sexism aside?

    [ Parent ]
    My point is NOT to compare (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by IndiDemGirl on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:01:53 PM EST
    Obama with JFK, but was to give one example of cases where the traditionallly experienced candidate was the VP.  And couldn't you make an argument that Al Gore was more experienced in Washington wasys then was Bill Clinton?  

    [ Parent ]
    OK. (5.00 / 2) (#206)
    by ChiTownDenny on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:09:03 PM EST
    If the traditionally experienced candidate may have been the VP, what about the "no experience" candidate?  He should be the Pres?

    [ Parent ]
    This reminds me so much of Texas (5.00 / 3) (#192)
    by DJ on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:03:59 PM EST
    when Ann Richards who had done so much for us was kicked out for the good ole boy who did nothing for us.  Unqualified man over fantastically qualified woman.  Makes me mad, makes me sad.

    [ Parent ]
    This isn't a gender issue. (1.50 / 2) (#138)
    by 1jpb on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:51:01 PM EST
    Just as Wright needs to know that not everything is a race issue, many HRC supporters need to know that not everything is a gender issue.

    For one thing, BO is a more successful legislator in DC on big issues that affect the entire country or world such as being the lead D on online gov spending accountability and expanding international arms control, or being one of the two lead Ds on the biggest ethics reform in 25 years.  And, BO has proven to be better at managing a campaign, which is the biggest management challenge that BO or HRC (or McCain) have ever taken on and lead.  And, BO is self made, HRC had a huge head start because she inherited the political apparatus of the most recent D president.

    Secondly, even if you (unlike me) think that HRC is somehow more accomplished as a leader: it is undeniable that Dick was much more accomplished than George, and Dick wasn't made the VP because he's a woman.

    [ Parent ]

    No he's not (5.00 / 5) (#154)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:54:43 PM EST
    But you've said this, like 100 times today.

    It's been shown over and over that your statement is not true, both on this blog and other places out there.

    Please let it go,

    [ Parent ]

    Are you reading everything? (5.00 / 3) (#175)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:59:23 PM EST
    Very little of the posts in favor of Hillary address gender either explicitly or implicitly. She is simply the better candidate on all levels.

    [ Parent ]
    see Parent to my comment. n/t (none / 0) (#181)
    by 1jpb on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:00:58 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Half of what you say is not true and the other (none / 0) (#198)
    by Florida Resident on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:05:11 PM EST
    half is your opinion.  They have similar voting records so how can he have a more solid record on things that matter?

    [ Parent ]
    Nope, they don't... (5.00 / 8) (#92)
    by Rainsong on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:41:03 PM EST
    many Obama supporters who've watched the Clinton campaign savage their champion for many months.

    Nope, they dont understand Hillary's base. Some think Obama has been doing all the 'savaging'.

    Indeed, some of them think the vanquishing of the Clintons from power in the Democratic Party is the whole point of the Obama "movement."

    Yes, that sounds close to it...

    The answer is simple, ....The easiest way, ....to heal these divisions is to unite their sources on a single ticket.

    I've read this whole piece 4 times now, and I still read this cranky tone of how dare she?

    Its been her fault all along, and now its cast as it will be her fault if it doesn't happen.

    She has not wavered once at supporting Obama if he is the nominee, but he almost chokes at the idea in reverse, and if this piece is a strong example of how they might 'woo' back the voting base, then he has even more problems.

    [ Parent ]

    Sure (none / 0) (#35)
    by squeaky on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:28:22 PM EST
    And Pelosi gets it because she is a woman?

    [ Parent ]
    squeaky, (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by hlr on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:49:52 PM EST
    I probably should have said white 'creative class' men with their nice technocrat solution of dangling the Hillary cheese off of the Obama mousetrap. The mice will come!

    Nancy Pelosi just dislikes Hillary, that's all.

    [ Parent ]

    I Agree (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by squeaky on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:57:37 PM EST
    That Pelosi has bad blood with the Clintons, and that was the source of her remark.  But I am all for a unity ticket and it makes no difference to me who is on top. It just seems like the math makes the ticket unbeatable against McCain.

    Were Hillary perceived as the presumptive nominee how would you characterize those who supported a unity ticket? The same?

    [ Parent ]

    for many of her supporters (5.00 / 1) (#216)
    by hlr on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:23:34 PM EST
    Were Hillary perceived as the presumptive nominee how would you characterize those who supported a unity ticket? The same?

    You know, there are issues w/ the Black male subservient to the White woman as well -- it's called plantation politics, Miss Anne, etc.

    So, if such a unity ticket were suggested, and if some of his supporters were uncomfortable, then I'd have an issue w/ White surrogates pushing it as a picture-perfect solution to Democratic political woes.

     

    [ Parent ]

    Um...no. Class warfare. (none / 0) (#63)
    by oldpro on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:36:50 PM EST
    And envy.

    Ugly.

    [ Parent ]

    Based on statements she has made, (none / 0) (#108)
    by Boston Boomer on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:44:57 PM EST
    I think Pelosi opposes a "unity" ticket because she believes that running a woman and a black man at the same time is a losing strategy.  


    [ Parent ]
    Mighty Generous Of You (5.00 / 2) (#147)
    by squeaky on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:53:30 PM EST
    To think that she is thinking about the party. I read her as an Obama supporter that did not want to see a Clinton sully his ticket.

    But I will take your interpretation under consideration, even though I disagree with the math.

    [ Parent ]

    Yikes...I thought we were nuts (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:19:03 PM EST
    I read the comments, they are off the deep end.  This is starting to remind me of the Kathleen Turner and Douglas movie "War of the Roses".  

    Humpty Dumpty (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:20:59 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    The comments are astonishing. (5.00 / 7) (#38)
    by liminal on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:29:40 PM EST
    I was trying to figure out the stupidest point made by Kilgore's braindead commenters, and I think it's this:

    Bill Clinton is an electoral liability.

    Wow.  How seriously dumb can they get?  Bill was and remains popular with a broad swath of the Democratic base.  Obama obviously doesn't need to draw on Bill Clinton's (former) popularity among African-Americans, but Bill is still seriously popular with rural and working class voters.  On top of that, the Democrats biggest and best argument going into November 2008 is a simple compare contrast:

    1. Where was the country when Bill Clinton left office?

    • balanced budget;
    • a successful foreign policy;
    • relative economic prosperity;
    • low inflation;
    • gas $1.20 gallon;

    2. Where will the country be when George Bush leaves office?

    • huge budget deficits;
    • losing two foreign wars;
    • in the midst of the biggest economic challenge since the great depression;
    • spiraling prices for essentials - food, gas, utilities, possible stagflation;
    • gas $3.89 gallon;

    Democrats: have successful presidencies.

    Republicans: do not.

    These folks are insane.  Heh.  And I remember how excited they were when the Big Dog got out of his hospital bed to campaign for Kerry.  Oy.

    [ Parent ]

    I said this down thread (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by owenaprhys on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:40:52 PM EST
    the pundits just can't accept that we Americans don't hate the Clintons like they do.

    Especially since they have given us no reason to. If we had a Murrow or a Cronkite, I could see their judgement swaying opinions, but frankly I have not trusted a Teevee news person since we lost Rather and Jennings.

    [ Parent ]

    what obama supporters don't get is (5.00 / 2) (#214)
    by kangeroo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:17:30 PM EST
    that any benefits obama brings to the table are outweighed by his liabilities in other categories.  clinton's benefits far outweigh her liabilities, and especially so at the top of the ticket.

    the only state i can imagine obama bringing to the table in the GE is CO, if that.  but he's a liability, and conversely hillary is stronger, in delegate-rich swing/pink states like FL, OH, TN and blue states with checkered (red/blue) histories like CA, PA, MI, NJ.  not only do i think obama's ceiling is lower than hillary's ceiling, i think obama's floor is far, FAR lower than hillary's floor.  therein lies the problem.

    [ Parent ]

    One problem is (none / 0) (#96)
    by TomP on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:41:42 PM EST
    squaring her criticism of Obama with being VP.  Clinton essentially has questioned his experience/ability to be C-in-C and a few other things.

    I also think she might prefer the Senate, but who knows?  It would be historical for her to be VP.

    I wish there would be at least one progressive on the ticket.  Two centrists.  

    A "unity" ticket has some logic.  
     

    [ Parent ]

    Hello, Tom P. As I recall, (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by oculus on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:04:44 PM EST
    you were a strong advocate for John Edwards at DK.  How now?  

    [ Parent ]
    Two Centrists....?? (1.25 / 4) (#142)
    by Mrwirez on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:52:59 PM EST
    He is the MOST Liberal Senator in the Senate for God sakes. Who does not question his ability to be C in C also, HE Has NO record of anything.

    [ Parent ]
    I do not question his ability, since you ask, (3.00 / 2) (#163)
    by independent voter on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:57:30 PM EST
    I see an amazing manager and delegator (no pun intended) that has run a superb campaign, brushed off seemingly fatal problems, and kept cool and PRESIDENTIAL throughout the process. I do not want a President that can down a shot and a chaser...I want a President that is Presidential.

    [ Parent ]
    You think he is Presidential? (5.00 / 3) (#197)
    by madamab on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:05:08 PM EST
    I have never seen him handle any situation with one-tenth the grace and class of Hillary Clinton. He is rude, peevish, spoiled and entitled.

    Wait - he is Presidential!

    Just like GWB.

    [ Parent ]

    Presidential, you mean (5.00 / 3) (#211)
    by 1horseNag on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:12:09 PM EST
    like flipping the bird to Hillary JayZ style?

    [ Parent ]
    Nice Talking Point (3.00 / 2) (#167)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:58:17 PM EST
    Did you get that from Rush or Sean?

    [ Parent ]
    Unity Ticket? (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by uncledad on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:22:43 PM EST
    I wonder: the HRC supporters that say they would vote for McSame over Obama, would they vote for Obama if HRC was #2 on the ticket? If they would then I don't see a good reason why they would think about choosing McSame over Obama in the first place? Just doesn't make sense to me. I'll support whomever is on the D. ticket. Four more years of the neoconsuperfratboy's is not an option for me!

    Not if the Creative Class has any say in it. (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by jes on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:23:12 PM EST
    It is now out with the Bubba's and in with the Creative Class. The creatives have taken over the party from the Clintons and they will not give it back.

    They will go down in utter defeat.

    Oh, PLEASE! What cr*p (5.00 / 10) (#15)
    by suisser on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:23:23 PM EST
    "she should accept" and "assign (her) a minor role in the fall" ??  The most politically powerful woman in the land should accept these terms?  
    This is HRC we are talking about, former First Lady, 2 term Senator, strong advocate for families, incredibly hard working brilliant woman not some trophy wife who can be tacked on to a man to make him look better.

    Enough of this condescending cr*p! Enough of the diminishing her by turning her into a piece of "the Clintons"

    Stick a fork in me I'm done.

    Absolutely (5.00 / 7) (#18)
    by Emma on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:25:10 PM EST
    Condescending.

    [ Parent ]
    I think "they" believe (5.00 / 8) (#34)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:28:13 PM EST
    she should be honored to be asked.
    sad

    [ Parent ]
    She should be honored (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by IndiDemGirl on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:35:59 PM EST
    She has not won the nomination. He has (or will).  

    [ Parent ]
    see (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:38:53 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Why is this considered an insult? (none / 0) (#126)
    by IndiDemGirl on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:48:05 PM EST
    IT is the truth.  She's a great candidate and a very smart women.  But she didn't finish first.  That's why we have elections.  Assuming he does indeed reach the "magic number" it isn't an insult to her to be VP, or at least to be asked if she would consider the position.  

    [ Parent ]
    Obama didn't "finish first" either . . . (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by Palomino on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:03:56 PM EST
    and he can't without the superdelegates. Just like Clinton. Delegates and superdelegates vote at the convention, remember? In August. And there's a lot of time between now and then. So this is still going on, no matter how dearly Pumpkinhead and Tweety and you wish it would, oh please God, end. I realize that Obama is used to running virtually or actually unopposed in Illinois, but this is a big-league game--though Obama's announced intention to declare victory later this month is pure Bush league bull.

    [ Parent ]
    Finishing first and getting the required 2209 (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:06:42 PM EST
    delegates are two really different scenarios. The big change in the Democratic party is interpretation of the long-standing expectations for calling the winner of the race.

    There is every possibility the convention will take 2 votes to get the nominee. Delegates can vote however they want second round.


    [ Parent ]

    I'm not saying it's insulting. (none / 0) (#189)
    by ChiTownDenny on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:03:11 PM EST
    But it makes no sense for her to take the "internship" when she is ready and for him to take the position when he should have the "internship".  I can't support all the risk associated with an Obama presidency.

    [ Parent ]
    Will he win the GE (5.00 / 3) (#89)
    by ChiTownDenny on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:40:56 PM EST
    without Hillary's voters?

    [ Parent ]
    Most likely not, and (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:08:27 PM EST
    if he performs as badly against McCain as he did against Hillary in the GE debates (should he get the nomination), he'll continue to lose clusters of the support he now has, as well.

    [ Parent ]
    Well, no...he hasn't. (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by oldpro on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:45:33 PM EST
    Obama folks used to warn Hillary about counting chickens before they're hatched...maybe they don't want to talk chickens any more but still...Obama's will come home to roost and sooner than he thinks.

    As for being 'honored,' Hillary like Obama should be honored by the votes they get from free citizens who support them.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes, they both should be honored (none / 0) (#130)
    by IndiDemGirl on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:49:20 PM EST
    I'm not slamming Hillary at all.  I just don't see how offering such a formidable candidate the VP position after they have come up short is insulting.  

    [ Parent ]
    You can't really believe that? (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by owenaprhys on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:49:47 PM EST
    He has to win something like over 40% in each of the next elections. He may be able to get that in MT and SD but there aren't enough votes there.

    [ Parent ]
    Winning the nomination isn't so wonderful (5.00 / 3) (#135)
    by Boston Boomer on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:50:41 PM EST
    if you don't win the presidency afterwards.  Obama is a sure loser in November.  He'll just be another also ran.  It's unlikely he'll get another shot.  It's too bad he didn't get a little experience first and then run 8 years from now.  Perhaps he can write another book about his experiences as a presidential candidate.


    [ Parent ]
    Oh come on (none / 0) (#85)
    by IndiDemGirl on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:40:47 PM EST
    She didn't win the nomination so it isn't an "insult" to ask her to be the Vice-President.  

    [ Parent ]
    Nor did he. (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by oculus on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:44:52 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I'm assuming that the position (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by IndiDemGirl on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:54:17 PM EST
    is offered after Obama has won the nomination. And, even if I give you the point that he hasn't won the nomination a discussion of Clinton as VP is a valid one - as BTD, I assume, would agree.

    [ Parent ]
    Theoretically...yeah. (5.00 / 8) (#19)
    by oldpro on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:25:45 PM EST
    Practially, Hillary is in a bad spot with Obama as the frontrunner.

    If she's vp on his ticket and they lose, it's the Clintons' fault.  If she says no thanks and it's Obama/somebody else and they lose, it will be the Clintons' fault...somehow, some way.

    Really, though...how in Gawd's name do you see anybody in the Obama camp allowing a Clinton on their ticket when the whole point of the campaign was to get RID of the Clintons?

    'Splain that to me, please.

    Absolutely Not! (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by ChiTownDenny on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:26:58 PM EST
    The only unity ticket I can support has Hillary on the top, with Barack as VP, begrudginly,  I'd rather see Hillary 2012.

    I endorse this whole-heartedly (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by andgarden on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:27:10 PM EST
    HIllary has proven herself an adept campaigner. She can keep him from Losing Pennsylvania and probably Ohio.

    Me too! (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by bjorn on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:54:17 PM EST
    But I don't think he will ask her.

    [ Parent ]
    Then that would be a mistake (5.00 / 2) (#164)
    by IndiDemGirl on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:57:34 PM EST
    on his part.

    [ Parent ]
    Ed Kilgore: former DLC person, (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by oculus on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:27:53 PM EST
    present political columnist.  Has he publicly come out for Obama?  Is he on his team?  He needs instruction in how to talk to and about "older" women.  

    Indeed (5.00 / 9) (#33)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:28:10 PM EST
    watched the Clinton campaign savage their champion for many months

    Yeah, the guy who framed the Clintons as "racists" has been savaged.  F-word you, Mr. Kilgore.  If this is the way to introduce a "unity ticket" then count many of us Clinton supporters out.

    Ed's idea (5.00 / 4) (#36)
    by zyx on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:28:42 PM EST
    certainly isn't popular in the comments section after his piece.

    "WE DON'T WANT THAT WOMAN--OR HER SUPPORTERS."

    Hmm.

    Is that any worse (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by IndiDemGirl on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:56:40 PM EST
    than some of the comments on this site?  Nope it isn't.  The only difference is that you don't agree with those comments, but do agree with the ones on this site.

    I think the fact that the unity ticket idea pisses off the rabid supporters of Obama and the rabid supporters of Hillary makes it an even better idea.

    It's time for both sides to grow up.

    [ Parent ]

    They'll change their tune if Barack (none / 0) (#43)
    by andgarden on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:31:56 PM EST
    and the Commissars tell them to.

    [ Parent ]
    Sounds Exactly (none / 0) (#45)
    by squeaky on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:32:45 PM EST
    Like the rants that went on here when BTD suggested a unity ticket. I have noticed some, not many yet,  here warming to the idea.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't like his "tone" (5.00 / 8) (#40)
    by stillife on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:30:38 PM EST
    especially his claim that the Clinton campaign "savaged" the Obama campaign.  Puh-leeze.  Obama's damage has been self-inflicted (questionable associations and unfortunate comments).  

    IMO, a unity ticket is a pipedream of Obama supporters who see it as an easy fix for the disharmony in the party and Obama's little "problem" connecting with white working class voters and ethnic non-AA voters.  It's not gonna work because (a) Obama is too arrogant to ask her, (b) her skills and experience are better put to use in the Senate, (c) it's an insulting proposition to many Hillary supporters, and (d) he'd be better off with a white male running mate with military cred.  Even so, with his baggage, I see him losing to McCain in November.

    If Kilgore thinks the suggestion is infuriating to Obama supporters, how does he think we feel?  Personally, the proposition of a unity ticket makes me feel patronized and used.  Hillary is Teh Evil and her supporters are low-information bigots - yet he wants our votes in November.  Feh!

    "savage" (5.00 / 10) (#50)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:33:25 PM EST
    See, political amateurs.  They don't know how to bring people together.  The joke of historic proportions, the uniters divided the country more that before, now they made three factions.  You gotta love it.  You cannot make this stuff up.  

    [ Parent ]
    Took the words (5.00 / 2) (#173)
    by oldpro on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:59:09 PM EST
    right outta my mouth...

    "STELLAAA!"

    Gawd, I love Williams...

    [ Parent ]

    Inexperience Male needs Experienced Female (5.00 / 9) (#57)
    by nycstray on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:35:55 PM EST
    to get elected. Yeah, that'll work . . . not.

    [ Parent ]
    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by stillife on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:42:02 PM EST
    Maybe he should put an ad on Craigslist.

    [ Parent ]
    lol!~ I hope he doesn't ask her (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by nycstray on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:46:44 PM EST
    I want to see who his choice is after what he said in SF about not needing a VP with FP creds etc . . . I wish some names would leak from his campaign and not all this phony speculation. Especially speculation that involves gender . . .

    [ Parent ]
    Wasn't he hinting around about Bob Casey? (5.00 / 4) (#156)
    by Boston Boomer on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:55:20 PM EST
    That'd excite the Democratic base--an anti-choice Democrat running with a prez candidate who supports faith based initiatives and wants to "reach out" to the anti-abortion crowd.

    [ Parent ]
    God, I hope not (5.00 / 2) (#171)
    by joanneleon on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:58:51 PM EST
    That will drive women away in droves.

    [ Parent ]
    Including Catholic women. (5.00 / 5) (#183)
    by oldpro on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:01:12 PM EST
    Sometimes politics is an IQ test and not everybody is passing.

    [ Parent ]
    LOL! (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Cate on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:45:28 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Hillary, would you mind freshening up (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by oculus on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:48:41 PM EST
    the coffee?

    [ Parent ]
    Hillary would end up doing all the work (5.00 / 3) (#159)
    by Boston Boomer on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:56:20 PM EST
    and cleaning up after his gaffes and mishaps.


    [ Parent ]
    Kilgore (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by nell on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:35:58 PM EST
    writes his suggestion in such condsecending terms, it is just unbelievable. No, no, Clinton needs to stay away from Obama's ticket IF he is the nominee, and I continue to hold out hope that supers will wake up and smell the coffee (i.e. Obama is UNELECTABLE). He will lose, whether or not Clinton is on the ticket, and she should just stay away.

    Jeez, especially since we know how Obama supporters like Kilgore really feel.

    No R-E-S-P-E-C-T coming from the Obama supporters at all.

    Once again they miss the point (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by Florida Resident on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:38:57 PM EST
    I know this is a deeply unpopular, even infuriating, suggestion to many Obama supporters who've watched the Clinton campaign savage their champion for many months. Indeed, some of them think the vanquishing of the Clintons from power in the Democratic Party is the whole point of the Obama "movement."

    Is exactly the reason why the unity schtick might not work no matter how hard  both Clinton and Obama work on it.  From the beginning the movement has been a destroy and vanquish the Clintons movement that is not going to change just read some of the comments we still endure here and I have to admit these are some of the better Obamabots.  As I have said before I will probably vote for Obama if he is the nominee but I wonder if I will be the norm or the exception.

    Hillary as VP is very unlikely (5.00 / 6) (#84)
    by aquarian on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:40:26 PM EST
    I just don't see Hillary taking VP.  I was thinking about Hillary's trajectory during this  very nasty primary and realized that notwithstanding the horrible hits she has taken from MSM and blogger lunatics, that she looks even stronger now than when she first began.

    I was a weak Clinton supporter until the MSM had to pile on the mysogyny and she came back swinging.  She emerges from this campaign -- whether or not the nominee -- as a powerful and articulate democratic woman.  Taking VP looks paltry to what she could accomplish in the Senate -- I would dearly like to see her take over from Harry Reid.  Not to mention the earlier comment that an older, wiser, and more competent woman should not take a back seat to Senator Obama.

    can someone get this knife out of my back (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by DandyTIger on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:40:57 PM EST
    I can't seem to reach it back there.... snark. Well, after the knife is removed, maybe I'll think about unity.

    Obama's Political eGFR...Calling Dr. Dean... (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by SunnyLC on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:41:02 PM EST
    http://insightanalytical.wordpress.com/

    Did you know that "Exit polls taken in 30 contests so far showed Obama carrying the white vote in only seven, including his home state of Illinois."  ????

    More in my blog post...

    As for a unity ticket...Hillary shouldn't be his VP...none of this "get passed over for a promotion after training a younger man" crap.  And, if she is the nominee, she shouldn't be her VP, since he will drag her down. His relationships are a lightning rod the GOP will focus on...

    Hell NO !! Hillary don't do it!! (5.00 / 3) (#101)
    by Mrwirez on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:43:11 PM EST
    Let him sink, he WILL NOT win. I had to laugh, the DKers are saying Obama is as electable as John Kerry. Ahem... Did he not lose to GWB? Hillary can run again in 2012. He will be a blurb in the history books. I actually hate this guy now, I really do, he is just another slimy Chicago politician as far as I'm concerned. Also, I do not know of ONE Democrat locally that will vote for Obama. I am willing to take a four year dive for Hillary AND BILL Clinton on this one. The OBAMA campaign did play the race card on the last TWO TERM DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT, William Jefferson Clinton.. Fu*k Barack Obama. I am gonna go Green, Libertarian or "BLANK" for President and straight Democrat down ticket.

    Write her in please (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by nycstray on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:59:38 PM EST
    if enough of us do, we will be heard and they will also understand where the down ticket votes are coming from. Obama needs to teach that one to his new voters still . . .

    [ Parent ]
    While I want Senator Clinton in the White House... (5.00 / 4) (#112)
    by stevenb on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:45:30 PM EST
    ...I don't see her doing any good as the VP to Obama.  Obama is obviously too arrogant to even consider this, nor would he allow Senator Clinton to exercise any power as VP, essentially relegating her to a "do nothing" position.  Why do I say this?  Right now Obama is "looking beyond" Clinton, acting as if she is nothing but a buzzing fly easily ignored; he is even suggesting not campaigning in the next few states.  He is ready to IGNORE her working class base because he feels confident his black and educated base will be "enough" to beat the Republicans.  A totally false premise.

    Unfortunately, he is more interested in his own position as Democratic Party King than as the unifier of the Democratic party = making inroads with Clinton's coalition.

    Senator Clinton would be better off letting him lose in the general election while she paves a great career in the Senate.  I would rather have her become a great senate leader than Obama's VP.

    My 2 cents.

    Let Obama win (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by mikeyleigh on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:47:29 PM EST
    or lose on his own merits.  His wing of the party, his "movement" has made it quite clear that they don't need the Clinton wing.  So be it.  If Obama loses, then Hillary has another shot in 2012.  If he wins, Hillary can keep her Senate seat for as long as she wants it and join an exclusive club of politicians and statesmen who never made it to the White House:  Alexander Hamilton; Henry Clay; Daniel Webster; Sam Houston; William Seward; Al Smith; Adlai Stevenson just to name a few.

    Add me to the Hell no list. (5.00 / 3) (#123)
    by Katherine Graham Cracker on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:47:29 PM EST
    I think this is a mistake all the way around.
    There is nothing but being the scapegoat in this for Clinton.  If godforbid the ticket lost, she would get the blame.  I think she should spend the summer in up state NYC and be a good Senator for her state.  

    I don't see any benefit to Obama either.  How can you suddenly feel comfortable with someone you have painted as a hack and a racist.  He is not JFK and she is not LBJ

    They got my body now they want my soul but I'll .. (5.00 / 4) (#139)
    by Ellie on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:51:07 PM EST
    ... have none of that. Let the players play and give Sen. Clinton her due before peeling more of her support into Obama's column.

    Regardless of my current support for HRC, I'd have supported one, the other or both. He lost it before she earned it and when someone has my well considered and hard earned support, I'm there for the long haul.

    Obama hasn't earned this nomination, proven he's fit for office, won voters he dismissed as unimportant or made his case to the majority of voters he's baldly insulted.

    I used to think he was just green but now I believe he's unfit to serve. He'll be a disaster that not even teh awesome combination of Kos and Donna Brazile can save.

    And I'm sorry, after months of being demeaned by the Dems and Obama and typified as a racist and worse -- as thanks for all I've contributed -- it'll take more than an FREAKING Ed Kilgore PR appearance to repair things.

    Hearing the punditocracy and other patronizing party jackwads typify this as bruised feelings or other trivial bits of psycho-caca only underscores my belief that this changes nothing in the present or future.

    Obama's best apology speech ever would be a start. Sen. Clinton's in it to win it and Obama would be a drag on a more qualified, harder working, more experienced candidate's legitimate chance to be a historical first woman President of the US. I'm with HRC all the way.

    Maybe BTD isn't really advocating (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by oculus on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:51:36 PM EST
    an Obama/Clinton slate afterall.  If he was, why post such an inflammatory link?

    I Guess Kilgore Thinks Hillary's Supporters (5.00 / 5) (#149)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:53:48 PM EST
    are so so uneducated that they can't even read.

    I know this is a deeply unpopular, even infuriating, suggestion to many Obama supporters who've watched the Clinton campaign savage their champion for many months. Indeed, some of them think the vanquishing of the Clintons from power in the Democratic Party is the whole point of the Obama "movement." Why, many ask, should Obama take on Hillary's "baggage" after finally defeating her at the cost of so much blood, sweat, tears, money, and approval-ratings points?

    If he thinks that this type of rhetoric will make Clinton's supporters jump on Obama's bandwagon, he might just want to get a reality check. The message is "Hey guys, we need her supporters but first let me trash her for your first." Hint to Obama's supporters: Insults do not promote unity.

    Well, Kilgore is a real charmer (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by joanneleon on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:00:38 PM EST
    huh?

    LOL, I think I will just have to laugh (so I won't cry).  This thing keeps getting worse and worse.

    The entire first paragraph of that piece (5.00 / 2) (#184)
    by madamab on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:01:14 PM EST
    is nothing but crap.

    I cannot take the rest of it seriously.

    Ed Kilgore does not have a clue.

    Seeing Red (5.00 / 2) (#208)
    by chrisvee on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:09:18 PM EST
    Wow, did this make me angry.  So after the Obama campaign took a page out of the Republican playbook and tried to destroy her character, she should close her eyes, think of England, and be grateful that he is willing to 'take on her baggage'?  My hands are actually shaking (and I'm not normally this emotional; I tend to think a unity ticket is the only way to unite the party and avoid disaster in November).

    If we want or need a unity ticket, the Obama campaign better start making up for what they did to the Clintons during this primary or else they will not get a significant portion of Hillary's voters.  If we 'menopausals' (was that Wolcott's term?) don't feel she's getting proper respect, we're not going to be able to stomach watching her campaign for him.  She's a powerful Senator; why should she take the VP slot?

    And that 'rehabilitation' meme that is starting to work its way through the MSM needs to be shut down right now by the Obama campaign.

    This is the way strong women get destroyed in our society.

    I think an Obama/Clinton ticket is necessary (5.00 / 1) (#213)
    by lilburro on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:15:19 PM EST
    unless Obama somehow doesn't become the Dem nominee.  I agree he probably will, but there is still a chance he won't.  And he needs her...because people need to realize, OBAMA IS WEAK.  He may be exciting, but he is also weak.  If Clinton steps out of the race, the primary match up statistics will fade...and here is what we will see:

    McCain-Obama 46 to 43.
    McCain-Obama 46 to 43.
    McCain-Obama 46 to 43.
    McCain-Obama 46 to 43.

    That's TERRIBLE.  We should not be seeing these kinds of polls.  I don't care that it is early in the year.  Soon it's going to be pandering season and people will see what they want to see as both candidates jump from left to right to center.  If these numbers persist and the media reports them, the GE narrative for Obama will not be off to a good start, for sure.

    Also, I don't think Obama's passive aggressive approach to campaigning will work against John McCain.  The Republicans are masters of casual smearing.  Unless John McCain runs a campaign as inept as Hillary's, Obama will have an uphill battle fighting and defining McCain.  I am not optimistic.  

    I'm siorry... (4.83 / 6) (#2)
    by Rainsong on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:16:20 PM EST
    but smashing Clinton, with a tone of grudgingly accepting with great reluctance that she has too much support, may not be effective.

    Don't know whether to laugh or cry, we hate you Hillary, but we need you -- welll.. not you, but your voters.

    Clinton will rally her voters to Obama. No need to insult her further.

    I might... (4.50 / 2) (#5)
    by dianem on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:18:07 PM EST
    MIGHT... vote for Obama if Clinton was his VP. I'm not sure, but I'd consider it. That and counting Florida and Michigan might sway me. Not that he needs my vote, but I suspect that there are a lot of people like me in the Democratic Party - people who are looking for a reason to vote in favor of Obama who simply can't find one.

    Might, might. (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by rnibs on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:36:33 PM EST
    People are fools who think anyone other than HRC in the VP spot could sway some of us to consider voting for him.  It would be very, very hard to vote for him, but that would be the only thing that might cause me to actually vote for him.  

    I'd do it because I'd assume she'd be a very strong VP and knock some of his silly policy notions out of his head.  I think with HRC on the ticket, we'd at least have a chance at getting some of her policies through.  BO paired with any one else means BO's policies, which I will never support.

    [ Parent ]

    Richardson would not be it (none / 0) (#7)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:18:57 PM EST
    at least for me

    [ Parent ]
    I Might (none / 0) (#67)
    by owenaprhys on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:37:10 PM EST
    MIGHT vote for Hillary/Obama, I probaly wouldn't vote for Obama/Hillary. If I did I would be holding my nose like I did for Kerry in 2004. B/H would give him too much power. It would be just as bad as a 3rd term for Bush.

    I think one thing all these pundits just can't wrap their tiny minds around is that Americans DON'T hate the Clintons nearly as much as THEY do.

    I remember the Clinton years, unlike most of these teenyboppers on BO's side. He can't snow ME and make me thnk the Clinton years were bad.

    [ Parent ]

    Who is Ed Kilgore (1.00 / 1) (#170)
    by L Cadens Granny on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:58:48 PM EST
    and where does he tend bar.  Tim "lets have another" Russet would probably like to know.

    I am so angry at the accusations flung by anyone who is Obamablinded to the truth.  Again and again the Clintons have had to ignore the horrible name calling by Obama groupies.  Their campaign has been maligned repeatedly by Obama and his puppets.

    I cannot base a unity ticket on these untruths.  I have read and read several web sites, left or right or middle and the accusations espoused by the Obama "unifiers" contribute to the divisions some see