home

CNN Poll: Clinton Gives Obama 3 Point Bump As VP

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:30:13 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

CNN Opinion Research Poll sez:

What would Hillary Clinton bring to a Democratic ticket? Answer: about three percentage points. A hypothetical Obama/Clinton ticket would currently get 52 percent, compared to 46 percent for a hypothetical McCain/Romney ticket. And if she's not on the ticket? Sixty percent of her Democratic supporters would vote for Obama, 17 percent would vote for McCain, and 22 percent say they would stay at home in November and not vote for anyone.

Earlier, a Gallup poll indicated Clinton gives Obama a 5 point bump. I think electorally, no one offers Obama what Clinton offers him. Will the Obama camp be professional about this? Or will it be driven by personal feelings?

By Big Tent Democrat

< Prosecutor Sees No Evil in the Baltimore Police Dept. | Late Evening Open Thread >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    CNN Poll: Clinton Gives Obama 3 Point Bump As VP | 206 comments (206 topical)
    Let's See Obama on his own for a month (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by catfish on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:36:53 PM EST
    before we attach a veep to him.

    Good point (none / 0) (#103)
    by Y Knot on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:46:07 PM EST
    Veep speculation is always fun, and this year it seems to have a particular urgency, but I wouldn't actually expect him to pick someone before the convention. Why give the Republicans more time to fire at his running mate?

    [ Parent ]
    Unless Obama reads TL and all (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by zfran on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:38:06 PM EST
    of your posts, he is not as politically smart as you. Numbers are playthings and calculations are just speculation. No need...he knows all himself!!

    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:39:31 PM EST
    BTD,imo, is smarter than all those high paid professionals on Obama's team.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by sociallybanned on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:35:29 PM EST
    I think he is more of a con man.  He will screw up but he can strategize.  Just look how he paid all those bloggers filtering the net with crap about him to hide facts.  Online activism is more powerful these days than standing outside picketing.

    It's like amazon.com.  You want to work for them and research them and they filter anything negative out.  Something comes up for you to buy in regards to the question but it's hard finding bloggers to discuss how they almost were unionized and how they retaliated.  

    [ Parent ]

    Also, one way on another... (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by masslib on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:45:32 PM EST
    he needs to tell his surrogates to STFU about both Bill and Hillary.  They are still saying things about how awful they both are.  That doesn't help him.

    if Obama really wants to get (none / 0) (#13)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:50:33 PM EST
    Hillary's voters, he needs to have a "Sister Soljah" moment with the bloggers who supported him with relentless personal attacks on the Clintons.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm off teebee (none / 0) (#42)
    by waldenpond on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:10:23 PM EST
    I know the talking heads smear them all of the time and so does print, but I haven't seen quotes from his people, just opinion pieces.  Which of his people are saying things? or is it 'someone close to the campaign'?

    [ Parent ]
    Close to the camp peeps. (none / 0) (#43)
    by masslib on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:11:38 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    If he appears to listen to her (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by catfish on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:53:10 PM EST
    then she would make a difference. I'm concerned she will just be ornamental and have no influence.

    I still prefer state polls but (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by waldenpond on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:53:46 PM EST
    I read......."Nonetheless, it does indicate that unmotivated Clinton supporters may be a bigger risk to Obama than defections from the Clinton camp to McCain."

    and thought that it sounded like they were trying to play down the number that will flip to McCain and I had that view reaffirmed by this item in the comments....

    VERY interesting. So, McCain defections will probably NOT have the impact that some HRC supporters claim. How wonderful!! Some of us SMART people already knew that!!!! Duh!!!!!
    Go Obama!!!!!!!

    The Obama supporter doesn't think 17% voting for McCain is an issue? For every CS that votes for McCain, doesn't Obama need two?

    At least I am reassured that Feinstein and others are paying attention to the polls.  sheesh.

    Obama / Sibalius '08 (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:54:05 PM EST
    ZZZZ-zzzzz-ZZZZZ-zzzz ...

    I can't (5.00 / 0) (#46)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:12:26 PM EST
    imagine a worse ticket than that.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama / Wright? (none / 0) (#111)
    by Y Knot on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:50:05 PM EST
    that would be worse.

    And at that point I'd have to admit Wright was a legitimate issue. So, it would be doubly bad.

    [ Parent ]

    Wright (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:56:21 PM EST
    is a legitimate issue. Even Obama said it was. Wright/pleger/ayers/rezko are going to be his running mates anyway so he probably doesn't even need a vp candidate.

    [ Parent ]
    Even CNN's Polling Director fails math (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by RonK Seattle on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:56:03 PM EST
    Sixty percent of her Democratic supporters would vote for Obama, 17 percent would vote for McCain, and 22 percent say they would stay at home in November and not vote for anyone.

    So, what does that mean?

    CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "Nonetheless, it does indicate that unmotivated Clinton supporters may be a bigger risk to Obama than defections from the Clinton camp to McCain."

    Really?

    The 22% who stay home would cost Obama a net margin of 22% of whatever fraction they identified as Hillary supporters.

    The 17% who switch would cost Obama a net margin of 34% of the same number.

    And Gallup still has Clinton ahead (5.00 / 3) (#81)
    by Cream City on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:33:56 PM EST
    in beating McCain by 3, Obama beating him by only 1 -- and that's including the bump he gets from Clinton?  Yikes.  Well, let's see which VP pick would help him.  Hint:  It's not Sebelius.  It's not any other woman that I can see.  

    So don't go there, Obama.  You may think you're The One, and that Anyone with a Uterus will do.  But. We.  Are.  Not.  Interchangeable.

    [ Parent ]

    Shhh! (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Davidson on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:49:28 PM EST
    We mustn't let it be known that Clinton would beat McCain while Obama would lose because then it would make all this talk of Obama being the nominee and all this desperate searching for that magical VP who'll make him electable seem, I don't know, dumb as he**.  Who needs a proven winner like Clinton when you have the "hope" of Obama?

    And don't mention that these polls show him performing at his peak levels considering that the GOP hasn't even laid a hand on him and he still continues to enjoy the benefits of CDS-induced media darling status.  No, let's just pretend it won't get much, much worse and Lincoln descends from the heavens to run with Obama this fall.

    Please, for the sake of unity: no logic.

    [ Parent ]

    this I don't understand (none / 0) (#123)
    by Y Knot on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:55:37 PM EST
    are you saying Clinton is the ONLY woman in America who's good enough to be Vice-President?

    I just can't believe that's true.  Sebelius might not be my first choice, (scratch "might" she isn't)  but that's not the same as saying she's unqualified .

    [ Parent ]

    Oh come on (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:00:09 PM EST
    saying that picking a DIFFERENT woman to try to pick up Clinton's voters is a slap in the face to Clinton and would be viewed that way by Clinton's voters.

    [ Parent ]
    No, that's not what I said. (none / 0) (#156)
    by Cream City on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:18:40 PM EST
    So reread.  And if you see someone I don't, engage in the discussion rather than trying to twist it.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm not twisting... (none / 0) (#183)
    by Y Knot on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:52:34 PM EST
    I'm asking.  This wasn't a "Gotcha" post.   Look back at my comment.  It was a question, not a statement.  I'll explain my thinking, please explain yours.

    "We are not interchangeable,"  seems to imply that you think the only reason to put a woman on the ticket would be to placate Clinton's supporters, as opposed to him having legitimate reasons to pick someone he feels suits his needs, that just so happens to be a woman.

    That's why it struck me as odd, and why I'm asking.  I'm honestly not trying to be offensive.

    [ Parent ]

    even if he did pick (5.00 / 0) (#189)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:02:01 PM EST
    another woman becuase he thought she was more qualified and it wasn't to placate Clinton supporters, it would still offend Clinton supporters and would drive them away.

    [ Parent ]
    That's actually worse. (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by Y Knot on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:24:17 PM EST
    It's one thing to say that Clinton is uniquely qualified amongst all women in the country to be Vice-President.  I wouldn't necessarily agree, but at least we could discuss the issue of what does and doesn't make a person qualified.

    But to say that no woman would be acceptable as a running mate, no matter how qualified, because and only because she is not Hillary Clinton... wow.  I'm sorry, but that truly does smack of cultism.

    Having a strong, capable, accomplished and experienced woman as a number two as vice-president would objectively be a huge victory for women.  

    Personally, I'm a huge fan of Barbara Boxer.  I know her name never gets floated out there, I guess Foreign Relations isn't really a sexy enough resume, but I've voted her her and Diane Feinstein repeatedly.  I think she'd make a great VP.  

    [ Parent ]

    Amazing... (none / 0) (#201)
    by Spike on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:19:10 PM EST
    "It's not any other woman I can see."

    It's truly sad that some apparently think that there is only one woman in all of America who would add value to the Obama ticket.

    [ Parent ]

    Ahem...what about Oprah? (none / 0) (#206)
    by NvlAv8r on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:24:58 PM EST
    She could give every voter a new car!

    [ Parent ]
    Then it had better be Strickland. (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by masslib on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:56:05 PM EST
    The rest of the list sucks.  Sebelius is the WORST.  Edwards is a non-starter.  Webb is a loose cannon.  

    Nope (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Blue Jean on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:42:27 PM EST
    Strickland has already said he won't do it.  Besides, I doubt an anti-choice veep is really going to help Obama with women voters whose support for Obama is shaky anyway.

    [ Parent ]
    Edwards adds value to the ticket, in SUSA polls (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by RonK Seattle on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:59:06 PM EST
    Though he has emphatically said 'NO' (like he did last time?).

    He won't add value in the (none / 0) (#27)
    by masslib on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:59:50 PM EST
    long run, IMO.

    [ Parent ]
    Clinton gives Obama a bump (5.00 / 0) (#32)
    by muggle24 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:04:37 PM EST
    I'd like to see Obama at least ask Hillary to be VP, if for nothing else, to see all the heads exploding over at DailyObama. I don't know as I'd actually vote for the ticket, but it would sure be great, to hear all the puking going on over there.

    I love it (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:07:10 PM EST
    when people come on these blogs and say the fate of the world rests with voting for Obama and you're a bad Democrat if you don't vote for him.

    However, many of these same people say that under no circumstance would they accept Hillary on the ticket, someone who would almost ensure victory.

    Apparently you're not a bad Democrat if you refuse to do something really big pertaining to party unity, like accepting Clinton.

    Exactly. Here's a guy (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by masslib on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:12:27 PM EST
    running on unity who doesn't want to unify with the other candidate who won half the vote.

    [ Parent ]
    And (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:22:22 PM EST
    most know that I won't vote for him and it makes me seem like a hypocrite.

    But the immaturity and pettiness that I sensed from his campaign from the start is one of the reasons I don't feel he belongs in the Whitehouse.  I can't imagine such a petty person leading on SERIOUS ISSUES for our country, right now when I really feel that we're broaching on an economic crisis.

    Clinton, I know would have offered him the VP job yesterday. That's a huge difference in the grace of the two candidates.  She's a grownup.

    [ Parent ]

    If she were a grown up... (1.00 / 1) (#150)
    by NvlAv8r on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:12:52 PM EST
    She would have conceded on Tuesday and congratulated him on clinching the nomination.  Tuesday night was about him winning...instead her speech was all about her.

    Let us hope she makes it right tomorrow, and campaigns wholeheartedly for him.

    [ Parent ]

    That seems very odd (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by waldenpond on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:24:20 PM EST
    Have you followed any other elections?  Never has a candidate been forced to suspend.  Several have gone to the convention.  The media spin for the week or so beforehand was that she should have her night to end.  She just had two primaries.  She won in SD and she's supposed to brush off the people of SD?  She has supporters she needs to thank etc, before she hands off.  If you want to get technical, Obama did not have declared delegates.  It was based on anonymous supporters, which just seemed silly.  In fact, would he even have been over, whatever the weird number is they came up with, if not for the dels they took from Clinton and gave to Obama?

    It was always going to be a weak finish for him.  She had gained in voted on him in Mar-Jun.  There isn't much she could have done for him.

    But then, for certain people, the only thing that would satisfy them,......

    [ Parent ]

    Yep, I have followed other elections... (none / 0) (#170)
    by NvlAv8r on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:34:45 PM EST
    And when one person clinches the nomination or wins the primary/caucus the other person congratulates them.  And how is her congratulating him blowing off SD?

    He had a combination of pledged and supers that put him over the top once the estimates were in from SD, so SD put him over the top.  And the second primary put him even farther ahead, so he did not need the 4 delegates that the DNC gave to him (he was way more than 8 ahead of the minimum needed after the second primary).  

    No one is saying she should be forced to suspend, but she should have congratulated him on clinching the nomination at the very least and IMO gone further to either suspend or concede on Tuesday night.

    [ Parent ]

    well, for two days before (none / 0) (#184)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:53:48 PM EST
    the pundits were all saying that the super delegates would give Clinton the respect she deserved and NOT put Obama over the top until Wed at the earliest. So, blame Tuesday night on the super delegates.  She deserved Tues to that the voters of SD and thank her voters from the entire primary process and to make her final case to the super delegates.

    All day Tuesday the media was reporting CRAP.  First they falsely reported that she was going to concede and that was based on info the Obama camp sent to the media in order to try to suppress the vote in SD because they were tired of losing to her.

    Next they started to report that he was already the nominee in the afternoon based on unnamed super dels who were saying the were going to support him but hadn't actually done so yet.

    The final slap in the face was for 4 Clinton super dels to change to Obama before the polls even closed.

    As far as I'm concerned, they all got what they deserved from her speech.  They should have put him over the top on Wed like they said they would and he could have had his "moment" Wed night.

    [ Parent ]

    They didn't put him over the top (none / 0) (#187)
    by waldenpond on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:58:34 PM EST
    Actually they didn't.  They were some anonymous SDs.  Talking heads had talked to 'some people' who would declare 'if'.  It was a silly spectacle IMO.  

    [ Parent ]
    Why is it disrespectful to put him over... (3.00 / 2) (#198)
    by NvlAv8r on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:12:55 PM EST
    the top on Tuesday?  It wasn't a slap to have the state pledged delegates put him over the number instead of just supers doing it the following day; it is a much better narrative that SD voters put him over.  There was no reason to wait...he also had a primary victory that night.

    The press actually did have names of the superdelegates that publicly came out prior to the votes in SD (I will look for the site I was looking at that night)...they were not anonymous.

    Quit making this into anyone forcing her out, or blame it on the press for voter suppression.  He simply clinched the nomination, which is historic for this country...that is much bigger than her winning one last primary.

    [ Parent ]

    You are quite unbelievable (none / 0) (#192)
    by Valhalla on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:06:49 PM EST
    Obama and the DNC had to strong-arm a run of SDs to start endorsing hours before the polls were closed to supress votes in SD and cut her margin of victory (not a sign of a strong campaign that).

    Instead of letting her have one night to enjoy her win in South Dakota and give a farewell and thanks to her supporters, the DNC pushed him staggering  over the finish line and whipped around to accuse her of not paying homage virtually before the polls ever closed.

    They didn't have to do that.  If they had the SDs solid, they could have done the run of endorsements on Weds.  Her campaign was just as historic as his was, her supporters worked just as hard, she has just as much support as he does.  She deserves her few minutes in the sun.  They knew they were going to win and they still tried the sore-loser tactic of trying to suppress votes for her South Dakota.

    Btw, very, very few candidates concede on 'clinch night' during primaries.  I can't think of one.

    I can't believe you can't be gracious enough to allow her 24 freakin' hours to thank her supporters and catch her breath.  No, it's all "Boil that dust speck! Boil! Boil!"

    And, you didn't get the talkikng points memo.  Because Obama himself said Tues. night was Clinton's night "for her supporters."  


    [ Parent ]

    24 hours (1.00 / 1) (#202)
    by indy in sc on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:20:56 PM EST
    wasn't the issue.  Her campaign had clearly said before her speech that she had no intention of conceding that night and there was no backlash over that decision prior to the delivery of the speech.  The issue was the tone of her intro and her speech.  It was bad form when T McCauliffe introduced her as "the next president of the US" an hour after Obama had clinched the nomination.  Had she given a speech more similar to the one she delivered after the NC/IN primaries (and perhaps acknowledged that the 2118 number had been reached--without necessarily conceding that she accepts that number as definitive), I don't think anyone would have been up in arms.

    [ Parent ]
    Of course he said that... (none / 0) (#203)
    by NvlAv8r on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:23:17 PM EST
    He knows how to be gracious.

    Why does everything have to be a slight against Sen. Clinton?  

    The press tries to jump on stories on whether Sen. Obama will clinch the nomination and puts the stories forward...suddenly it is voter suppression, run by a cabal of reporters and sore-losers, instead of just a very hot news story.

    The narrative of a states voters putting him over the top is much better than SDs doing it...sorry, this is politics and having the state do it undercuts the Republican argument that he wasn't chosen by the people.

    Even if she didn't concede on Tuesday, her speech never congratulated him on his two wins (the primary and clinching the nomination), and it sounded like she didn't recognize he had clinched it.

    Do you think if she had lost her Senate race she would have taken 5 days to concede and congratulate her opponent?

    And no, I don't want to boil any dust speck (I'm all out of bezel nut oil, anyway...LOL).

    [ Parent ]

    Yesterday (none / 0) (#114)
    by indy in sc on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:51:34 PM EST
    would not have been possible for either candidate.  I'm not sure how you can say she would have picked him as VP right away.  It's just not practical/reasonable for a candidate to select his or her VP this early.  It has to be a deliberative process or else it looks like you take important decisions lightly and without the benefit of all the information available or evaluating alternatives--not very presidential (or maybe presidential if you count Bush 43 as presidential).

    [ Parent ]
    If he did (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:46:40 PM EST
    he would have instantly chosen the woman who took HALF THE VOTE.  I'm certain Clinton would have done so, but she's smarter and she's a grownup.

    He barely won, he stumbled across the finish line, she was gaining momentum while he was losing it.

    He probably wants to unify the party for the sake of a win, but his own immaturity is getting in the way.

    [ Parent ]

    well to be fair... (none / 0) (#84)
    by Y Knot on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:36:12 PM EST
    he wants to unify the country, not the party. Those two things might not require the same VP.

    I'm not saying he shouldn't pick Clinton. I think she'd be a great VP.

    But his calculus might be a little different.

    [ Parent ]

    On unity... (none / 0) (#86)
    by indy in sc on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:37:04 PM EST
    Please don't confuse the candidate with some of his vociferous "supporters."  He has not said that he does or does not want her on the ticket (and she has not said that she does or does not want to be VP).  Each side has had "supporters" who are not at all helpful.  You have to admit that the heavy-handed pressure job to put Hillary on the ticket by people who she says don't speak for her only make it difficult for that to happen.  We're not all the "Hillary-bashing" kind.  Many of us recognize her historic run and her strengths and some of us (myself included believe it or not) agonized over which candidate to vote for in the primary because we thought both were so good and brought different strengths to the table.

    [ Parent ]
    Not *all* the Hillary-bashing kind (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Nadai on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:53:35 PM EST
    Say hi to the other three for me.

    [ Parent ]
    LOL (none / 0) (#155)
    by indy in sc on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:17:13 PM EST
    That's pretty funny...I did have to laugh at that one!

    [ Parent ]
    it's very easy to confuse Obama with the (5.00 / 3) (#142)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:04:28 PM EST
    vociferous supporters because he has never made any effort to separate himself from them.  All he has ever done is take the benefit from their attacks on Clinton while at the same time claiming that he was taking the high road because he never "personally" expressed those same opinions.

    [ Parent ]
    Clinton has (none / 0) (#153)
    by Y Knot on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:13:42 PM EST
    some very nasty supporters too. Harrier Christian comes to mind.   I don't see her distancing herself from them, nor would I expect her to. Both candidates have about 18 million supporters.  They cannot be responsible for the attitudes of every single one of them.

    [ Parent ]
    You are right. Neither have said anything (none / 0) (#138)
    by Joan in VA on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:01:41 PM EST
    definitive on the subject. Also, she hasn't conceded so it's a moot point anyway.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm just saying (none / 0) (#147)
    by Y Knot on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:09:07 PM EST
    He has a bigger issue than "just" placating one wing of his party.    Frankly, if he wins by a 50+1 strategy I think he's already failed.  If he's going to be an effective President he's going to have to get beyond partisan politics. Is Clinton the best person to accomplish that?  From that perspective I'm not sure.  

    [ Parent ]
    if you look at the electoral college polls (none / 0) (#194)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:07:19 PM EST
    Clinton was beating McCain by more than Obama and she was bringing in more states than Obama.  So the 50 + 1 argument actually doesn't hold.  Last I looked she had over 320 electoral college votes against McCain and Obama was barely above 270.

    [ Parent ]
    Honestly? (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by kredwyn on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:27:41 PM EST
    How many different presidential elections have we lost since Kennedy?

    Hmmm...

    Maybe we should count the number we've won...it'd be easier.
    Kennedy
    *
    *
    Carter
    *
    *
    *
    Clinton
    Clinton
    *
    *

    That would be three...

    I have no idea what your (none / 0) (#99)
    by auboy2007 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:43:59 PM EST
    point is.

    Yes, since the 60s we've lost more Presidential races then we've won.

    I believe we'll win this one.

    [ Parent ]

    My point... (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by kredwyn on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:03:44 PM EST
    was that we've lost more than we've won. And that even though there are places where we've come very far, there are tons of others where we haven't come all that far at all.

    I don't think Dems are going to win this one.

    Maybe I'll be proven wrong...but...I've got no confidence in the party at the moment...

    [ Parent ]

    You forgot LBJ (none / 0) (#106)
    by Gabriel on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:47:03 PM EST
    Since 1960 there have been 12 presidential elections. Of those, Republicans won 7 and Democrats won 5, a net difference of only 1. The idea that Democrats can't win the presidency is bad analysis based on even worse math.

    [ Parent ]
    First (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:55:14 PM EST
    The net difference is 2. Two presidents means 8 years.

    Second, how many of the Republican versus Democratic presidents won 2 elections during that time?  Three -- Nixon, Reagan, BushII. How many Democrats won 2 terms?  1-- named Bill Clinton.

    Democrats know how to win elections, they just don't know how to successfully keep the office.

    [ Parent ]

    Net difference is 1 (none / 0) (#195)
    by Gabriel on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:09:20 PM EST
    If the Dems had won just one more election the results would be 6-6.

    [ Parent ]
    But that was in the "excessive '60s" (none / 0) (#129)
    by Cream City on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:56:57 PM EST
    and The One said that they were bad, bad, bad.  So we're not supposed to count them or anyone in them as having taught us a darn thing.  Whoops, was that MLK who went under the bus with that line by Obama?

    [ Parent ]
    Oh shoot... (none / 0) (#130)
    by kredwyn on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:57:04 PM EST
    I knew I was forgetting one.

    Still...that would be 4 since Kennedy, the president of my earlier example...

    [ Parent ]

    Oh no, the MATH (none / 0) (#140)
    by Teresa on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:03:05 PM EST
    Sorry, but that's too funny.

    [ Parent ]
    Say What? (none / 0) (#208)
    by Spike on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:37:36 PM EST
    Are you saying LBJ in '64 wasn't a Democratic victory?

    [ Parent ]
    And I'll take note (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:27:46 PM EST
    that you have 'boy' in your name.  Grow a uterus and then we can all talk about how far women have come.

    Just because a man, does not mean (none / 0) (#97)
    by auboy2007 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:43:01 PM EST
    I am stupid.

    It is perfectly evident that even though there may be a ways to go, all minority groups have come a long way since the 60s.

    And I say this as a gay man.

    [ Parent ]

    And I say this as one who is (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Cream City on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:59:23 PM EST
    not a member of a minority group, because I'm a woman:

    That there are more uteruses than p*nises in this country might matter in this election -- as it has in every election since at least 1980.

    [ Parent ]

    try being gay and see how far we have come... (none / 0) (#98)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:43:44 PM EST
    if you think sexism is socially acceptable in this society (and I do) try a little homophobia on for size.  That's more accepted than sexism.  Remeber the Rev Donnie McClurkin.....

    [ Parent ]
    Well, of course, some women are gay (none / 0) (#136)
    by Cream City on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:00:50 PM EST
    but, despite my mutual outrage at the treatment of gays in our society, I don't think your reply actually replies to the comment.

    [ Parent ]
    sorry, but (none / 0) (#148)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:10:15 PM EST
    the way Obama is willing to accept homophobia just because it is based in religous beliefs pi$$es me off.  The Rev Donnie McClurkin was the event that sealed the deal for me against Obama.

    The fact that Obama thinks that racial bigotry is so much more dangerous than gay bigotry makes me dislike him to the core.

    [ Parent ]

    Wow....he said that? (none / 0) (#157)
    by NvlAv8r on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:18:52 PM EST
    Obama actually said that racial bigotry was "so much more dangerous than gay bigotry"?

    I don't think so.  Have the Rev McClurkin at an event does not suddenly make him a homophobe.  He has been clear on his support for the GLBT community.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama's actions say that... (5.00 / 0) (#168)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:33:10 PM EST
    there were two recent administration officials who were caught up in racially insensitive situations.  ONe was the halloween event where someone came dressed in black face.  The other was the official who said something about blacks dying early so they somehow were getting a better deal with Social Security.  In both incidents they officials apologized.  In both incidents Obama didn't think their apologies were good enough and called for their resignations.

    Now, when Obama hired McClurkin for his gospel event and then found out McClurkin was a raging homophobe, he should have removed him from the event.  Instead he explained how we needed to be tolerant of those whose religious beliefs make them intolerant of gays.

    Compare and contrast these events and you can come to no other conclusion than Obama thinks racial bigotry is more offensive than antigay bigotry.  If he didn't he wouldn't ask us to be tolerant of those who are anti-gay because of their religious beliefs.  Bigotry is bigotry no matter what its source is.

    [ Parent ]

    I agree he should have... (none / 0) (#190)
    by NvlAv8r on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:02:10 PM EST
    Removed McClurkin.  But you are comparing apples to oranges.  You are talking about two officials in an official capacity (the Halloween party was an office function IIRC?) vice the homophobic pastor appearing as one of many religious officials at a function.  These two events are very different and of course his response is going to be very different.

    I do get your point, though.  But it is difficult with coming down on the clergy because so many denominations of Christianity are (wrongly!)against gays and will wave their bibles around.  And that is their religious right, though you and I don't like it.

    So we agree that his response sucked.  I don't think he is a homophobe, however, and he does support GLBT initiatives.

    [ Parent ]

    you proved my point (5.00 / 0) (#199)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:16:31 PM EST
    he is more offended by racism than homophobia or his reaction to the two would be the same.

    More likely he is more afraid of losing the votes of homophobes than the votes of racists.

    You can't make me believe that if Obama invited a singer to an official campaign event (which it was) and then found out the singer was a devout christian white supremicist, that he would have let the singer stay on the program.  It wouldn't have happened.

    [ Parent ]

    Backwards (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Davidson on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:28:58 PM EST
    For the love of God, the only way a unity ticket works is Clinton/Obama.  But, no!  We mustn't make sense!  No!  Let's do everything upside down and backwards by picking the unelectable, unqualified candidate who is hellbent on running an non-ideological/Republican-lite personality-based campaign.  Yes, that's the ticket!  And if he still can't win on that magical formula, let's put the proven winner on as a lowly VP!  Right, because putting a policy-wonk Clinton on the ticket will work in a personality-based campaign of "change you can believe in."

    Completely batsh**!

    I can't believe most of you haven't caught on: the Democratic "leadership" is throwing the election!  They don't give a damn, even if means throwing away the first woman president.  They only care about taking control of the party by removing the Clintons from power and remaking the Democratic coalition.  Again, they're purposely throwing the election.  This is all but a petty power play.

    No ,No,No..... (none / 0) (#166)
    by vml68 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:31:26 PM EST
    they are not throwing the election.

    Here is what Barack Obama has to say if Chicago is chosen to host the 2016 Olympics
     "In 2016, I'll be wrapping up my second term as president," Obama said. "So I can't think of a better way than to be marching into Washington Park ... as president of the United States and announcing to the world, 'Let the games begin!'"

    So you see they are not throwing the elction....he already knows he is going to be elected twice.. . :-)!

    [ Parent ]

    In a world where the media didn't insist (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Anne on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:33:36 PM EST
    on shaping and manipulating the story and the outcome, it would be a lot easier to assess the real impact and the real benefit or risk of having Clinton on the ticket, but the chances of the media giving up the power they wield are nonexistent.

    My preference would be for all this talk about a VP to just stop - I mean, no one has been hounding McCain on his own VP selection, so why no space for the Democrats?  Is the media just too interested in keeping the Obama-Clinton tension going?  Are they just too sad about not having Clinton to kick around anymore?  Have they realized that months of Hope and Change could be downright boring?

    The pressure also keeps Obama from having to stand on his own - and for people to get a better idea of what he is really made of.  Most of us who are Clinton supporters already know that Obama has never in his life risen to a position of prominence on his own, but has gotten there by a combination of old-style politics and questionable connections - it's time to see if there's any there there - while there is still time to fix it.

    One thing seems pretty obvious - there isn't going to be any unity anytime soon.

    The risks for Hillary as veep (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Yotin on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:44:40 PM EST
    I personally don't think it's a good idea for Hillary to get on Obama's ticket.
    If the ticket won, Obama will get all the credit.
    If the ticket lost, they would all BLAME it on Hillary -- the Obama campaign, party leaders, far left and the biased media.

    they are going to blame Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:56:50 PM EST
    if he loses with ot without her on the ticket.  That has been clear for some time now.  Hell, they blame her for Rev Wright, Obama's bitter comment and all of his self-inflicted wounds.

    [ Parent ]
    Blaming Hillary (none / 0) (#200)
    by shannon on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:16:55 PM EST
    You're right. They've been setting Hillary up for any Obama loss already. Randi Rhodes was pontificating yesterday that if Hillary is a leader her speech tomorrow will bring her supporters to Obama -- it's up to her!

    [ Parent ]
    Hillary and Bill would not only (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by WillBFair on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:59:51 PM EST
    help him win, they would show him how to govern, which he'll deperately need. We'll see if he really wants to unify the country and bring change. I doubt it. The guy was a used car salesman from the word go. I'll vote for him because there's no other choice. But the party has dragged itself into the mud.
    And the media is total Hickville. On CNN, they're talking about Hillary's mistakes, without mentioning the massive media smear campaign, or the DNCs electoral fraud.
    Are people really ignorant enough to listen to this trash?
    http://a-civilife.blogspot.com
    perfect Hillary... (3.00 / 2) (#193)
    by vrusimov on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:07:13 PM EST
    the fact is SHE MADE MISTAKES...and to deny that is not accepting that she had control of the outcome through her message and her ground support...she chose loyalty over competence, she tried to co-opt "change", a cloak three sizes to big for her...she assumed that it would all be over on Feb. 5th...she failed to prepare and so she prepared to fail...she chose to ignore caucus states and use the party machinery in the big ones...choices have consequences in an adult world...

    she was afforded tremendous leeway after losing 11 straight contests...any other candidate would've had his or her campaign extinguished long before that...establishment candidates of the "inevitable" sort have that leeway...the surname Clinton does'nt hurt either.

    the petulant and adolescent displays espoused here won't turn back time and allow her to rewrite history...scapegoating every Tom and Jane does'nt absolve herself of her responsibilities and her choices...not if she chooses to learn anything from the effort.

    it was HER failure that she did'nt win the nomination and the reason is clear, she just needs a mirror...her husband does her and himself a grievous harm by peddling such a departure from rationality and self examination...

    I'll say this about them, they are powerful politicians but they are extremely poor examples of personal responsibility for others, including their supporters, to follow...

    [ Parent ]

    MEDIA DITCHED, just deserts (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by fctchekr on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:23:51 PM EST
    This cracks me up!

    "Washington bureau chiefs from FOX News, ABC News, CBS News, NBC News and CNN, along with the acting bureau chief from The Associated Press, penned a joint letter of protest Friday to Obama's campaign manager and chief spokesman, " because Obama ditched them in order to meet with Clinton privately.

    http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/06/06/obama-ditches-press-corps-for-secret-meeting-with-clinton /

    Priceless!!!!! (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by zfran on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:33:16 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Just like jilted lovers. (none / 0) (#197)
    by shannon on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:11:11 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    the answer is pretty clear (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by pluege on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:06:08 PM EST
    Will the Obama camp be professional about this? Or will it be driven by personal feelings?

    running for POTUS after only 2 years of national service tells you everything you need to know about hubris, arrogance, and self-importance.

    A 3-5 point bump doesn't (5.00 / 1) (#211)
    by BlueMerlin on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 12:38:35 AM EST
    seem like much to me.  Hardly worth the pain and anguish it would cause both of them, especially Hillary!  She does not want VP, and has only offered to accept it if asked to unify the party.   My advice to Hillary is to offer herself then breathe a HUGE sigh of relief when he declines.  Next, get with Bill and come up with a plan to use their considerable combined intelligence and talent to make the world a better place.   Eliminate genocide, fix the middle east.   Something big.   And leave the children here to play in their sandbox of dirty U.S. politics.  

    The best argument I've seen against a Unity Ticket (1.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Demi Moaned on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:11:54 PM EST
    ... comes from Debra J. Saunders of the SF Chronicle, who argues that it may be necessary. Note how she starts her argument though:
    Of course Hillary Rodham Clinton would be willing to be Barack Obama's running mate. Look at her marriage, and tell me she won't settle for second place.

    Actually, apart from the vitriol, her actual argument has some sense. But she's such a mouthpiece  for Republican propaganda that I fear it may be tainted advice.

    no VP... (1.00 / 2) (#177)
    by vrusimov on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:42:53 PM EST
    there are a myriad of reasons why he should'nt and won't choose her...all he needs is one...and it does'nt have to be personal...it will however be rational, something that is a scarcity in this thread.

    the groupthink and cognitive dissonance fiasco tuesday night in the bunker did her no favors...the most disrepectful display even by her standards...but it was just more of the same from February, where she a had a rather marked propensity, or distaste if you prefer, for not acknowledging her opponents triumphs...

    It is plain to see that she has little respect for Obama, his credentials, his achievements, his victories, his historical candidacy or anything else...she has undermined is candidacy in ways that only a Republican should be allowed to...her willingness to "kitchen-sink" the man while leaving no stone uncovered is one of the chief reasons why making her VP is an exercise in capitulation of the highest order.

    Rangel and Rendell had it right with their observations that the party needed to close ranks and that threats were the wrong avenue of approach to the presumptive nominee...

    In the end it went precisely the way i told my wife it would back in January...her being dragged from the stage with the microphone in hand...

    Clinton is a resourceful, tenacious, intelligent and driven politician...but ripping everything asunder around you and then expecting unequivocal support or absolution is extremely naive as is exploiting the politics of division and subterfuge to undermine a fellow party candidate.

    Having read "TAOH" and "Promise to Power", i can say with some degree of certainty, that he won't pick Clinton...he believes deeply in his ability to win over any constituency, given enough time...he sees it as a challenge and he has the utmost faith in Americans to see that what unifies us is vastly more important than what divides.

    Choosing Clinton guarantees that the presidency will not be his own...his campaign message will be undermined, his credibility will be called into question, given their previous idoicy about commander-in-chief thresholds and any experience beyond a speech that he made in 2002...

    what will happen when the questions come about fairy tales, race-baiting, Jesse Jackson, sliming Hillary, MLK, race cards and etc. etc.

    the media and John McCain will point these hilarious contradictions out and use them against Obama and the message of his campaign.

    The genie just does'nt slip back easily into the bottle...

    what will happen when questions about the Clinton library and financial donors dominate the news cycle...heaven forbid anything falling from the Peter Paul trial...what happens when Republicans want to revisit all the nonsense from the first Clinton administration...just because it's been parsed and parceled does'nt mean it will be off-limits...

    Obama has enough negatives of his own to deal with...a pair that can polarize like her and Bill could hi-jack the news cycle and the message of the campaign with little impetus or reason. As a pair, they could do the same or worse to a presidency...

    Finally, it may be that Obama does'nt really need her...by November the temperature of the democratic electorate will be quite different after the faustian bargaining, flip-flopping and tongue-tied McCain uses whatever means necessary in his crusade to achieve high office...

    Her just reward is continued service in the Senate and perhaps a position in an Obama cabinet but not VP, no way...he could'nt get her off the stage in the primary but he will determine if she even gets to see the show in November...just as it should be...

    Wow.... (none / 0) (#188)
    by otherlisa on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:59:23 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    MALARKEY (none / 0) (#209)
    by fctchekr on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:41:06 PM EST
    What a diatribe of anti-Hillary malarkey and pro-Obama idolatry..

    ...."he believes deeply in his ability to win over any constituency, given enough time...he sees it as a challenge and he has the utmost faith in Americans to see that what unifies us is vastly more important than what divides."

    Your statements reveal how utterly blind the Obamamania veneration really is. It's as if you were talking about someone with supernatural powers that could unite the entire country with the flash of a smile. Well he's had 15 mos and the Democratic Party is probably more divided than we've ever been in our history.

    ..."a pair that can polarize like her and Bill could hi-jack the news cycle and the message of the campaign with little impetus or reason. As a pair, they could do the same or worse to a presidency..."

    The flip is that he polarizes just a much, if he didn't the polls wouldn't be this close. These are patent complaints on every Hillary detractor's list, but they don't wash. Actually they smack of old Republican talking points..very unoriginal.

    Just look at it this way, most of the current excitement about the VEEP spot is not being generated by any of the other candidates...

    If you look at Republicans, there is zip excitement, scant attention to their VEEP process. It's all being generated by these two candidates, the long process and the need to know if SHE's going to be the one..if it's marketable that means it's electable....

    [ Parent ]

    VP is the best course for Clinton (none / 0) (#2)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:37:07 PM EST
    It is really the best chance she has for becoming pres one day.  these are her options

    As VP an they win, she becomes the favorite in 2016

    As VP and they lose, she is the fav in 2012

    Not VP and he loses, she is the favorite in 2012

    Not VP and he wins, then his VP is the favorite in 2016.

    Plus, I think her age in 2016 wouls be less of a factor if sheis sitting VP than if she was not.

    It (5.00 / 0) (#8)
    by tek on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:43:38 PM EST
    would be a terrible path for Hillary.  The Obama crowd hates Hillary.  She would be totally marginalized, the hatespeak would continue and he would do nothing to stop it.  She's much better off returning to the Senate.  Vice presidents have no role, no power.  She'd be better off to be McCain's VP.  He's offering incentinves to get Hillary Dems.

    [ Parent ]
    Vice President's have no role!! (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by zfran on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:45:28 PM EST
    Did I miss Dick Cheney's role for almost 8 years?????

    [ Parent ]
    Obama is not GW. Remember Al Gore's (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Joan in VA on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:54:36 PM EST
    many accomplishments? Me neither.

    [ Parent ]
    Actually I do remember Al Gores... (none / 0) (#39)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:07:40 PM EST
    ...accomplishments. He had a lot to do with bringing down the deficit through his work in reforming the way that a lot of the agencies did business, among other things. I remember that specifically because I work in DC.

    [ Parent ]
    Of course. But most Americans (none / 0) (#120)
    by Joan in VA on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:54:29 PM EST
    really had no idea that he was doing anything but attending ceremonies. And Obama is not going to have a Cheneyesque VP. He's just not that personality type, imo.

    [ Parent ]
    My understanding (none / 0) (#159)
    by otherlisa on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:20:43 PM EST
    is that Gore was one of the most powerful VPs in modern history. Probably THE most powerful before Cheney. He spearheaded the REGO (?) - "Reforming Government" effort and was also supposedly the guy who pushed for decisions to be made when Bill Clinton tended to prevaricate.

    [ Parent ]
    Oh Oh! (none / 0) (#164)
    by Valhalla on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:29:51 PM EST
    and he invented the Internet!

    Don't forget that one.

    [ Parent ]

    gee (none / 0) (#49)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:12:43 PM EST
    I kind of remember Gore getting the nomination as sitting VP rather easily and then winning the general election except for that little FL thing.  But, apparently, the DNC has figured out how to fix that kind of thing now.  If that were to happen again, they would just take the necessary number of delegates away from the repug and award them to the dem a presto, we have a winner

    [ Parent ]
    You really think (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by kredwyn on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:57:57 PM EST
    that he'd let her be more than a figurehead...or doing what he wants her to?

    [ Parent ]
    Frankly, Obama is going to be (none / 0) (#25)
    by masslib on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:58:57 PM EST
    leaning on advisors.  He has no experience.  Better someone who has advised before.

    [ Parent ]
    Remember what happened to Powell? (none / 0) (#30)
    by kredwyn on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:03:24 PM EST
    He all but vanished until he was needed to help prop up the WHouse.

    That will be Hillary.

    Lots of advisors...most of whom will try and shut her out.

    [ Parent ]

    plus, since its only 3 points (5.00 / 0) (#12)
    by dotcommodity on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:46:11 PM EST
    let him go out and earn those 3 points on his own. Its not worth her risking a chance at 2012.

    [ Parent ]
    If they lose, she is not the favorite (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by Joan in VA on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:46:04 PM EST
    for dogcatcher.

    [ Parent ]
    You do realize (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:51:14 PM EST
    she'd be 68 or 69 in 2016.

    LOL.  Once again.  She'd be Hillary Clinton. AND A WOMAN. AND 68-69.

    It's funny of you to even suggest it.

    [ Parent ]

    And you know (5.00 / 0) (#70)
    by chrisvee on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:25:41 PM EST
    no one wants to see a woman aging in office.  Just ask Rush.

    [ Parent ]
    The age thing (5.00 / 0) (#17)
    by shannon on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:53:37 PM EST
    The Obama media haven't gotten the message that age shouldn't be a factor now or in 2016. Tonight, in a discussion about Hillary