CNN Poll: Clinton Gives Obama 3 Point Bump As VP

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 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • 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?

    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.

    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.  


    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.

    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'?

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

    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."


    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 / 2) (#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.


    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.


    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 .


    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.  


    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.


    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!

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.


    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,......


    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.


    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.


    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.  

    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.


    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."  


    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.

    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).


    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).

    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.

    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!

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.  

    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.

    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?


    Maybe we should count the number we've won...it'd be easier.

    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.


    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...


    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.

    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.


    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.

    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?

    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...


    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.

    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?

    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.


    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.


    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.....

    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.. . :-)!


    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.

    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?

    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...


    MEDIA DITCHED, just deserts (5.00 / 0) (#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
    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
    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....


    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.

    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?????

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.


    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

    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?

    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.

    stop it. (5.00 / 0) (#21)
    by hilldemgoneindie on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:54:38 PM EST
    stop pushing for hillary as vp. i dare say most of us who will NOT vote for obama IF he is the nominee, will NOT vote for him even if she's on the ticket. he does not deserve the top of the ticket AND he will be poison to her future political career because HE WILL LOSE in november. if, however, the dnc manages to steal the election as they have the primary, then his ONE-TERM presidency will no doubt destroy any of her future chances for POTUS. just my humble opinion.

    I'll vote for it (none / 0) (#28)
    by waldenpond on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:00:53 PM EST
    Clinton is an intelligent, powerful politician and could do great things with the position.  They balance each other out personality wise.  Also, I don't think there are any pols that have the image she has (FP, Iraq, economy, people person) right now.  She ended on a high note, moving up in wins and numbers.  She's got the demos and states he needs.  There is no one VP option that brings what she does.  He won't lose with her on the ticket. IMHO.

    No one is limited by a job title or job description.


    I like the picture (none / 0) (#31)
    by waldenpond on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:03:43 PM EST
    of them together too.  Someone else reminded me of the debate they did together at the table... I liked that image too.  Don't care for Obama, but it's a great ticket.

    I'm sorry, I must have missed something (none / 0) (#51)
    by auboy2007 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:15:08 PM EST
    How did the DNC steal and election?  Are you speaking about the enforcement of the rules? The RBC ruling?  You know at this point even if the delegates were all sat, he'd still be the presumptive nominee, right?

    And where can I get your crystal ball?  You seem to know that he'll lose and if not he'll be a one term president.

    I'll bet you money both of your predictions are wrong.


    Sorry about the (none / 0) (#52)
    by auboy2007 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:15:28 PM EST
    double post.

    You really want to step... (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by kredwyn on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:20:40 PM EST
    into that steaming pile of...well...y'know?

    Not a camp follower for either camp...

    But I do find it incredibly ironic that when I wandered away from Dkos...the general consensus was that if the SDs decided it for a "particular" candidate, then it was out and out election stealing.

    Now that the SDs appear to have decided the nomination for the other candidate...it's fair and square.


    The general mood was that (none / 0) (#65)
    by auboy2007 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:23:54 PM EST
    if the Supers decided against those one with the most pledged delegates, then there would be trouble.

    They did not do so.


    Ironic says I... (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by kredwyn on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:25:18 PM EST
    How is that ironic? (none / 0) (#73)
    by auboy2007 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:27:16 PM EST
    That's a serious question.

    People did not want to see the leader in pledged delegates lose on the basis of the Super Delegates.

    That didn't happen.  If it had, people would have been upset.

    I fail to see the irony, unless you're suggesting it would be completely different if the candidates were switched.  But I don't think it would be, at least not for me.


    That's cause you aren't looking... (5.00 / 3) (#82)
    by kredwyn on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:34:29 PM EST
    And you're only focused on the # of pledged delegates, which is only one of the various things that SDs were looking at...

    And ironically, something that many over at the Orange scoffed at as a real determiner when it looked like he was behind in pledged delegates...and ahead in the popular vote.

    I've watched this whole thing with an analyst's fascination...

    I've watched as people argue one thing only to turn tables and argue exactly the opposite without so much as batting an eye.


    The whole point of the superdelegates is (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by Calvados on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:58:15 PM EST
    to allow experienced politicians to weigh in and influence close races for the good of the party and the country.

    An overwhelming lead in so-called pledged delegates would eliminate the possibility of the superdelegates playing a deciding role.  Senator Obama did not achieve that.  

    The suggestion that the superdelegates are obligated to suppress their own judgement to blindly follow the majority either of pledged delegates or of voters is a travesty.  The fact that this is the reasoning that most superdelegates have given for supporting Obama is a shame.

    The reason the automatic delegates exist and can vote is that they have a perspective that should complement the marketing- and sound-bite-driven masses.

    In any case, barring a dramatic turnaround, a sufficient number of superdelegates are committed to cast the decisive votes to nominate Senator Obama, and we'll all be affected by the consequences.


    Thus... (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by kredwyn on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:08:02 PM EST
    my flippant Magic 8 Ball theory ;)

    I know why the SDs exist. And I'm well aware of how many different things the SDs can and should use to determine their vote...and their change of vote.


    Please point to me where Obama (none / 0) (#92)
    by auboy2007 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:41:25 PM EST
    has been behind in pledged delegates?  It's never happened.

    And while SDs may look at a lot of things, there are many who feel the pledge delegate count should be given the most weight.


    Then what is the point? (5.00 / 0) (#108)
    by Joan in VA on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:49:12 PM EST
    Do you know when SD's were created and why? There is no reason to have them if they are only to ratify the pledged delegate count.

    I think that the Magic 8 Ball (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by kredwyn on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:52:24 PM EST
    should be given the most weight...cause it's the best determiner of the future...maybe tarot cards too.

    IIRC there was some point early on in the race where he was behind in delegates (perhaps it was a combination of SDs and delegates)...

    My point is that the delegate count can change (including the removal of 4 delegates from Clinton's MI count into the Obama column by RBC fiat)...and the PG Co. delegate [in MD...our ballots call for us to vote for delegates e.g. Joe Smith (Candidate X)] who moved from Clinton to Obama without considering the Clinton voters who voted him in as a delegate.

    Pledged...is an elastic term when it comes to delegates. And SDs know this.

    Polls, votes, will of the people, delegates, weather, economy, other stuff...all go into determining who will be the SD's pick.

    It's up to the SD...and that's what a lot of folks over at the Orange had problems with...or have you forgotten the numerous diaries discussing how horrid the SD system was.


    The lead was (none / 0) (#143)
    by auboy2007 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:05:13 PM EST
    a combination of SDs and Pledged delegates.  At no point has Obama been behind in pledged delegates.

    And btw, I do think the SD system is horrid.  It's why I think they should follow the pledge delegate lead, and why we should get rid of them.


    The SDs should do... (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by kredwyn on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:13:05 PM EST
    what it is that they do.

    Remember the argument over at the Orange that the SDs should vote the way their states did?

    Yep...that was a pretty solid argument...right up until MA went for Clinton and Kennedy/Kerry went the other direction...same with Byrd.

    So that argument went out the window.

    The SDs were set up for a reason...they've got a role...and interestingly...they can change their minds any time between now and the end of the convention.


    No, the Obamans said (5.00 / 3) (#91)
    by Cream City on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:40:58 PM EST
    that the super-delegates ought to go with the leader in the popular vote.  Got that?

    And that, of course, is Clinton.  But then, it has been evident for some time that this thing happens to memory banks of Obama supporters.  After all, they think that the '90s were bad, bad, bad.

    It really is frustrating to see historical revisionism occur en masse for an era that isn't even a decade ago yet.  But the widespread Obama mantra that popular vote ought to rule uber alles was only a few months ago -- y'know, before Clinton began winning by far.  C'mon.


    Btw, I must say that I am concerned (none / 0) (#144)
    by Cream City on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:07:23 PM EST
    that a law student does not see problems in the DNC not only amending its rules as it did last August but then even violating its charter in the recent ruling by the rules committee, which is charged with making sure that no committee ever would do so.

    If you can't see that, or if you really don't know how wrong their actions were, then you might want to study up on the DNC rules, bylaws, and charter.  It is that most recent action, especially, that shows that the DNC has become corrupt -- and, well, lawless.


    The DNC is a private organization (none / 0) (#165)
    by auboy2007 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:31:00 PM EST
    and can amend its rules anytime it pleases.

    I'm confused by your statement about the rules committee, so if you care to clarify, then I can respond.


    It appears that... (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by kredwyn on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:36:50 PM EST
    according to BTD (in a lawyerly analysis), the DNC broke its own rules.

    Rules and votes (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by waldenpond on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:43:25 PM EST
    Really don't need to rehash the rules.  They have been discussed to death.  If fact the R&B was live blogged here.    

    Clinton had the popular vote.  You may disagree.  Clinton supporters do not.  The Repubs will use this when they campaign nationally.  Obama was picked by the elitist DNC against the will of the people.

    The DNC violated it's rules when it chose to strip 100% rather than 50% of the dels.  You may disagree.  Clinton supporters do not.  The Repubs will use this when they campaign nationally.

    The DNC violated it's charter at the R&B when (according to Dean, in the name of unity, ha!) they chose to take delegates from one candidate and give them to another.  You may disagree.  Clinton supporters do not.  The Repubs will use this when they campaign nationally.  Obama was picked by the elitist DNC against the will of the people.

    Now, you may disagree with this, but the Repubs are going to use it against you.  The problem is made greater, in that it is not the Dems against the Repubs... this time it is the Dems against the Repubs and millions of Clinton supporters.


    Real Dems don't use the word... (1.00 / 0) (#181)
    by NvlAv8r on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:49:01 PM EST
    "elitist" as a pejorative talking point.

    Only Republicans do.  Remember the '90s when the Clintons were painted as "elitists".  I do.  It was stupid then and it is stupid now.


    Don't 'real dem' me (5.00 / 2) (#186)
    by waldenpond on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:54:23 PM EST
    I was using the 'elitist' to make the point.. hence the numerous references to Repubs.

    Don't couch your words to call me stupid either.  

    Insulting other commentors will get you items deleted.


    Mine too (none / 0) (#167)
    by Valhalla on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:32:06 PM EST
    Except the Dems are crazy if they think they can pull another vote-stealing stunt in a close race.  Because the SC is not the RBC.

    This is (none / 0) (#4)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:38:17 PM EST
    not going to happen IMO. Michelle says no. His campaign is saying they don't want Bill Clinton campaigning for them etc.

    I find it amazing that in a supposed "democratic year" these polls are so close. It makes me believe that it's really not a democratic year. It also makes me believe that McCain has a very good shot at winning. Obama's offensive against McCain has really been pathetic. Does he think that the only people who vote are people who watch MTV?

    And who is really in charge, Obama, (none / 0) (#6)
    by zfran on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:39:41 PM EST
    his campaign or his wife?

    Consistency (none / 0) (#59)
    by indy in sc on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:21:09 PM EST
    We should support Michelle Obama in the same way we did Hillary Clinton.  This comment is similar to the comments made about Bill Clinton's presidential campaigns by people who were afraid of a strong woman as first lady (and a husband who actually listens to his wife and seeks her counsel).  Obama was (and is) my candidate, but I've always supported Hillary's strength and never thought it was something she should downplay.

    If Michelle (none / 0) (#87)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:37:15 PM EST
    had stood up when she was asked then it would be a different story. However, she chose the snide and the low road so, sorry, but she'll have to learn to handle it herself. What goes round comes round is all I can say.

    Which low road? (none / 0) (#162)
    by NvlAv8r on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:27:13 PM EST
    All of the stories I've seen about Michelle Obama nixing the Sen. Clinton as VP have been hearsay, and no one could prove it.  Perhaps you have a link as to where she is quoted or a real source quotes her?

    No, we don't support women just because (none / 0) (#96)
    by Cream City on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:42:57 PM EST
    they're women anymore than we vote for them on that basis, do we?  I don't.  I judge them on the same basis that I judge men: by their "just words" and actions.

    And Ms. Obama has behaved badly.  I think more highly of Laura Bush.


    Consistency (none / 0) (#105)
    by waldenpond on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:47:01 PM EST
    would say you just made the wrong argument.  Your problem is M Obama is going to be treated exactly like Clinton.  She interjected herself in to the campaign process and is on video everywhere.

    I see you only have two comments so I have no idea on what your past statements regarding Clinton might be.


    More on Consistency (none / 0) (#149)
    by indy in sc on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:11:30 PM EST
    I think you and I are saying the same thing.  I do think Mrs. Obama is going to be treated exactly like Senator Clinton was in 92 and 96.  She will be vilified for daring to have and express an opinion.  I have no basis for believing that Mrs. Obama actually nixed Clinton for the VP job (I have seen where that is reported, but the Obama camp denies it and no one is on the record saying otherwise--of course I may have missed an on the record confirmation); but if she had told her husband that she doesn't want Clinton as VP, she would have every right to tell him that (as her opinion) and he would have every right to make his own decision, which could very well be in conflict with Michelle's opinion.

    Remember (none / 0) (#79)
    by Gabriel on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:32:50 PM EST
    when they used to ask that of Bill Clinton?

    It's going to be awhile before I care to defend (none / 0) (#102)
    by Teresa on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:45:54 PM EST
    them (if ever). Turnabout is fair play. I'll just say "it's really not their fault, but..."

    Gore didn't want Bill to campaign either. (none / 0) (#53)
    by muggle24 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:15:32 PM EST

    His campaign is saying they don't want Bill Clinton campaigning for them.

    And how (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:37:37 PM EST
    did that work out? Not well iirc.

    I Hope His Campaign Wins That (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:34:52 PM EST
    argument. Let Bill go back to his foundation where he can accomplish something productive.

    Obama would be much better going into the small towns and rural communities and asking them for their votes. He can leture them on what their values should be and share with them how he finally decided not to cling to his church. Obama can show Bill just how much better he is in winning votes.


    I'm guessing in reality it would (none / 0) (#7)
    by masslib on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:43:27 PM EST
    be more than 3%, and I bet that 3% comes from key states as it is.  She also has all these activists all over the country who could be utilized if he gave her the slot.  The thing is, he can't really afford to wait too long on this.  He's got to say yes or no now, because her supporters are waiting to see if she gets it.  If she doesn't they are going to be disappointed all over again.  

    I think they would win an electoral landslide based on the two massive voting blocks they each have, which would give him a mandate.  Shouldn't he want that?

    What would be his mandate (none / 0) (#34)
    by waldenpond on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:05:20 PM EST
    I would vote for the joint ticket... it's just that I haven't got an impression that he's particularly committed to anything.

    Ha! True. I've (none / 0) (#38)
    by masslib on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:07:33 PM EST
    always assumed if he asked her they would "merge" some of their policy proposals "in the name of unity" since she won half the vote and is more trusted on health care and the economy. This would give his campaign some substance.

    Since I am convinced... (none / 0) (#29)
    by ineedalife on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:00:55 PM EST
    the right to pick the VP has been given to Teddy Kennedy these numbers mean squat. Teddy wants to set up another Kennedy before he moves on.

    For the unity folks (none / 0) (#33)
    by Coldblue on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:04:39 PM EST
    this must be interesting.

    some heads are exploding... (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by kredwyn on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:06:15 PM EST
    and others are still...well...in a very strange and scary place (read that post very carefully).

    In this Poll ... (none / 0) (#36)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:06:19 PM EST
    the number is more important than the spread.

    Has Obama hit 52% in any other recent poll?

    i don't see anyone but Hillary (none / 0) (#40)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:08:41 PM EST
    that he could pick who would help him with her voters.

    If he picked another woman, that would just piss them off more.  If he picked a Clinton supporter like Strickland or Rendell, I think her supporters would think of them as traitors.  And, if he picked a non Clinton supporter, how would that help?

    I thought Rendell said he wasn't interested? (none / 0) (#173)
    by Valhalla on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:35:52 PM EST
    Or am I confusing him with Strickland?

    Wait a second... (none / 0) (#41)
    by auboy2007 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:09:28 PM EST
    Will the Obama camp be professional about this? Or will it be driven by personal feelings?

    So if he doesn't pick Clinton it's personal feelings and bad?  But if he does it is professional?


    He's going to do what any and all Presidential nominees do: have a committee (which he has set up) look at it and figure it out together.

    Also, I think personal feelings need to play a role.  The President and the VP should be able to work together and there should be a personal rapport.

    The DNC didn't think so... (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by kredwyn on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:12:17 PM EST
    when it foisted Johnson onto the Kennedy ticket.

    We've come a long way from 1960. (none / 0) (#55)
    by auboy2007 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:18:26 PM EST
    Yes (5.00 / 4) (#57)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:19:58 PM EST
    we have. Literally decades of losing elections.

    Given the comparisons (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by kredwyn on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:22:37 PM EST
    of one presidential candidate to a psychotic, stalker movie character by elected officials, we haven't come all that far...baby.

    The only difference is that the actor was Glenn Close...and not Joan Crawford.


    Professionals (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by Valhalla on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:39:17 PM EST
    of any stripe learn to work together with people they are not especially fond up.  Real professionals, that is.  So do grownups.

    It's only on the playground that this whole 'but they have to be pals!' thing holds any water.


    They (none / 0) (#72)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:26:52 PM EST
    tied in the primary, with her taking just a few less Delegates and she won the popular vote by 3 out of 5 metrics on RealClearPolitics.

    So, yes, she deserves the VP at least if she wants it and it's pettiness (and maybe political suicide) if he doesn't offer it.

    But what he proves by not immediately offering her the job is that the petulance and childishness that turned me off of him and made me feel he couldn't possibly be right for the White House is real.


    There is no (1.00 / 2) (#90)
    by auboy2007 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:38:53 PM EST
    "tie" unless they received exactly the same number of delegates.  That did not happen.

    Let's look at the popular vote, shall we:

    1. Vote of 45 states (not IA, NV, ME, WA, or MI); Obama wins.
    2. Vote of 49 states (no MI); Obama wins. (This is the best metric, because let's face it, he would have received votes in MI, so it's absurd to think that using MI numbers is reflective of anything.)
    3. Vote of 46 states (not IA, NV, ME, or WA); Clinton wins.  (Can't count this because there we regular contests here, so there's no reason to not count these states.)
    4. Vote of 50 states; Clinton wins.  (Again, counting MI as a valid vote total is silly because it assumes Obama wouldn't have gotten a single vote.)
    5. Vote of 46 states (not IA, NV, ME, or WA) and weird MI split; Clinton wins.  (Again, no reason not to count IA, NV, ME, or WA.)
    6. Vote of 50 states and weird MI split; Obama wins.  (Counts all states and doesn't assume Obama wouldn't have gotten a single vote; however, I wouldn't count this either because I don't trust just assigning some votes to Obama.)

    So there we have it.  Any accurate count has Obama in the lead, and Clinton only leads if you leave out the four caucus states OR if you assume he wouldn't have gotten a single vote.  And that's obviously a bad assumption.

    She doesn't deserve anything.  VP has not been a consolation prize since they amended the Constitution (and then it was the loser of the Presidential Election).  It's not pettiness or political suicide if he doesn't give it to her.  It's his choice.  He earned that right when he became the presumptive nominee.


    And when we amend the Constitution (5.00 / 4) (#110)
    by Cream City on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:49:32 PM EST
    to decide the election by numbers of states, do get back to us with this contribution to the discussion.  Until then, you might want to study up on the EC.

    I am so weary of this ridiculous and irrelevant talking point.  Really, it makes you look like a low-information voter -- and watch out, that could get you tossed under the bus.


    Yeah you go with that attitude (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by waldenpond on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:50:56 PM EST
    and a lot of us will be hoping you flame out.  How's that unity shtick going for you?  Get over it.  You have a GE to get to.  Stop sniping at Clinton.  It's sad when people can't just move on.

    I'm not sniping at Clinton at all. (none / 0) (#122)
    by auboy2007 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:55:19 PM EST
    I respect the race she's run and think she is one hell of a politician.  I was having a conversation with someone on this site.

    This is idiotic.. (none / 0) (#113)
    by BostonIndependent on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:51:27 PM EST
    Why don't you post all the way down to Votes of 1 state.. At 50! all those combinations would demonstrate your ability to do Obama math -- and should make for a nice sweet post to educate us dummies here.

    Obamite arguments against #4 which is the only valid count -- are the ones that are plain silly. DNC's arguments of just giving him votes that he didn't get are even sillier -- but that's what's given Obama his "win".


    I'm not calling anyone a dummy. (none / 0) (#131)
    by auboy2007 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:57:32 PM EST
    I'm just saying I disagree with the idea that Clinton won the popular vote count, because it's based on the assumption Obama wouldn't have gotten votes from Michigan.

    they had an election in MI and (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:18:58 PM EST
    Obama didn't get any votes.

    If Obama wanted to get some votes in MI, he had two choices.  Leave his name on the ballot instead of voluntarily removing it.  Or, support the revote in MI.


    Look .. (none / 0) (#152)
    by BostonIndependent on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:13:23 PM EST
    Here's my view. Go to RCP's count and look at the 4'th and 5'th rows.

    Even giving all of uncommitted's to Obama leaves Clinton ahead. If you give 70% which is more than generous then Clinton takes all the rows.. esp. if you do the right thing and count the primaries held in some of the states such as WA, NE, ID etc.

    On principle though, I give Obama ZERO votes in MI. It is the only right thing to do.


    The problem with (none / 0) (#163)
    by auboy2007 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:28:06 PM EST
    #5 is it ignores four states which held legitimate contests.  So then you move to number 6, which then shows Obama in the lead.

    Wrong.. (none / 0) (#182)
    by BostonIndependent on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:51:57 PM EST
    #4 in the RCP total is the one to look at, and then you compute a "realistic" MI vote (70%) -- if you want to go that route. Clinton wins even then.

    Note that if you do that (i.e. award ANY MI votes to Obama), you must also reduce the caucus votes by over 70k for Obama -- read the footnotes on the RCP page, and read thegreenpapers.com. I'm done arguing these points. We'll never agree -- and that is why you need to stick to principles here (which means ZERO votes for Obama from MI).

    #6 in the RCP table is made up (they bury their caveats in the footnote AND do not calibrate correctly for the other caucus/primary numbers). This is as biased as the DNC awarding him delegates he did not earn.

    Bottom line -- I think Clinton won the popular vote, but Obama won the pledged delegate count.


    how do you get votes (none / 0) (#115)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:52:12 PM EST
    when you VOLUNTARILY take your name off a ballot?  I realize the DNC says you still get delegtes and you even get to take some from our opponent.  But, you still don't get VOTES.

    Besides, the popular vote is only a metric as far as being something to be considered by the super delegates.  And super delegates could pick any of the different versions of that vote they wanted to.  The super delegates could flip a coin if that's what they wanted to do.  The super delegates could have decided to totally ignore the pledged delegates from little RED states if they wanted to.  The super delegates could have used the electoral college polls to make their choice.

    But, the media and the Obots constantly claiming they had to rubber stamp the pledged delegate leader scared the crap out of them.
    Obama entire pledged delegate lead came from red state caucus wins and the cutting in half of the FL and MI results.


    You realize first (none / 0) (#139)
    by auboy2007 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:02:03 PM EST
    that there's precedent for taking your name of the Michigan ballot.  Gore and Bradley did it in 2000.  It's not some novel idea.

    Secondly, obviously one cannot get votes if there is no name on the ballot.  But it is silly to assume that none would have been given.

    The Supers could have made a choice based on the weather.  They obviously decided on the delegate margin.

    Oh and just because his lead came from Red states, doesn't make it any less of a lead.  They get a say, just like everyone else.


    Was stupid then... (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by kredwyn on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:15:22 PM EST
    was stupid this time 'round too.

    Just because there's precedent...that doesn't make it a bright idea.


    Did they get votes (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by waldenpond on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:47:20 PM EST
    or delegates?

    Nope (none / 0) (#93)
    by Gabriel on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:41:53 PM EST
    They didn't tie. Obama won.

    Not yet. There is this convention (none / 0) (#117)
    by Cream City on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:53:09 PM EST
    they hold at the end of August, when it will be decided by the super-delegates, because he did not win enough pledged delegates.

    It used to be, back in the olden days of every primary season before this, that no one clinched the nomination until they won the "magic number" of pledged delegates.  And some of us even have the ability to remember all the way back to, oh, '04.


    Well, he clinched the nomination... (1.00 / 0) (#179)
    by NvlAv8r on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:45:51 PM EST
    While he is not the official Dem nominee until the convention, the thought floated on this site that somehow the superdelegates will switch en masse for Sen. Clinton is laughable.  

    And it isn't the magic number of pledged delegates only...it is the magic number of delegates.  Super delegates are as much delegates as pledged and he did earn the minimum number already.


    Yes, (none / 0) (#126)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:56:38 PM EST
    they statistically tied.

    The margin of error was less than the margin of victory.


    There is a margin of error in actual votes? (none / 0) (#176)
    by NvlAv8r on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:42:26 PM EST
    This isn't polling...this is actual votes so a MOE is meaningless.

    There is no such thing (none / 0) (#196)
    by Gabriel on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:10:37 PM EST
    as margin of error in a vote. That's only for a sample, not a universe.

    This obsession in the media and elsewhere (none / 0) (#48)
    by kenosharick on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:12:33 PM EST
    is useless. He will not make up his mind for several months. The polls will be different by then, who knows? If he is substansially ahead there is NO WAY he picks Clinton. She will be on the ticket ONLY if he is desperate in late August. And in that case I hope she tells him to shove it.

    this is what comes with a weak candidate! (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by BostonIndependent on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:29:23 PM EST
    that the media is in love with. I am girding myself of four years of grand speeches, fawning adulation and inanity in the media.

    several months? (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:53:56 PM EST
    I'm pretty sure he has to decide before the convention in August, since his pick has to be voted on by the delegtes.

    Heh... (none / 0) (#54)
    by kredwyn on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:16:57 PM EST
    several months (Nov is less than 5 months away).

    Maybe he'll announce first week of Sept. as a "September Surprise."


    The party certainly needs a bump! (none / 0) (#56)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:19:57 PM EST
    It's easy right now to say "Let him eat cake" but the prospect of the terrors of 4 more years of a Republican president scare the h@ll out of me. Each time I've thought what else can Bush screw up he manages to find more. I have no illusions about McCain.
    Either Obama is going to have to act soon or the rift will become so wide no one will close it. He needs to offer Dem's some red meat! Either in his choice of VP or a strong policy that will enable him to rally the core of the party. We don't need 2 more months of "change" without substance.

    He doesn't (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:24:41 PM EST
    know how to unify. He's never had to do it. His history is such that you do what you can to win the democratic nomination and Voila you win the office. All I've seen so far is sledgehammer unity... vote for us Roe v. Wade!! Gas Prices!!! You must vote for Obama or else!!!

    What he needs (none / 0) (#64)
    by Demogrunt on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:23:24 PM EST
    is to give up is bid.

    really? (none / 0) (#210)
    by vrusimov on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:49:06 PM EST
    you simply have'nt been listening to anything other than Clinton talking points if you are serious with this assessment...if you only follow Hillary then it's only natural that you won't follow Obama...

    the gas moratorium for instance, Obama's not going to completely overhaul our energy policy but his stance was the correct one on that issue...Hillary was pandering because it plays to ignorance and it does'nt really challenge americans...

    we need more than just a three month quick fix with marginal, if any, relief...we need long term solutions like much higher CAFE standards, we need 50+ mpg vehicles today, not in 2020...heck driving 55mph instead of 80 would save you 5-10 mpg...but how many americans would'nt take umbrage with that position...

    we want our cake and fork too...that's who we are...government can't do everything for us however...we have become spectators ever since 9/11, when Bush told us all to go back to what we were doing and let government worry about it...we've all witnessed the results...

    Obama has substance AND vision, despite all the rantings to the contrary, he is a policy wonk but his polling was so dismal early in 2007 that they had to ditch the strategy for something more accessible...without brand recognition his policy positions just were'nt breaking through...no one knew who he was, that is why he worked tirelessly in Iowa...

    Michelle knew that without Iowa he would'nt stand a chance...that victory was a shot from a cannon for him and here we are...now he can hold the little townhall meetings and play the wonk because his brand is known...

    he would actually prefer the small meet and greet because he can take over a room...people may not like him but they want to hear him speak, if only to see what all the hub-bub is about...

    the biggest real difference between Obama and Clinton is on healthcare and he has repeatedly stated that he will lower premiums by $2500 per family, etc. etc. he mandates only for children while Clinton fully mandates..it's the enforcement mechanisms that cloud the issue...heck, he's already put his stamp on the DNC in barring lobbyist from making contributions...a baby step, but a step none the less...

    the party will coalesce and Obama's polling will improve once Clinton comes on board...he will lose her hard-core supporters but such is life...


    For me, (none / 0) (#60)
    by Demogrunt on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:21:31 PM EST
    principles trump loyalty.  I speculate that Obama support from Clinton supporters is less than 60%.  I don't see Obama gaining any more support from here on out.  I believe that the support that he currently has will diminish up to the general election.  

    Agreed... (none / 0) (#185)
    by indy in sc on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:54:18 PM EST
    ...that principles trump loyalty, which is why I do not understand how many people who shared Hillary's principles are willing to abandon those principles to stay "loyal" to her (even though she is likely going to request that they throw their support behind Obama so that staying "loyal" to her may result in being disloyal to her).

    It's not about loyalty (5.00 / 1) (#205)
    by Valhalla on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:24:45 PM EST
    That's why you don't understand.  Your premise is wrong.

    Maybe you don't understand because so many people who voted for Obama are followers and not supporters.  We support her but do not blindly follow everything she thinks or says.  We each have our own principles and follow those as we see fit.


    But ... (none / 0) (#61)
    by BostonIndependent on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:21:32 PM EST
    If Obama picks Clinton, will his gains be cancelled out by Obamites whose hatred for Clinton (regardless of what position she occupies on the ticket) trumps their love for Obama?

    But, but, but (5.00 / 4) (#66)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:24:09 PM EST
    if you don't vote for Obama then life will cease to exist as we know it.

    True.. LOL! (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by BostonIndependent on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:45:12 PM EST
    The oceans will rise, the planet will heal.. we will start taking care of the sick, and start finding jobs ..

    Wow.. The promise! The spell!

    I guess that takes care of my issue. No leakage in reverse. I get it now :-)


    Think (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by chrisvee on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:26:41 PM EST
    of the Supreme Court!

    so, Clinton voters (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:34:56 PM EST
    are supposed to vote for Obama because they fear McCain's policies and judges, But Obama supporters don't have to fear these things if Clinton is the VP?  That makes a lot of sense...

    So in other words (none / 0) (#107)
    by Nadai on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:48:56 PM EST
    even the Obamaites don't believe the world will end if McCain wins.  I'll keep that in mind.

    VEEP Possibilities on WAPO (none / 0) (#76)
    by fctchekr on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:28:50 PM EST
    On WAPO's Fix, Cizillia wrote he made the judgement call on the top five VEEPS because of "....frankly, a little bit of Fix gut instinct." (The Fix's gut instinct is innately anti-Hillary.)

    Chris's side comments," as she is fond of reminding us of her 18M supporters, that "change only comes by sending new people to Washington") and opens up the possibility that Clinton would see the vice presidency as an opportunity to set up her own political base for future endeavors. And then there is the "Bill" factor... putting her down list from 3 to last, at 5.

    Chris continues to display an anti- Hillary fixation. Check out his comments on the other pics, Edwards, Sebelius, Webb and Strictland. Not one of them has a negative.

    Three Pinocchios for the Fix's biased reporting.

    Inexperience (none / 0) (#89)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:38:19 PM EST
    Obama may not know how to remedy this. Where are the party elders on this? They should all be out trying to smooth things over. Obama hasn't had to do any rebuilding. I'm from Illinois and he got the Senate seat thanks to the Republicans. The leading candidate was a Republican that got caught up in a sex scandal and had to drop out. The RNC pushed Alan Keyes on Illinois! An Obama victory was inevitable! He didn't even have to campaign and he would have won.

    weeeeeeeeee haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! (none / 0) (#94)
    by cpinva on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:42:05 PM EST
    strike up the band! alert the media!

    that's it? geez, what a waste that would be for her. bearing in mind, this is before the actual campaign gets actually started, and the actual republican 527's kick in.

    talk to me in sept., then maybe we'll have something legitimate to discuss.

    He needs Clinton (none / 0) (#127)
    by PlayInPeoria on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:56:44 PM EST
    BECAUSE of the "What she said... I agree".

    We've already seen him repeat McCain's speech about Hillary and the daughter.

    I'd rather have him repeating her works.

    Just heard Laura Ingram (subbing (none / 0) (#145)
    by zfran on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:08:00 PM EST
    for Billo)and her opening diatribe about putting Hillary on the ticket. She thought it would make Obama caving into the Clintons and would make him look weak. What came to mind is that the one thing the right didn't want to do was run against Hillary, first, and they think they can beat Obama. If it was the 2 of them, how unstoppable could they be and really give the right a run for their money. Maybe that's why ol' Laura doesn't like it!!

    if sen. obama needs the clintons (none / 0) (#212)
    by cpinva on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 06:43:03 AM EST
    to show him how to govern, than he has absolutely no business running for president. oh, wait, he didn't!

    as to "his" policies, um, what policies? you mean the ones he lifted from sen. clinton, changed a couple of words, then claimed as his own? those the policies you're talking about?

    serially, has sen. obama had an orginal thought during the entire primary campaign? heck, let's go back. has he had an original thought since first elected in chicago?

    the record would indicate not.