home

How Can Obama Lose The Election?

Since February, I have been concerned that with all the advantages Barack Obama he could still lose the general election largely because the Republicans have nominated the only Republican in the country who can possibly win, John McCain.

This is a Democratic year and significant increases in our existing majorities in House and the Senate are virtually assured. So how can the Presidency not be a sure thing? Three principal reasons.

One, Barack Obama is vulnerable to a vicious Republican attackon who he is and his inexperience. He is a first term Senator who burst on the scene 4 years ago. His image with the American People is vulnerable to a negative attack. The good news is this is definitely a Change election and the new is in vogue. In 1992, Bill Clinton faced similar vulnerabilities and effectively neutralized them. Given Obama's enormous financial advantage, there should be no problem on this point, unless someone bungles the job.

More . . .

Two, division in the Democratic Party. Today, Democrats are more unified than they were a week ago. But the day Barack Obama names his vice presidential choice, these division could be just as bad - IF he does not choose Hillary Clinton. In my view, to NOT choose Clinton would be a mistake. The only REAL reason not to choose her would be because it likely puts a dent in Obama's Media Darling status. the Media is definitely jamming Obama on this - they do not want Clinton.

An irrational and harmful reason leads to the third reason why Barack Obama might lose - a seeming insistence in the Obama camp to disown the Clinton Wing of the Democratic Party and the Clinton Legacy. I want to try a new way of discussing this to see if I can make my point in a more effective way.

Here is a question to the Obama Camp - do they think the American People perceived the Clinton Presidency in terms of policy (as opposed to the personal) a success or a failure? Do they think that absent the personal issues, that the American People do not think fondly of the 1990s? Do they think that the Clinton Presidency was considered a success in terms of the economy? In terms of foreign policy? Other domestic issues?

Let me put it bluntly, what Democrat in their right mind would want to run away from the Clinton record of governance? I do not understand this impulse in the Barack Obama camp. It strikes me as divisive WITHIN the Party and throwing away an incredible electoral advantage.

Let me put it this way - would you want to be running for the third term of a Clinton Administration or the third term of a Bush Administration? If the American People saw that as the choice presented to it - what do you think they would choose?

Instead, the Obama camp seems intent on distancing itself from the Clinton legacy of governance instead of using it as a an example of what a Democratic Presidency could be like. The Obama camp seems intent on offering the American People an unknown. I think it offers John McCain an opening.

To me, this is how Barack Obama can lose the election in November.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

Comments closed

< Sunday Morning Open Thread | Sunday Afternoon Open Thread >
  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Four---easily. (5.00 / 10) (#1)
    by MarkL on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 02:27:16 PM EST
    A word of advice for Obama supporters. Gleefully telling Clinton supporters that McCain called his wife a c*** is a terrible tactic. First of all, Clinton supporters know about Obama's sexism; for them to try to take advantage of our sensitivity to sexism---which was created by Obama---is nauseating.
    Second, character attacks are NOT the way to win this election, because McCain will wipe the plate with Obama if character is the issue.
    Another word of advice. No one in the general election is going to care about lobbyists, IMO.
    Can the talk of the "new politics".

    A few of y midwestern relatives who voted for Bush (5.00 / 9) (#6)
    by Mark Woods on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 02:35:28 PM EST
    but were planning to vote for Hillary are already getting the cues from McCain and today I go an earful of 'why Obama just can't be trusted' and how McCain will 'protect us from the Arab threat'.

    That's the word on the street, and Obama might think he has the luxury to wait until August to name a VP, but my anger is cementing into determination NOT to vote for him with each day that passes, and my relatives are quickly being lured into the GOP camp, in spite of their objections about the war and economy.

    I think if Obama waits until the convention it might be too late to undo the damage, especially here in Florida.

    [ Parent ]

    there are plenty of indys and centrist (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Jlvngstn on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 02:39:37 PM EST
    republicans to take your place, vote your conscience it is the american way.

    [ Parent ]
    if you think that indys and moderate repubs (5.00 / 5) (#169)
    by hellothere on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 04:02:05 PM EST
    are actually voting for obama, i have a bridge in brooklyn i'd like to pawn off on you too.

    [ Parent ]
    The (5.00 / 6) (#191)
    by sas on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 04:16:05 PM EST
    centrist Republicans here in PA that I know re-registered as Democrats so they could vote for Hillary.  Noe they are registering as Republicans agai.  They will vote for McCain in November.  They wanted Hillary, but will never vote Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    You're talking about the rest of McCain's (1.00 / 0) (#14)
    by MarkL on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 02:40:23 PM EST
    base? I"m not sure I follow you.

    [ Parent ]
    I am talking about those (2.33 / 3) (#21)
    by Jlvngstn on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 02:43:14 PM EST
    who are not whining over Hillary's loss, those who are suffering as a result of horrible economic policy, a lingering and useless war, feeling the pain of foreclosure or paying too much after their interest rates skyrocketed, those that are disgusted with the price of gas and the lack of any real investment in alternative sources of energy, those that want healthcare for all, those that want a medicaid program that negotiates drug prices, fairness in the tax code.  That group.  Last i checked, they were not McCains base.

    [ Parent ]
    Those who want healthcare for all were (5.00 / 5) (#24)
    by MarkL on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 02:44:18 PM EST
    disowned by Obama. Again, your point?

    [ Parent ]
    They were not all disowned (5.00 / 0) (#54)
    by Burned on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 02:59:39 PM EST
    A lot of them changed their personal definition of health care for everyone to Obama's definition of healthcare for everyone.

    [ Parent ]
    Kind of like Bush's "Blue Skies" (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by MarkL on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 03:01:40 PM EST
    initiative, eh?

    [ Parent ]
    Clear Skies. :) (none / 0) (#72)
    by Burned on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 03:08:57 PM EST
    Blue Skies is a song.

    [ Parent ]
    Blue Skies is a business term for ideas (5.00 / 2) (#149)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 03:42:21 PM EST
    Like, we will have a person on Mars within 5 years. Oh wait, Obama mentioned that he wants to shut a lot of NASA down until we can educate better engineers and scientist. Basically it is like shifting more jobs and technology overseas as other countries are trying to beat us on this. JFK said we would go to the moom. He was blueskying it and we got there. Several times.
    MANCHESTER, N.H.--White House hopeful Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), on a New Hampshire swing Tuesday, is unveiling an $18 billion education program to be partly funded by delaying one of NASA's space exploration programs.

    Obama makes the trade-off as he calls for a range of federal initiatives to improve elementary education, with a centerpiece of his plan teacher training. He has one mandate, calling for the "professional accreditation of all programs preparing teachers." He also wants to de-emphasize teaching to the test--something he calls "preparing students to fill in bubbles on standardized tests."

    An Obama campaign policy official who the campaign did not want identified said the plan calls for a five year delay in NASA's Constellation program, seen as a "steppingstone" to Mars exploration. That program should not be a priority the official said.



    [ Parent ]
    Yeah, except Obama's defintion ... (5.00 / 4) (#127)
    by lambert on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 03:30:03 PM EST
    ... is truthy. That's why he had to run Harry & Louise ads to cover it up.


    [ Parent ]
    The point about health care (5.00 / 4) (#158)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 03:48:57 PM EST
    It really helps the people who can not afford good health care. And not all companies with good health care plans have it for free. Our monthly costs keeps rising as it rises for our companies. Obama says people who do not want health care or can not afford it should not have to get it. And yet, these are the people who need it more. These are the people who will have to get Medicaid, lose their homes, bankruptcy or die as a result. In fact, if you look at the bill copies that you get from your insurance company, you will see that, as an example, the bill was $1k. The hospital settled with the ins company for $350. If you do not have insurance, you are stuck with a $1k bill directly to you. This is not fair and thus, it needs to be universal.

    [ Parent ]
    no, they didn't change their definition (5.00 / 2) (#177)
    by hellothere on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 04:06:32 PM EST
    for health care for obama. please, stay with reality here. many so called supporters are in love with an idea, change if you will. not change for the better in my humble opinion by the way. i noticed how obama invited insurance companies to the table before anyone else. when these poorly informed supporters find out just what obama doesn't plan to do for them, they'll be disgusted and angry. buyer's remorse!

    [ Parent ]
    I can't say what Obama will or won't do. (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by Burned on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 04:16:44 PM EST
    That's reality at this stage of the game.
    I base my prior comment on reading some Obama supporters on dkos go from wanting single payer to defending Obama's version of UHC.

    [ Parent ]
    one point (2.20 / 5) (#49)
    by Jlvngstn on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 02:54:49 PM EST
    that is all you got?  one out of 8.  Pretty impressive retort, are you a writer for 24?

    [ Parent ]
    You really want me to go on??? (5.00 / 6) (#51)
    by MarkL on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 02:57:41 PM EST
    Obama has pledged to widen the war on terror, while at the same time he has weakened his promise to withdraw troops from Iraq.
    He is the only candidate who has repeatedly discussed invading Pakistan. There's every reason to think he would be a horrible disaster in foreign policy.
    That's 2/8. Of course, I would be remiss to point out that Obama's actual record of opposing the war through votes is nonexistent.
    Shall I continue?

    [ Parent ]
    please do (3.00 / 2) (#62)
    by Jlvngstn on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 03:03:42 PM EST
    as Pakistan and context are intellectually dishonest.  But again, I want you to vote for McCain so that in 6 months we can type back and forth how your candidate lost to a freshman senator.

    [ Parent ]
    BTW, nice of you to agree that Obama (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by MarkL on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 02:59:04 PM EST
    is not to be trusted on health care.
    Really, you're making my day by helping McCain here.
    I don't feel that I can honorably push McCain over Obama, but your effect in that direction is very impressive.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't agree on that (3.00 / 2) (#64)
    by Jlvngstn on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 03:04:39 PM EST
    just that your point was made, and I disagree with it but the only way to confirm is to be elected.  Which of course in 2 years one of us will be saying I told you so, if you stay around that long.

    [ Parent ]
    Hillary (5.00 / 6) (#68)
    by pie on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 03:07:09 PM EST
    had proposals for all of those issues and a result of years of thought and experience.

    I listened to "Go to his website" every single time I asked what his ideas were, which was pretty ridiculous and didn't do it for me at all.

    I dare say that the the noncommitted voters are not going to put up with that in the general.  He'd better be more forthcoming if he wants their support.

    MCain will have solutions.  You may not agree with or believe him.  But he'll have them all wrapped up in a package with a very pretty bow.

    No more games and nice speeches.  There's too much at stake.

    [ Parent ]

    really (1.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Jlvngstn on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 03:09:46 PM EST
    because lots of HRC supporters here say that he cribbed most of her policy.  So by definition, her policy initiatives "pretty ridiculous" than.  

    I can send you a few McCain placards for your front yard if you like.

    [ Parent ]

    jlivingston....are you related to squeaky... (5.00 / 4) (#83)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 03:13:34 PM EST
    you are not making points here.  You think obama put one over on the electorate; and there are many other blogs where you can go gloat.  If you are trying to win people over to obama's side, you are doing a piss poor job of it.  

    You are now on ignore and I hope others will do the same.  

    [ Parent ]

    Not Quite (none / 0) (#110)
    by Spike on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 03:24:34 PM EST
    The guy is pushing McCain, not Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    I Never Pushed Anyone (1.00 / 2) (#159)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 03:50:17 PM EST
    My big crime here is to call out all the cultists and fanboys. First came the Obamamaniacs and then the flock of Hillarymaniacs.

    I like find Hillary more appealing than Obama but see them both as Pols more to the right of where I would like them to be.

    Right now there are two choices: being against the GOP or being against the Democrats, imo.

    After what we have been through the last 7 years, anyone who supports McCain becoming POTUS is sick, imo.

    [ Parent ]

    Thanks spike....my bad, but they both use (none / 0) (#115)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 03:26:16 PM EST
    the same rhetoric/tactics, etc.

    [ Parent ]
    saying 'go the his website' was ridiculous (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by jeffhas on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 03:15:32 PM EST
    and you know it... stop trying to be funny... people who try to be funny rarely are... they just come off as tools.

    Now about those McCain signs - how many do you have?


    [ Parent ]

    He borrowed a lot, (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by pie on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 03:15:56 PM EST
    yet doesn't have command of the material like she does.  She's the one who told us what they were.  I didn't have to "go to the website."

    He's going to have to become more more specific.

    [ Parent ]

    Is this related to fears that Obama is a (none / 0) (#8)
    by MarkL on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 02:36:59 PM EST
    Muslim?

    [ Parent ]
    Odds are... (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by kredwyn on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 02:39:49 PM EST
    It's more related to Obama's statements re: being willing to talk to the president of Iran and so forth.

    I've heard that mentioned a couple few times as one indicator of Obama's inexperience.

    [ Parent ]

    And that's a very fair criticism. (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by MarkL on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 02:42:40 PM EST
    Obama needs to keep his foot out of his mouth for a couple of months, at least.

    [ Parent ]
    I suspect it's too late on that one... (5.00 / 5) (#25)
    by kredwyn on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 02:45:01 PM EST
    He's had a ton of chances to walk that statement back from when he first said it...back in October/November.

    He's chosen to keep with it or to try and deny that's what he said.

    [ Parent ]

    And a foot firmly planted up his behind (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 02:49:45 PM EST
    might do a world of good to head obama off in the right direction.

    [ Parent ]
    If the argument... (none / 0) (#112)
    by Thanin on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 03:25:51 PM EST
    here is to say that those kinds of statements only hurt his campaign then fine.  But if the argument is that those countries shouldnt be talked to, then thats absolutely wrong.  Neocons dont talk, they bomb... and weve all seen the 'success' of that tactic.

    [ Parent ]
    Uh... (5.00 / 2) (#152)
    by kredwyn on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 03:42:35 PM EST
    We are talking to Iran. Or at least we did several months ago at a conference about the region.

    The problem isn't that we shouldn't talk to those countries. The question is re: how we go about it.

    Yes, I got his statement that even Regan spoke to Gorbachev. But what he either ignores or forgets is the amount of time that it took with regards to diplomatic relations and engagement to get to the point where Reagan and Gorbachev were able to sit in the same room and discuss.

    Obama's statements about no preconditions and no diplomacy to get to the conversation suggest a lack of experience when it comes to diplomatic efforts.

    [ Parent ]

    Maybe From Your Front Porch (none / 0) (#163)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 03:54:38 PM EST
    Obama's statements about no preconditions and no diplomacy to get to the conversation suggest a lack of experience when it comes to diplomatic efforts.

    But from most Israeli's point of view, and their front porch is in the thick of it, they prefer negotiations with Hamas without preconditions. Something even Obama is against.

    [ Parent ]

    OF course they prefer that... (none / 0) (#193)
    by kredwyn on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 04:17:05 PM EST
    Just like the Unionists preferred to not have any preconditions when it came to negotiating with the Nationalist community. In that case, the loyalists preferred to use their guns to negotiate a nationalist ceasefire.

    But in the case of the Good Friday Agreement, there were preconditions required to get to the table so that everyone at the table was recognized as a credible voice for their particular part of the larger Northern Irish community.

    [ Parent ]

    The one thing... (none / 0) (#224)
    by Thanin on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 04:36:45 PM EST
    the Middle East has learned -- as well as the entire world -- within the last century is that if you dont have nuclear weapons you get carpet bombed.  Personally I really dont blame Iran for wanting them since America has been after them for awhile.  So if there are preconditions, Id wonder what they are exactly since America is the current 'bad guy' in the world.  In their view it'd be like Darth Vader making demands, so the only reason to do so is out of fear and not because they feel theyre in the wrong.

    [ Parent ]
    Evidence? (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 02:50:02 PM EST
    I've been trying to find evidence to this claim that McCain really called his wife that word. I've seen the claim over and over again, but there appears to be no actual evidence for it. Does anyone know if there is any?

    [ Parent ]
    IIRC, the incident, if it occurred at all, was (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by MarkL on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 02:53:50 PM EST
    decades ago.

    [ Parent ]
    MarkL (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by RalphB on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 03:27:14 PM EST
    Do the Obama people really not know that moderate republicans and independents are McCain's base?  Seems that if you've been paying attention for years that would be too obvious to ignore.


    [ Parent ]
    but Ralph, Nobody has made more inroads (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by MarkL on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 03:30:01 PM EST
    into McCain's base than Obama!
    He calls him up once a week to say "All your base are belong to us"

    [ Parent ]
    Heh, coming clean (5.00 / 2) (#188)
    by RalphB on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 04:14:51 PM EST
    I've got to say that as a social liberal, fiscal conservative former Democrat, I am pretty close to McCain's base.

    Though I don't agree with him on some issues, I think he's a stand-up guy of great character who loves this country and has proved it in as hard a way as possible.

    Hillary Clinton was the candidate of my choice because in her I saw the Democratic party standing up for the little guy again.  That was irresistible to me.  Since she's out and I feel Obama is too inexperienced and unqualified to be president, I've got to back McCain.

    Among people I know, most feel pretty much the same way.  I think that's how Obama can lose what should have been a slam dunk election.


    [ Parent ]

    When McSame agrees with... (3.50 / 2) (#133)
    by Thanin on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 03:32:39 PM EST
    most everything bush has done, they wont be his base for long.

    [ Parent ]
    his name is mccain by the way. (1.00 / 0) (#190)
    by hellothere on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 04:15:41 PM EST
    jeralyn asked for no name calling on here. mccain's base numbers have stayed the same now since the beginning of the year. they haven't gone down. after the 527's get busy, i wonder just how the poll numbers will look. and i see no way that indys and moderate repubs will vote for obama. what obama has are the latte drinkers, the creative class and the aa voting block. after that i don't see a big block turning to him. he hasn't brought in any new groups in months. he has played out his unity card. who'll believe that after all the division. the latinos in puerto rico didn't seems so inclinded. boomers have been dissed. women, hmmm? no way. jewish voters? i don't see any big turn there for obama. so who's left? wondering!

    [ Parent ]
    Jeralyn is against name calling of each other... (2.66 / 3) (#225)
    by Thanin on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 04:40:39 PM EST
    Jeralyn isnt here to defend republicans, shes here to defend democrats.  He's McSame until he proves otherwise.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't understand this (5.00 / 3) (#208)
    by kayla on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 04:25:05 PM EST
    How in the world is McCain above Obama in character?  I would really love to hear your response.  Why is it okay for McCain to say extremely offensive and sexist things, but totally unforgivable for Obama to do so.  It just sounds like selective outrage to me.  It reminds me of how Obama supporters said that Obama was just telling the truth when he said that rural voters have a problem voting for a black man, but when Hillary cited exit polls about how Obama is not getting the white working class vote, they cried "race-baiting!".

    Maybe I'm missing something, but when it comes to character, some of the things McCain has said about Hillary, Chelsea and his own wife pokes a huge hole in that regard.  Sexism should be frowned upon, no matter who uses it.  I know you are aware of that, but I just find it outrageous that you shrug sexism off when McCain uses it, but not when Obama uses it.

    And how was Hillary supporters' sexism "made sensitive by Obama"?  Mind you, I'm a Hillary supporter, and I've always been sensitive to sexism.  It's incredible that someone could say that Hillary supporters' were made sensitive by an actual person and not by common decency.

    There are a lot of things about Obama that I don't like, so I understand why someone would rather sit it out or vote McCain in November.  I'm not trying to discourage you from doing with your vote whatever you please.  But sexism has been so prevalent and disheartening during this campaign, and how readily people are willing to accept it disturbs me.  Whether it's from McCain, Obama, MoDo, Matthews or whoever.  It just seems to me that the respect that Hillary deserves and that Hillary has been consistently denied frustrates and angers Hillary supporters and keeps us from wanting to participate in November.  Why reward yet another culprate by talking about how wonderful his character is?  It sounds hypocritical to me.

    [ Parent ]

    His trashing, not just distancing (5.00 / 5) (#5)
    by mikeyleigh on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 02:35:07 PM EST
    himself from the Clinton presidency is precisely why this Democrat is not going to vote for Obama in November.

    Trashing the Clinton presidency did not work (5.00 / 4) (#180)
    by Nike on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 04:09:05 PM EST
    all that well for Gore/Lieberman. Gore had considerably more reason  perhaps to put distance between himself and Bill Clinton than Obama does, but my sense that that decision was a mistake that cost him a lot. It seems foolish of Obama, and his octopus of surrogates, to continue to disrespect the Clinton "wing" of the party. If he continues to craft a campaign that pursues this line, then I assume he does so out of some kind of rigidity that does not bode well for the kinds of complex and contingent situations that true leadership demands.

    [ Parent ]
    McCain's Strategy (5.00 / 6) (#13)
    by Landulph on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 02:39:58 PM EST
    Basically, I think McCain will use four main messages against Obama:

       1. I deserve this, and he does not (this plays into the whole "affirmative action hire" ugliness, and contrasts McCains POW cred with Obama's thin resume)

       2. I am a maverick reformer, and he is a tool of corrupt special intersts (McCain will point to Obama's ties to Rezko and Obama's vote in favor of the recent Energy Bill--which McCain and Clinton both opposed)

       3. I can keep you safe from slavering Islamofascist barbarians, and he cannot.

       4. I am a real American, and he is not. (McCain's campaign will phrase it more subtly, but FOX, Regnery Press, Rush, and the 527s will do the heavy lifting.)

    This is a year in which the GOP is losing on every issue under the sun. So they won't make it about issues, and they won't make it about Democrats or Republicans. They will try to make Americans WORSHIP John McCain and DESPISE Barack Obama as INDIVIDUALS. And based on past history, I wouldn't bet money against their succeeding.  

    Basically, it's gonna be a gutter brawl.

    On point 2, I actually think McCain (5.00 / 5) (#17)
    by MarkL on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 02:41:43 PM EST
    is right. Well, at least Obama is equally unconvincing as a reformer.

    [ Parent ]
    Look at the (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Landulph on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 03:00:41 PM EST
    '88 Bush-Dukakis race for a prototype of this sort of campaign.

    [ Parent ]
    sorta (5.00 / 0) (#73)
    by syrupcore on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 03:08:57 PM EST
    I don't think he'll get far with 1 and 2. They are pretty defendable and flippable. Hillary taught Obama how to swing back. I reckon he was a little chumpy before the primary.  I do think McCain will ride 3 & 4 to 250 electoral votes or so.

    It's going to be a total gutter brawl.  All the while both candidates will be talking about "decency in politics".  Meh.

    [ Parent ]

    Hillary taught Obama to limp. (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by MarkL on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 03:11:51 PM EST
    He'll have to  get over that for the GE.

    [ Parent ]
    VP Choice Should... (5.00 / 3) (#214)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 04:29:52 PM EST
    be made keeping in mind there may well be an "October surprise" on the international, mideast, national security front.  A choice such as Sibelius would not help here, but Hillary would, and Obama's selecting Hillary would help win over her supporters.  The ball's in Obama's court, not hers; she served an ace -- it's his turn to win the next game.  We are open to hearing what he has to say to us, but he must say something, and do it convincingly.

    [ Parent ]
    yeah (5.00 / 4) (#216)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 04:31:32 PM EST
    and this is the fatal trap that Obama has fallen into. he wants to run on stuff like "character" and judgement. Bad decision. You can't beat McCain in a personality contest.

    [ Parent ]
    Well, I posted this last night (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by lilburro on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 02:41:03 PM EST
    from the Times (UK):

    Hillary's Exit

    "Hillary Clinton goes loudly as Barack Obama seeks to woo her supporters"

    Obama's campaign enjoys a significant fundraising edge over that of McCain, 71, after raising $272m in the past 18 months.

    The Obama and Clinton camps are tentatively beginning to merge their fundraising apparatuses after Hillary told leading donors on a conference call: "He needs to know all of you. He really needs your help."

    She is planning to keep her core donor team in place, however, so she can control how to dispense the cash. Clinton's finance chairman predicted that her supporters could bring in a further $200m but warned that the amount could depend on whether Obama picked her as a running mate.

    Clinton has not fully accepted her vanquished status, despite her eloquent speech. The New York senator merely suspended her campaign last night, ostensibly so that she could raise money to pay off her $30m debts. A transition team has been appointed to negotiate the terms under which she will campaign for Obama - a somewhat bizarre case of the defeated usurping the role of victor, since losers rarely get to set the conditions.

    Robert Barnett, a Washington lawyer who handled Tony Blair's multimillion-dollar book deal, and Cheryl Mills, another lawyer and confidante, are expected to bargain hard for help with settling Clinton's debts, including an $11m personal loan that she made to the campaign.

    Clinton is believed to be haggling over the extent to which she will be Obama's highest-profile campaigner against McCain, as well as over the guarantee of a star turn at the Democratic National Convention.

    I don't know if the debt talk is real, or how well-sourced any of this stuff is.  But the presence of a transition team on her part certainly indicates that dismissing Clinton and figuring out her role will be no simple matter.  She will inevitably be high profile, and if Obama watched the crowd yesterday he would be able to see that people are very excited about her playing a role in the coming election.  

    As far as suspending campaigns go, isn't Edwards' campaign still only 'suspended' as well?  


    Obama's financial advantage (5.00 / 5) (#16)
    by Prabhata on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 02:41:10 PM EST
    did not help him in OH, PA or anywhere else where he was unacceptable.  BTD, if you want to believe that money is the antidote to attacks, you need to support your logic.  Kerry and Gore had money left over after their campaign.  A weak candidate cannot look strong with ads.  Obama is weak. The only thing he has going is that McCain is weak too.

    According to the NY Times (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by lilburro on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 02:45:19 PM EST
    his campaign is planning an advertising blitz, buying ad time in more places across the country than is usual for a Presidential campaign.  On one hand that's great, but on the other hand, Clinton and her husband beat him despite ad blitzes in key states by holding a ton of small events in out of the way places and connecting to small towns.  That should be one lesson learned from the primary by Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    Remember New Coke? (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Landulph on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 02:47:02 PM EST
    All the ads in the world can't sell dog food if the dog's don't like how it tastes. Just ask Howard Dean.

    [ Parent ]
    Ad buys help (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 04:23:12 PM EST
    Axel et al, I understand, make more $.  

    [ Parent ]
    I don't get it (none / 0) (#81)
    by syrupcore on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 03:12:21 PM EST
    "Weak"? Didn't he best one of the strongest democratic candidates in recent memory?

    I understand if you don't like him but "weak" seems like a weak description to me. He has weak turnout among certain demographics but obviously, he's pretty strong among others.

    [ Parent ]

    HE didn't best HRC, Dems and media did it for him (5.00 / 3) (#113)
    by Ellie on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 03:26:07 PM EST
    This is an important distinction and should be added to the list of why he may lose the general election.

    Even at the end, he was carried across the finish line with a "whopping" 0.4% photofinish. Were the financial, party and media advantages on Sen Clinton's side rather than Obama's, it wouldn't even have been close.

    Relying on others to take down an adversary is Bad Budo. Obama's campaign and ambitious Dem insiders fomented the media pile-on against Sen Clinton and declared open season on the historically unprecedented onslaught that we witnessed.

    Against a Repug in a general election, Dems simply don't have the leverage against the media and for Obama to rely on that because his fervent supporters are wired to go into pester mode is a strategic mistake.

    Ask your friendly neighborhood WaPo ombudsmen how far, say, a dKos swarm worked there. Even codgers have a delete button on their keyboards and spam filters.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by Emma on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 03:30:31 PM EST
    He's very strong with caucus goers.  Who won't have the disproportionate influence in the GE they had in the primary.

    He's also strong with African Americans, same as above given that I don't think African Americans can deliver MO, SC, or NC, for example.

    He's also strong with rich people, also not a winning margin.

    He's weak in the GE if he can't pull in Clinton Dems.  There's no getting around that.  It seems to me that lots of folks believe Clinton Dems will provide the margin of victory in the GE.  Obama so far ain't doing so good as lots of us seem pretty ticked off.  That's what I'm hearing.

    [ Parent ]

    Totally Agree (none / 0) (#160)
    by syrupcore on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 03:51:35 PM EST
    The presumption buy the pundits that all left leaning americans will "come around" is stupid and toxic. Luckily, I don't think the Obama team believes that. 10 bucks he spends 90% of his time in factories and in appalachia. Starting this week, that's where he's headed.


    [ Parent ]
    His strong demos won't win the election (5.00 / 5) (#164)
    by Valhalla on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 03:55:27 PM EST
    And he's kicked a few traditionally strong Democratic demos to the curb.  He's not strong in the demos he needs to win the election.  All demographics are not equal.

    The GE is a totally different kind of contest than the primaries.  It will be very close (despite this being a no-lose year for the Democrats).  The political makeup of the Democratic Party is not the same as the makeup of the country as a whole.

    Obama is now going to have to spend energy and resources winning back the demographics he threw under the bus -- remember, neither Kerry nor Gore had to spend time doing that because they didn't attack their own party -- and win over new demographics.  

    Maybe he can do it.  But it's not off to a promising start.

    [ Parent ]

    best you say? please (5.00 / 3) (#198)
    by hellothere on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 04:20:43 PM EST
    this whole thing was gamed for obama. do you honestly belive without the suckup, clinton hating media and the sell outs in the dnc/dem elders that obama would have won anything.

    [ Parent ]
    Only two things that really matter (5.00 / 5) (#18)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 02:42:03 PM EST
    perception and turnout. And in a Presidential election, mostly just perception.

    nicely said (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by Jlvngstn on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 02:45:25 PM EST
    Bill C won a hell of a lot on perception and he was a fine president.  The problems facing our next president are far more complicated than what Bill faced and it would be nice if we had Bill to consult with

    [ Parent ]
    I'd certainly rather have him on my side. (5.00 / 3) (#139)
    by pie on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 03:36:32 PM EST
    He, after all, won two terms as a dem president. Kind of a rarity, ya know?

    Meanwhile, look at those backing Obama.  

    Hmmmm.

    [ Parent ]

    maybe obama should have thought (5.00 / 4) (#203)
    by hellothere on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 04:21:42 PM EST
    about that before his campaign began trashing the clinton presidency.

    [ Parent ]
    turn out could be more decisive than you think (none / 0) (#185)
    by esmense on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 04:11:20 PM EST
    '72 was a record breaking turn out year in the primaries. But, like today, the primaries left the party seriously divided -- and that contributed to apathy in the general election (turn out in the general election in '72 fell dramatically compared to turnout for the previous 20+ years).

    Not saying we will see a repeat this year. But there are similarities that should worry sensible Democrats.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama or McCain (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Audrey on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 02:46:59 PM EST
    Hillary's bravado in throwing her support behind Obama has only made me admire her more.  But I cannot vote for Obama.  I trusted him once, but all of that trust has dissipated.  It is hard for me to even imagine that we have come to a point where inexperience doesn't matter for the most important job in the world.  But it is even harder for me to accept the manner in which the loyal and hardworking Senator from New York has been treated by the DNC, by the Obama camp and by the media.  Their efforts to purge the party of the Clintons did not go unnoticed.

    I will not vote in November.


    Are you working for McCain? (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by MarkL on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 02:47:10 PM EST
    You're doing a great job. No, i'm not whining. I"m applauding, because I hope Obama loses by 30 pts (while Dems expand their lead in Congress).

    No, (none / 0) (#38)
    by Jlvngstn on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 02:48:52 PM EST
    I think that whining should be met with sarcasm.  If there is a right to whine, well then there is a right to sarcasm.  McCain wins, AMT goes away, i got no problem with that.  I think his policies blow but truth be told they don't effect me all that much.  They do however effect the working class and I tend to favor politicians that work for them.

    [ Parent ]
    You haven't had much positive to say (5.00 / 5) (#45)
    by MarkL on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 02:52:41 PM EST
    about Obama (except that he won---duh).
    You can win support for McCain by insulting clinton voters, gloating, trashing the Clintons, and avoiding a discussion of Obama's record.
    You're batting 4/4 so far.

    [ Parent ]
    I ain't here (2.50 / 4) (#59)
    by Jlvngstn on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 03:02:06 PM EST
    to win you over, or kiss your arse to make you feel better about Obama.  I have always been tough on O, I expect more from him and have been disappointed.  But I could care less about your vote and the 10 other whiners.  What I do care about is the mass lumping of all O supporters and when I see that happen I have a keyboard and can toast as well.  The difference is that I don't lambaste all of her supporters because I don't think even a substantial portion are even close to the pettiness offered here.  I think that most are highly disappointed (they should be) and not as impressed with O (by their standard rightfully so) but loyal to the party platform, not the candidate.  So all the belly aching and blathering by a few does not speak for the whole, nor do i speak for O, his campaign or the demo party.  Again, every person should vote their conscience and if their conscience says hell no to O, than I get that, I felt that way about Kerry but he was still better than Bush but the lesser of 2 evils is a horrible feeling when voting.

    [ Parent ]
    Why do you care about how Obama (5.00 / 4) (#75)
    by MarkL on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 03:10:03 PM EST
    supporters are lumped together?
    It's completely irrelevant. Obama is the nominee, and he has the votes of those people already.
    On this site there are many potential votes he does  not have. The only reason for an Obama supporter to be here is to try to win them over.
    Apparently YOU are only here to whine about the horrible things that are said about Obama supporters. Well, now I understand why you are so ineffective at helping Obama!
    PS---why are you commenting about an American election since you are not American?

    [ Parent ]
    I am american, don't know what gave you that (1.66 / 3) (#85)
    by Jlvngstn on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 03:13:41 PM EST
    idear.  Not whining, sarcastically pointing out the idiocy of the statements.  yours included.  Attacks at O or his supporters can be met with same, I see no issue with antagonizing those that feel free to insult, kinda like McCains foreign policy.  Again, I could care less who you vote for and in fact I hope you get so hopped up at me you vote republican, only demonstrates who is the more shallow.  I am having fun at your expense so to speak/

    [ Parent ]
    just as well... (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by kredwyn on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 03:17:28 PM EST
    cause you're doing a piss poor job of it.

    [ Parent ]
    Ha! Ha! Ha! oh my gawd. (5.00 / 4) (#46)
    by sarahfdavis on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 02:53:42 PM EST
    you favor policies that help the working class
    but are part of a group that mocks them.
    THEY'RE RACISTS! THEY CLING TO GUNS AND RELIGION!
    THEY HATE BROWN SKINNED PEOPLE!  THEY'RE UNEDUCATED AND
    MAKE STUPID DECISIONS!
    Oh my god. stop.

    [ Parent ]
    You have every right to be sarcastic.... (5.00 / 4) (#79)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 03:11:11 PM EST
    ...it's what we expect from certain Obama supporters. You do not disappoint.

    [ Parent ]
    thank you (1.66 / 3) (#87)
    by Jlvngstn on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 03:14:59 PM EST
    not what i expect from Hillary supporters, because you are not her support base you are a few on the fringe with a keyboard and issues.  
    Don't vote O, Don't vote O   lol

    [ Parent ]
    I thought I told you yesterday..... (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 03:16:19 PM EST
    ...that I like being on the fringe.

    [ Parent ]
    No personal attacks (5.00 / 0) (#34)
    by kredwyn on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 02:47:44 PM EST
    remember?

    Penna was a microcosm and harbinger of the GE (5.00 / 5) (#67)
    by Ellie on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 03:06:29 PM EST
    The same reasons behind Obama's loss there, despite spending 3x what (HR)Clinton did and having six weeks to sell himself to voters, are why he can lose the general election.

    Change as a rallying cry or motto isn't enough to do it: the person behind the word really has to bring it.

    It worked for Bill Clinton because he really was a unique personality and uniquely talented politician.

    It worked for Hillary Clinton in Pennsylvania because she used her time there well, worked her butt off in the ways that matter, and supplemented her work with her 1/3 budget. Most importantly, she personally earned voters' support and votes.

    Both Clintons faced their attackers and doubters head on and on their turf.

    Barack Obama doesn't do this. He runs away. He doesn't -- or his "brilliant" campaign doesn't allow him to -- risk his "brand". He is disassociated in a bad way, and wooing the wrong people.

    Right out of the gate, adopting as a personal virtue the selling point that HRC was divisive was a wrongheaded strategy, a wrong approach and a wrong mentality for to hang onto for anyone who wants to win straight up and emphatically.

    As he and his Club never cease to remind people, he's not either one of the Clintons.

    He sure isn't.

    Risk taking (5.00 / 8) (#155)
    by Emma on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 03:45:59 PM EST
    Barack Obama doesn't do this. He runs away. He doesn't -- or his "brilliant" campaign doesn't allow him to -- risk his "brand". He is disassociated in a bad way, and wooing the wrong people.

    I think this aversion to risk is important and may be very important in the GE.  HRC became a great candidate when she took risks.  When she ditched Penn and put herself on the line and was seen to stop playing it safe as the "inevitable" candidate.  The debates, the town halls, the endless speeches, the unscripted meetings with people in gyms and on porches, all of that is risk for a politician.  Bill did it, and does it, too:  standing in the back of pick up trucks and on front porches, and looking voters standing just feet away in the eye and saying vote for me.  So did Chelsea, at 400 college campuses across the country.  It risks the thing so many people are afraid of:  they won't like me (and they won't vote for me).  And people respond to that risk taking, they gravitate toward it.  

    When Obama went to the RBC and refused to let HRC have those four MI delegates it was weakness, a refusal to take risk and not be in control, the risk that he could lose the nomination.  He chose to play it safe, to control everything he could control and was seen doing it, and thus never gained legitimacy by risking losing what he wanted.  It seems to be a pattern, the refusal to take risks, that people point out time and time again:  scripted rallies, refusal to debate, being all things to all people, flip flopping on tough (and not so tough) positions, throwing people under the bus willy-nilly.  It's a pattern of not risking.

    McCain, of course, already has the built-in reputation as a risk taker, as a maverick:  the ability to look like a risk taker without taking risks.  I think that will matter.

    [ Parent ]

    And (5.00 / 5) (#162)
    by Emma on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 03:52:50 PM EST
    going with BTD's point about VPs:  picking HRC is a risk:  that she'll outshine him, that that the press will attack, that Bill wants to get back in the White House.  Which is why I think he won't do it.  

    And refusing to pick her will hurt with HRC voters but refusing to take the risk will hurt just as much, I think.  I think it will signal that he's weak, that he can't "control" HRC, that he can't stand up to Bill, that his campaign is too weak incorporate them while still serving him.  It will signal that Obama is weak.

    [ Parent ]

    Outshine Him? (none / 0) (#170)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 04:02:46 PM EST
    Do you really think that he cares about Hillary outshining him were she veep? The nomination process is over. These people are pros and only care about winning in November, unlike some of their supporters who still see it as a personality contest.

    Obama will pick the person who will help the Democrats win. I think that is Hillary, and so what if she outshines him that would only help us.

    Besides the people who like Hillary will always see her as outshining him and vice versa.

    [ Parent ]

    I don't know what Obama cares about. (5.00 / 2) (#182)
    by Emma on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 04:10:10 PM EST
    Certainly people seem to think that one of the risks of picking HRC as VP is that she will outshine him.  There are other perceived risks, and I don't presume to know whether Obama cares about them, either.

    [ Parent ]
    Take The Blinders Off (none / 0) (#209)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 04:25:39 PM EST
    He is a mainstream Democrat just like Hillary. Here are his votes and here are Hillary's.

    Here is his foreign policy, here is Hillary's.

    Here is his AIPAC speech and here is Hillary's. Not the newest ones but you can find those yourself, and they are almost identical to most Democrats positions.

    [ Parent ]

    Look (none / 0) (#217)
    by Emma on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 04:31:37 PM EST
    stop fricking insulting me.  It's rude and uncalled for.

    [ Parent ]
    Insulting You? Rude? (1.00 / 3) (#226)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 04:45:55 PM EST
    How is that? You seem to think that Obama and Hillary are miles apart as Democrats. Obviously you have not compared the two because if you had, with even the slightest bit of objectivity, you would see that they are almost identical.

    I get it, you must be in love.

    [ Parent ]

    And I'll respond to myself (5.00 / 1) (#215)
    by Emma on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 04:30:28 PM EST
    one last time, even though I think it's bad form.

    I think the aversion to risk is also going to hurt him re:  Iraq.

    First, I don't think he has the credentials to get us out of Iraq without it looking like a defeat.  I think McCain could pull the troops out tomorrow and convince everybody we "won".  I don't think Obama could do that.  Also, I don't think he wants to pull the troops out.  I know he doesn't, so that option is not really on the table.

    Second, he also doesn't want to take the risk that McCain wants to take, namely winning in Iraq.  That is, fully commit the U.S. military, a/k/a "the surge", to remaking Iraq into a modern day Germany-after-WWII complete with U.S. bases.  McCain wants to do that and, what's more, thinks it can be done and has the credentials and the Viet Nam history to sell it.  "Let's win this one!  Let's do it right!"

    What Obama is left with is 1) the certainty that whatever campaign promises he makes about getting out of Iraq will be broken if he's elected; and 2) the dovish Dem option of arguing for "ending" the war while not really getting out but not ever winning the d*mn thing either because he won't fully commit to staying or going, and ending up with helicopters ferrying U.S. sympathizers and ambassadors off the roof of that snazzy embassy.

    I think think voters may percieve endless war in Iraq as more possible under Obama then McCain because McCain will be willing to argue for taking the risk of winning in Iraq.  And that we can't "win" may be less important than the desire to win and the fact that Obama's not committed to winning or losing, but something "we can't stay and we can't go."

    [ Parent ]

    Reasons to Not Choose Clinton (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by Spike on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 03:10:46 PM EST
    There are many reasons that Barack Obama might conclude that choosing Hillary Clinton as his VP is not a wise choice:

    1. This is a change election and change has been the central message of the Obama campaign. To many, the Clintons represent the past. The Obama campaign might conclude that choosing Clinton is not consistent with his change message.

    2. Bill Clinton was both an asset and a liaibility to Hillary Clinton's campaign. The Obama campaign might conclude that managing Bill Clinton's involvement in the campaign is more trouble than it's worth.

    3. Both the vice presidential candidate and their spouse will have to undergo intensive vetting of all financial interests. It's not clear that Bill Clinton is willing to undergo such a process or that the outcome of such a process would be as free of questions as necessary.

    4. The Obama campaign may determine than a different vice presidential candidate might bring something essential to the ticket that Clinton doesn't.

    5. Polling in early August may determine that Hillary Clinton is not the strongest vice presidential choice.

    6. Obama may determine that in terms of governance, the chemistry is not sufficient with Hillary Clinton to make an effective team. And No. 2 above also applies to the White House.

    7. Clinton supporters who insist that Obama has no choice but to pick Clinton may make it impossible for him to choose her without looking weak.


    A response (5.00 / 11) (#108)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 03:23:26 PM EST
    1. Do you think Obama would lose any "change" voters to McCain by choosing Clinton? If not, then why would it matter if it is "not consistent with this message?" Messages do not exist for the sake of their existence. The exist to win VOTES.

    2. The only reason Bill Clinton was a liability in any sense was due to the fact that he was accused of race attacks on Obama. He will be campaigning for Obama so it seems impossible for me to believe this is an actual argument against choosing Clinton.

    Moreover, it goes to my point 3 which you do not address.

    1. That is excuse making. The vetting process is a POLITICAL ONE - it is about unwelcome surprises. There is not a person in America who has not made it up their mind about Bill Clinton. Nothing we find out now will change anything about that. If the vetting issue is the excuse used, you will know how transparent that is.

    2. Ok, please imagine that person for me. We know who is out there. Explain who that person is and what they bring as compared to the problems caused by NOT choosing Clinton?

    3. It might suggest that. It is very unlikely to. On the contrary, the opposite is almost certain to be true.

    4. This is nonsense. If Obama choose to govern without inclusion of his VP, then that will be his choice. The VP has no official role at all in governance except breaking ties in the Senate,  not likely to be an issue.

    5. This is absurd. Obama has any choice he takes. I am arguing for the one I believe gives him the best chance to win.

    If Obama is accused of being weak for picking the person who most helps him win, then YOU and other Obama supporters should call out the fools who say that.

    IMO, if he does not pick her knowing she would help him the most, that makes him look weak. /It would mean he is too insecure in himself or afraid of the Media.

    [ Parent ]

    Bingo! (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by pie on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 03:30:54 PM EST
    /It would mean he is too insecure in himself or afraid of the Media.

    [ Parent ]
    BTD hit it straight on (5.00 / 4) (#218)
    by fctchekr on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 04:31:48 PM EST
    The remarkable thing about both Clintons, who are surely imperfect, as are all politicans and people, is that they continue to rise in spite of defeat.. After the judgements have taken place, few can ever over come them..Not the Clintons. They just keep reearning their place in the sun and maybe that's what irks the hell out of some people...  

    [ Parent ]
    Only Got a Minute But (none / 0) (#150)
    by Spike on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 03:42:28 PM EST
    1. Yes. The change message might be critical in competing with McCain/McSame for independent votes. If they both look like the past, the message is weakened.

    2. Bill was a liability because he was a loose cannon off message, not just the content of the message.

    3. Bill has been involved in significant financial dealings in the last eight years. If those issues remind voters of the past -- ie the Rich pardon -- some old attitudes toward the Clintons might be rekindled.

    4. Mark Warner. Young successful governor and business person.

    5. Any smart president will want a VP who is an active member of the team.

    Obama will pick her if she helps him the most -- both in winning and governing -- regardless of what we say :)

    [ Parent ]