How Can Obama NOT Pick Hillary For VP?

You know how after the fact now everyone wonders how in the hell we plunged into the Iraq Debacle? How in hindsight it was so obviously boneheaded that we wonder where all the "experts" were yelling "are you crazy?" That is how I feel about the fact that Barack Obama is not going to pick Hillary Clinton as his running mate. Honestly, I have never seen a bigger no brainer in my life for this. But you have read it all before from me as to why this is so. But do not take my word for it, ask Obamabot numbers man Poblano:

Clinton -- Boy, would this be dramatic. And perhaps exceptionally smart. I think Obama might get an immediate 10-15 point bounce if he named her. But I don't know how well she'd hold up after coming under attack in September and October -- remember, she hasn't really been the subject of a negative campaign since late February, when the Obama folks decided they had the nomination locked up and started to play it safe. It's a crazy scenario, but the whole Obama veepstakes has been crazy enough that I wouldn't rule it out.

(Emphasis supplied for sheer incredulity. How would Hillary hold up under negative attacks? Are you freaking kidding me? This is an open question for Poblano? Sheesh.)

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< PPP Poll: Tie In Ohio | Sunday Night Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Since Obama is announcing his (5.00 / 7) (#1)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:24:15 PM EST
    NOT Hillary VP this week, I thought I lay one out one last time for posterity and I told you sos.

    noted and recorded (5.00 / 6) (#6)
    by DandyTIger on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:30:16 PM EST
    I still don't want Hillary to take such a position, and hope just in case the Obama camp figures all this out that she's somehow not reachable tomorrow.

    But I completely agree that the Obama team is amazingly stupid not to pick her. And agree completely that they have no excuses when they loose. Oops, did I say when. snark.


    I think "are you freaking kidding me" is (5.00 / 3) (#114)
    by Valhalla on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 09:03:57 PM EST
    not nearly strong enough for the rank stupidity of that question.  But I don't want to mess up the site filter, so will leave it at that.

    Obama will win -- (4.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Josey on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:53:09 PM EST
    because the corporations want him to win - and continue boosting their profits.
    WaPo ombudsman, Deborah Howell, admits in article today - Obama has dominated coverage at WaPo and other media - and concludes that's a problem.

    More media coverage = more donations.
    Hence, Obama's latest haul of $51M is not surprising.


    Heh (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by cawaltz on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:58:45 PM EST
    That money will come in handy. I hear he blew a whole wad of cash in FL and McCain is still kicking his backside. Corporate America better figure out how to help the DNC drag him across the finish line(personally I think they'd be just as happy as pigs in mud with McCain).

    having opted out of (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by ccpup on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:01:32 PM EST
    public financing, he needs to be doing at least $70 million a month.  $51 million just simply isn't enough in today's Presidential Race climate.

    (I know, I know, it's hard to believe, but that's the reality)


    Isn't public financing $85M total? (none / 0) (#68)
    by Joan in VA on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:23:15 PM EST
    yes (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by ccpup on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:37:21 PM EST
    McCain will get $85 million when he becomes the Nominee, but the NY Times -- in reporting McCain's numbers for July ($25 million or something ... his best month yet, I believe) -- stated emphatically that Obama had only done $51 or $52 million for June and that he needed to be averaging at least $70 million to keep pace with McCain.

    Obama raised less (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by ccpup on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:42:55 PM EST
    in July ($51 million) than he did in June while McCain had his best fundraising month yet at $27 million.

    As Obama is the first candidate to opt out of public financing and is relying entirely on donated money, he needs to be doing $70 million a month in order to keep pace with McCain.

    -- I just reread the article and was able to offer specific numbers.  That's why I'm responding again. ---


    Both Obama and Romney proved that (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 09:05:06 PM EST
    the money isn't bringing in the win this round.

    Obama could just end up with another statistic screaming "why can't he bring it home" when he's spending 3 X as much?

    He brings new meaning to "throwing good money after bad."


    I'm sorry, but this makes no sense (5.00 / 0) (#149)
    by mbuchel on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 10:26:40 PM EST
    Let's say Obama were to continue at $50 million per month for Aug, Sept, Oct.  This means that he has $150 million to get through to November.  So how is this is inadequate compared to McCain's $84 million for the GE?

    Nevermind that it is extremely likely that as the GE heats up (post convention) he will be raising more than that $50 million per month.  I'm guessing he gets McCain's $84 million in September alone.

    I know that the theme of the campaign is that everything is bad news for Obama and good news for McCain.  And yes, the polling has tightened considerably through August.  But Obama pulling $50 million per month during the dog days of summer is bad news - for McCain.


    then take it up (5.00 / 3) (#152)
    by ccpup on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 10:33:22 PM EST
    with The Times.  I'm just reporting what they said.  I didn't say it made sense.

    What you can't escape is the fact that if Obama, having opted out of public funding, is relying solely on donations and his numbers (as well as the DNC's) are trending downward -- they have been since at least April --, he may not find himself in the financial position he and the DNC are expecting.

    And once people stop giving, it's not often they step back up to the plate.

    McCain's fundraising has been trending strongly upward, though, and, if his best month so far is $27 million and he gets $85 in September, that's 3x his monthly best all in one shot.


    It is "inadequate" (5.00 / 3) (#155)
    by LatinoVoter on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 10:48:32 PM EST
    because not only will McCain have his money to spend but the RNC will be spending a lot on his behalf and the DNC is failing at raising money this year and keeping pace.

    Plus, the Obama campaign said they expect to spend $500 Million in the last two months of the campaign alone.


    That's the way the money goes (5.00 / 8) (#171)
    by BrianJ on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 11:26:28 PM EST
    First, Obama can't start spending any of that general election money until the convention (ends?).  So he has just over two months to raise and spend GE money, not three.

    The RNC had $75 million cash on hand at the end of June, while the DNC had just $20 million.  So just like that, most of Obama's cash advantage is gone.

    Obama has also asked Democratic 527s to stay off the field, while McCain hasn't, so that's another additional cash advantage for McCain.

    Lastly, there's the way Obama has used his funds-  frittering away millions by establishing offices in states he cannot win like Texas, Utah, Georgia, and so on.  While you can make a case for Dean's 50 state strategy using funds in those places, Obama's just flushing money down the toiley duplicating those efforts for a campaign that ends on November 4, win or lose.

    But even if I were to overlook all of that...

    Mitt Romney outraised Obama and couldn't sell free cocaine in a crack house.  Obama outraised Hillary but never won a big-state primary except for his own Illinois.  Money isn't going to fill the void in Obama's campaign where a message should be.


    McCain won in the primaries (5.00 / 5) (#61)
    by zyx on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:14:38 PM EST
    with a huge financial disadvantage.

    It won't be that lopsided in the GE.

    McCain is NOT the candidate we wanted to face in this election.


    As did HIllary (5.00 / 3) (#72)
    by MichaelGale on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:27:53 PM EST
    No money....see Pa.  What was it? Obama's 7M to
    Clinton's 2M

    IN re candidate to face this election. Democrats  never thought it would be McCain. I don't think MCain thought it would be McCain.


    How is Obama boosting corp profits? (none / 0) (#65)
    by Joan in VA on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:21:33 PM EST
    I'm not sure what you mean. Many corporations think any Dem President will lower their profit. If you're just saying he's boosting Media profit, that will end when the election is over and we lose interest.

    Not this presumptive nominee, though (5.00 / 4) (#118)
    by Valhalla on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 09:06:29 PM EST
    the telco immunity vote was the big fat "you don't have to worry about me, I'm not going to mess with you" signal to corps that he'll play nice.

    Heh (5.00 / 3) (#131)
    by cawaltz on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 09:31:27 PM EST
    Do you really think McCain is gonna rock their boat? Nope. This is win-win for corporate America. Their worst case scenario is a Dem Congress occasionally stymying them(wHO am I kidding there were only 22 Dems willing to forgo telecom bribes).

    Ach! (2.00 / 1) (#157)
    by Nevart on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 10:59:13 PM EST
    Enough already.  A few reasons:

    1.  Dynasty question.
    2.  WTF to do with Bill.
    3.  Clinton library donations/pardons.
    4.  They don't much like each other; Obama needs someone he can trust and work with.

    There are many other reasons, but these are enough.

    Biden's not perfect, but come on, he's a good Dem and certainly no worse a choice than a lot of others.  


    These are dim witted reasons not grounded (5.00 / 3) (#161)
    by masslib on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 11:11:02 PM EST
    in anything other than ultra right wing thinking:

    #  Dynasty question.
    #  WTF to do with Bill.
    #  Clinton library donations/pardons

    Since the right wing ain't voting for Obama anyway, this is just dumb.  Back to the drawing board for you.


    This is the kind of stuff (5.00 / 6) (#163)
    by Jjc2008 on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 11:15:07 PM EST
    that makes me shake my head in wonder at people who actually calls themselves progressive.

    DYNASTY meme???????/  Give me a break.  Hillary is not Bill's daughter or his chattel.  The Bush Dynasty had an argument in the fact that it was father and son, though it happened before with John Adams and John Quincy Adams.  But in reality they did not inherit the office...there was still voting.
    Albeit stupid voting in the case of Bush.

    The donor question is simply not going to be an issue with most voters....only with bloggers and activists.

    The dislike.  Obama needs to grow up then if he can't get past the "like or dislike" crap.  And so do his supporters.


    Bring people together? (5.00 / 4) (#189)
    by lmv on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:36:16 AM EST
    I think you make a serious point.  Obama told Wes Clark to stay home.  That showed a lack of judgment and, honestly, maturity.  

    There have been plenty of jokes about Obama and The Bus but it's really not funny.  If you're president, you're going to spend 4 years with the same players, except for a few changes.  These are people who were there before you were elected and will be there after.  It's one of the things that makes Washington such a tough town.  


    Yes, but Obama (5.00 / 2) (#201)
    by Grace on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 03:43:57 AM EST
    is going to make them chant together and exercise together in the morning.  So Washington will be all new.  It will be like Wal-Mart, except bigger.  



    awwwwwwww c'mon (5.00 / 15) (#2)
    by cawaltz on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:26:03 PM EST
    this is funny stuff BTD. If you hadn't told me poblano wrote it I'd of thought it was a writer for Colbert or Stewart who made that up(If the Obama campaign fizzles he can always give comedy writing a shot).

    It's almost as good as when they said she wasn't vetted. As if an anal probe of her family by the RNC for eight years wasn't nearly enough (cue laughter) vetting?

    Haid jus esploded. (5.00 / 15) (#3)
    by chel2551 on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:27:06 PM EST
    -- remember, she hasn't really been the subject of a negative campaign since late February
    BTW, she won more votes than he did.

    You know what?


    Now there's a ticket.  Strong president. Weak VP.

    If Obama chose her (5.00 / 6) (#28)
    by Jeannie on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:51:52 PM EST
    I would have to give him a lot more credit than I presently do. It would be very smart of him - and perhaps his only chance. The problem is, if he did, everyone would know the ranking was upside down, and I don't think his ego would take that. Hillary is just so much more knowledgeable, experienced, tough and strong it would look silly. And then there is the CDS from the DNC.
    Also I think she would be a dolt to take the VP - unless the Democratic party is more important to her than her future. She would be helpless, subject to his command. What fun for her.....

    Not only did Hillary (5.00 / 9) (#30)
    by JimWash08 on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:53:41 PM EST
    win "more votes than he did," she won ALL but ONE (Illinois) of the states (and also some important Red and Purple states - MO,NM,AR) that Democrats must win in a GE to win the presidency.

    Hillary polled higher in a match-up with McCain right up till she suspended her campaign in June -- and I believe she still did in July.


    Shhh.... (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by IzikLA on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 09:37:07 PM EST
    Honestly, I still can't get over This fact....

    Well let's nominate her then! (none / 0) (#127)
    by digdugboy on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 09:22:23 PM EST
    That's the answer!

    My head too!!! (5.00 / 9) (#93)
    by kenosharick on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:38:54 PM EST
    No negative attacks after Feb??? Is that a joke or insanity? She was under a vicious non-stop tidal wave of attacks from the left, right, Obama campaign, DNC, and most especially the MEDIA!!!!

    Crazy is a pretty good description of that (5.00 / 14) (#5)
    by tigercourse on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:27:39 PM EST
    paragraph. And yes, picking Clinton remains the obvious choice. But from day one, Obama and his backers (Kerry, Daschle, Dean, etc.) have wanted Clinton dead and buried. Winning is secondary.

    agree, for backers it's not about winning (5.00 / 13) (#9)
    by DandyTIger on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:33:05 PM EST
    the presidency, it's about weakening the Clinton wing of the party. Mmm, just love those internal party politics. It's as if they don't care about this country at all. Oh wait... snark.

    I think it's more stupid than crazy.. (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by rjarnold on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:18:03 PM EST
    Poblano just doesn't know what he is talking about.

    That's pretty much what I've said (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by andgarden on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:25:23 PM EST
    He supposedly has the best record (none / 0) (#76)
    by MichaelGale on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:30:48 PM EST
    in polling the primaries. Right?

    Well, he thought Obama would win SD by five. (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by masslib on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:32:35 PM EST
    He cheats off of other pollsters (5.00 / 4) (#84)
    by andgarden on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:34:20 PM EST
    and he still makes big errors.

    He's Miss Cleo.


    No (none / 0) (#128)
    by digdugboy on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 09:23:55 PM EST
    He has a different methodology entirely.

    Thank you, BTD! (5.00 / 11) (#8)
    by clio on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:31:52 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton has been under negative attack since she stepped onto the national stage.  Even so, the level of vituperation and personal denigration reached in the primary campaign shocked even me - and I am professionally unshockable.

    Perhaps, Poblano has forgotten the primary? the healthcare fight?  the impeachment and its related sideshows? In any case he can put his doubts about Hilary's ability to withstand negative attacks away with his other prejudices about women and their abilities.

    Thanks. That paragraph from Poblano (5.00 / 8) (#11)
    by tree on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:34:09 PM EST
    gave me the biggest laugh all week!

    On Hillary for VP (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Faust on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:39:12 PM EST
    I have gone from 51% in support to 1000% in support. As time has gone on and I have looked at his other options I have come to the conclusion that Obama's camp would be bat$hit crazy not to pick her.

    As for Poblano's remarks I'm sympathetic in this regard: it's not a question of how Clinton would hold up (I don't think he means her personally) but how the democratic ticket as a whole would hold up under yet another lunatic attack by the Clinton hating media. I have full confidence that it would work out but I interpret his remarks as indicating that he knows what we all know. That the Clintons are hated, that a full press media assault would follow her pick and that this is the ONLY danger to picking her from a tactical perspective.

    Personally I am 100% percent convinced that the upsides of party unifcation and ticket historicity vastly outweight the downsides of a business as usual attack on a Clinton.

    And may I add (5.00 / 6) (#18)
    by Faust on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:40:56 PM EST
    that of all the people I know not a single one has any problem with Hillary as VP (and I know lots of people that voted against her) and many have come around and are downright enthusiastic.

    If he doesn't pick Hillary...well. Stupid stupid stupid stupid.


    Attacking Hillary (5.00 / 5) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:44:49 PM EST
    and leaving Obama unscathed with be political lunacy.

    It can't happen. What's the storyline? Clintons the power behind the throne? You think that won't get 53% of the vote and 300 EVs?

    Makes no sense.


    Well I don't think there IS a narrative (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by Faust on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:21:35 PM EST
    that will sucessfully break the ticket. That's why I'm completely in the tank for a Obama/Clinton ticket.

    And I'm probably being overly charitable to Poblano in my interpretation of his remarks.

    Hell at this point I would say that one the side benefits of an Obama/Clinton ticket would be watching all the exploding heads on TV. It would be like watching Scanners.


    I know a lot of people (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by andgarden on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:24:48 PM EST
    who would love to vote for that.

    But the CDS is outweighed by the (5.00 / 0) (#122)
    by Valhalla on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 09:10:04 PM EST
    smug satisfaction the MSM boys will have at the thought of Clinton being under Obama's thumb.

    IF he picks her (unlikely), you can all bear witness to my prognostication -- and call me Miss Cleo Valhalla.


    I agree, and would help 527 attacks on Obama (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by andrys on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 03:30:17 AM EST
    It's probably not desirable to mention this, but his Chicago history (for which many records are missing because he didn't have 'staff' as a part-time state senator) will be explained to the general public (by 527s) in short easy-to-understand videoclips and while nothing unholy is in it, as far as I can see, the associations and work relationships go against the grain of his new-politician image.

      We can't stop those; they -will- come, after the convention.  The polls are close now, but primary watchers are few, and the 527 ads will hit mainstream voters on prime time.  Obama's chicago history is actually worse than anything they feel they might have on Hillary from what I've seen.  With Hillary expectations are low (people already always suspect so much no matter how often even a vociferous Starr clears them), but with Obama, they're high (on the part of voters).

      For an idea of what subject matter will come up, google
        pringle .nz

      She's a progressive writer, sort of along the lines of Greg Palast in the rest of her articles online, but with her extremely tedious perusal of records and also an often unworkable presentation of things she feels she's found and confirmed, most people could not get through them, and of course investigating Obama's Chicago history is not a progressive's exercise.  It's not sensational stuff - just unseemly.  I'm one who can't get through most of it, but I've read enough to know there's some real trouble here.  The Chicago political scene is just so unsavory and it's the antithesis of what he presents, which, if shown clearly, gives us colliding images of Obama.  One wonders why he couldn't have made better alliances in those days.

      My take?  He has good intentions and is pragmatic and knew he had to play an unsavory but very smart game to get where he wanted and he played/plays it very well.  While he has moved the DNC to Chicago, I keep the hope that he's playing the Chicago folks (especially the developers) while they think they will control him.


    Good try BTD (5.00 / 6) (#20)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:43:35 PM EST
    I have never seen a political team take "their alleged momentum" and throw it away by being so shy and cowardly.  What is so difficult to figure out:  

    Obama voters +Clinton voters= win.  

    Obama voters + the new politics=?

    They had to do it back in the beginning.  Build the party.  But, it's all about ego and destroying the Clintons.  

    BTD (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:45:23 PM EST
    as other posters have stated, it seems that the party is not interested in winning in Nov. They are interested in "banishing" the Clintons and testing pet theories like "can we win GA based on the number of AA's?" and other experiemental electoral theories.

    But now, (5.00 / 6) (#132)
    by Jeannie on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 09:34:59 PM EST
    Clinton is stronger than ever. She came out of it with her reputation better, with more postitives, with more respect than she went into it. So the talk about banishing the Clintons has backfired - even though she 'lost'. She will be president yet.

    No negative attacks lately? Why, just this week (5.00 / 14) (#23)
    by Cream City on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:45:58 PM EST
    as I recall, we witnessed a resurgence of virile CDS about Senator Clinton speaking at the . . . um, what was it?  oh yeh, the Democratic Party convention.  That event that used to celebrate candidates that got lots of votes.  But not the one in the pantsuit who got the most primary votes ever by anyone in either party in pants.  

    And of course, she was attacked while she was out stumping for Obama.  Really, the behavior of some Obama supporters just begs for a serious slap into reality on November 5.

    And they went over her internal memos (5.00 / 5) (#85)
    by MichaelGale on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:34:55 PM EST
    line by line,  Today they again concluded that she
    is not presidential material as she cannot manage her campaign.

    Of course Obama manages his campaign perfectly.


    as evidenced by the OH poll (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by cawaltz on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 03:36:58 AM EST
    LOL at that.

    He can not pick Clinton (5.00 / 4) (#25)
    by misspeach2008 on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:46:31 PM EST
    for lots of reasons. Most of them were "boneheaded" two months ago. Now it probably doesn't matter. The clear winning ticket was Clinton/Obama, but it's a little late for that now. I will always wonder if the "bitter, clinging, post menopausal women armed with knitting needles" had threatened to riot in the streets, would they have changed the outcome. Maybe if the Wal-Mart greeters had threatened to burn down all of the Wal-Marts. I don't know. I just wonder what the SDs were thinking. One candidate was offering a "dream ticket", and the other was running away from it. Was the threat of "blood in the streets" really that powerful, or was it all Clinton hate?

    Never Too Late, IMO (5.00 / 0) (#42)
    by JimWash08 on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:00:49 PM EST
    The clear winning ticket was Clinton/Obama, but it's a little late for that now.

    We're talking about bringing on the Experience and More Superior candidate. It just cannot go wrong with that ticket.


    I'd like to think you're right, (5.00 / 6) (#56)
    by misspeach2008 on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:11:18 PM EST
    and I admit to thinking about how a Democratic convention where Monday night is spent on recreating Obama's biography will appear if the SDs give the nomination to Clinton. However, I don't think the SDs are going to admit that they made the wrong decision in June. I think they will let this play out as scripted and dust themselves off after November.

    I don't think they actually made any decision. (5.00 / 5) (#77)
    by Joan in VA on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:31:46 PM EST
    I think they were leaned on and paid off. There's no turning back for them now. If they had been able to do their duty without interference, we would be in a different situation now. IMO.

    Bribe money? (none / 0) (#40)
    by Jeannie on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:59:35 PM EST
    PAC money to help fellow members of Congress (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by andrys on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 03:35:05 AM EST
    Obama has his own and, early on, had given out
    about $750,000 to SDs while Hillary had given out
    only $250,000 at that time.  

    I just read another article about Pelosi giving
    $10,000 here, 5,000 there, and it's for their

    There are listings of who received how much from
    whom but I didn't keep them.  It's just how things
    are 'influenced.'

    I think many of them sincerely wanted to go with
    someone new who would help the lower ticket in Nov.

      However ...


    It isn't just the VP choice (5.00 / 10) (#33)
    by Manuel on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:57:29 PM EST
    Throw in the snubs to Rangel and Clark and there appears to be a desire in the Obama camp to distance itself from qualified Democrats for personal reasons.  They are intent on building their own power base.  Don't forget the statements blaming the current state of thimgs on the partisan battles of the past.  Obama won't become a fighting Dem unless he has to and maybe not even then.

    The stupid thing about throwing out the (5.00 / 7) (#123)
    by Valhalla on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 09:14:49 PM EST
    Fighting Dems is that...they're the fighting Dems!  They're going to freakin' fight back.  Hello!  Earth to Howard Dean!

    They may not fight back today, or at the convention, but they damn will fight back at some point.  They are messing with people who have independent bases of power.  It's like Russia deciding to attack China instead of Georgia to expand their borders.


    I just had a thought. (none / 0) (#135)
    by Jeannie on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 09:39:51 PM EST
    Could Dean be chosen the VP? Buddies, anti-Clinton, web money raisers, DNC ..... Whatcha think?

    Another thought... (none / 0) (#141)
    by Jeannie on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 09:58:08 PM EST
    Could that be payback for arranging him to be the candidate? Florida and Michigan, anyone?

    He's got a serious problem, no question (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by andgarden on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:59:29 PM EST
    Suddenly, he actually has to have a chance in Florida. Imagine that.

    Snowballs will have a better (5.00 / 7) (#47)
    by cawaltz on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:03:52 PM EST
    chance in Hades. THAT ship sailed when the DNC did their kabuki theater at the RBC meeting.

    BTD (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:05:18 PM EST
    called it right months ago when he said FL was off the table for Obama. I tend to think he was right there. Now, with falling poll numbers in OH he's going to have to somehow pull out an unlikely win in a red state. Good luck with that.

    Virginia is the ball game then (5.00 / 5) (#52)
    by andgarden on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:08:04 PM EST
    and a second election in a row.

    Damn, I hate this campaign.


    Well (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by cawaltz on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:51:18 PM EST
    I hate to break this to you but you narrowly won Virginia with Webb, who had far more uniform enthusiasm from the base.

    I have a question (5.00 / 8) (#41)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:00:05 PM EST
    The inspired are on board, who is left to be inspired?  I don't get how the Axelrod game will play in the General Election without the cojones of the Clintons.  Is the Text Message thing supposed to split the seas and make everyone run and vote?  Is it the young or the Indies that we are waiting for?    

    and I'm sensing that the inspired are.... (5.00 / 3) (#86)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:34:59 PM EST
    ...starting to feel a teensy bit less inspired. The convention will probably give them a boost but I don't know if it will get too many new devotees. For all that the Obama campaign says that America doesn't really know Obama yet, America actually feels like it does know him very well because of the long campaign and the large amount of coverage the media gives him.

    Bwahahahahahaha! (5.00 / 11) (#44)
    by masslib on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:01:27 PM EST
    "she hasn't really been the subject of a negative campaign since late February, when the Obama folks decided they had the nomination locked up and started to play it safe."

    Oh, that's a good one!  Ok, ok, I'm still laughing.  Oh, that Poblano...he's some comedian.

    Just think of it.... (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by Shainzona on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:04:19 PM EST
    IF BO and Friends had been smart, they would have picked HRC about 2 weeks after she suspended her campaign.  She and Bill and some of her supporters would have been working like crazy for that ticket...they would have had a "unified" ticket and could have gotten on to the important issue of campaigning against McCain/And...

    But that opportunity is lost.  I am not a BO fan - you all know that - but don't you have to question his "judgment" in not naming HRC...not just now, but 2 1/2 months ago?

    In fact, IF he named her now, my eyes would pop out of my head at his stupidity...IMHO.

    I would have (reluctently) accepted (5.00 / 8) (#64)
    by zfran on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:20:50 PM EST
    Hillary as vp way back when in June. I said it then. Now, after seeing more of a candidate who I believe is so unqualified to be president, and, after not stopping his minions from continuously attacking her still, I could and would no longer vote that ticket. If he needs her help (and he really needs help), he could have finessed it better, made his peace with Bill and I believe the poll numbers would have jumped way ahead. Too late!! I'm getting very good at knitting.

    None of my Democratic friends are voting for (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Aqua Blue on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 09:00:13 PM EST
    Obama (what they are voicing at this point in time.)   And, my Republican friends who were initially telling me that they were voting for Obama now say that they have changed their minds.

    Obama's decision making is highlighting his weakness in so many areas...the biggest weakess being not selecting Hillary as running mate.

    Hillary and Bill could make Obama look good and win this election for him.  


    Yes, I think he lost the chance to make it look (5.00 / 4) (#124)
    by Valhalla on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 09:17:56 PM EST
    like anything but desperate vote-getting now.

    And the longer he goes without picking someone, the more indecisive he looks.


    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Steve M on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:05:44 PM EST
    Poblano's comment on Janet Napolitano is really, really charming.  He's got a way of putting things, that guy.

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:10:06 PM EST
    That's a whole other story.

    Nonsensical, given who the candidate is (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by andgarden on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:11:07 PM EST
    It's amazing how so many of the people who were excited to take a risk on Obama suddenly think that Evan Bayh makes perfect sense as VP.

    Nate needs to stick to the numbers. The Zogbyish punditry just makes him seem stupid.


    And the commenters are worse. (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Teresa on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:18:49 PM EST
    CNN still = Clinton News Network. LOL. I guess that dude missed Donna, Roland, David, Jack...I could go on.

    I'm more and more glum (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by zyx on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:12:55 PM EST
    about our November prospects.


    A Little O/T; Apologies BTD (5.00 / 5) (#60)
    by JimWash08 on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:13:34 PM EST
    I was waiting for an Open Thread but this really isn't too much off-topic...
    Richardson on CNN Late Edition today
    "It's going to be placed in nomination in recognition of the 18 million votes that she got -- her historic candidacy. But then she is going to pledge her delegates to Sen. Obama so that it's a unanimous -- a unanimous election. That -- that gives me comfort."

    So it's been already decided that Hillary is going to hand over her delegates to Obama? Why have the roll call then, if only to appease her supporters? That's nonsense. So if she, in the off-chance, gets more votes than him, it doesn't matter? Now, unless she's on the ticket, that plan sounds ridiculous!

    My personal fantasy (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Faust on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:27:38 PM EST
    Is that all of this is somehow smoke and mirrors and he intends to announce her as VP at the convention. I've been thinking it for a week. I konw I'm a lunatic but I keep thinking/hoping that's what is going to happen.

    I Am One Record (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by JimWash08 on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:40:49 PM EST
    On TalkLeft for saying that I would support a Obama/Clinton ticket, and as I have always done in my off-Web life, I will be keeping to my word.

    However, it means that I will be extremely angry while I pull that lever, because so much bullsh!t could have been avoided if he'd just named her as his VP on June 6 (or at that stupid Unity, N.H. circus event).

    Why wait until the week before the convention to name her (IF he's going to name her) and grandstand -- like he did last week -- as some Almighty Savior who "always intended to put her name in nomination," which we all knew was rubbish.

    I'd vote for that ticket, but I promise you I'll be swearing his name as I do it.


    I thought this was common knowledge (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by nycstray on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:29:05 PM EST
    the roll call vote is just symbolic. It won't change the outcome anymore than the RBC meeting was going to. Can you say "Sham"? Thy name is Obama. . . .

    Yep. All for show. (5.00 / 4) (#91)
    by Joan in VA on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:37:43 PM EST
    I would rather they just ignored her at this point. I don't need a hollow feel-good, throw us a bone moment.

    She IS getting a roll call, but the downside (5.00 / 5) (#200)
    by andrys on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 03:42:28 AM EST
    of that is that so many of her elected delegates changed
    over already and most of the SDs who HAD been committed to her
    moved over when Richardson reminded them all that Obama would 'remember' only those who moved over before the close of
    the primaries on that final June day.  It was useful in masking the unexpected South Dakota loss and the big Puerto Rico one.

      They will feel uncomfortable about having to choose.  The ones who REALLY want to just be able to record a vote for her will do so but her actual recorded numbers might be 1/3rd of what she actually had.

      She will cast HER SD vote for Obama, a good gesture, and the rest of her supporters are free to follow. That way, also, the lower number of delegate votes recorded will be understood as a function of her doing that.

      They announced, on Saturday, I think, that the actual full first ballot roll-call would be gone through.


    Obviously the Richardsons et al are worried ... (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by bridget on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:33:02 PM EST
    "a unanimous election. That -- that gives me comfort."

    I just read about that plan. V. annoying if you ask me. Makes one want to ask for one's campaign contributions back.

    Ah well, what's done is done. It all was for a good cause :)


    I don't know (5.00 / 6) (#82)
    by ccpup on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:33:05 PM EST
    It IS Richardson talking (he's mastered the Kool-Aid backstroke by now, I think) and, with some Dem Leaders taking their worries about the Obama Campaign to the NY Times, I suspect there may be people urging her NOT to give him her Pledged Delegates and let it go to a Floor Fight.

    I wish we could get a nice, long look at the Internal Polling which scared these guys enough to run to the NY Times and publicly urge Obama to can the "Hope" talk and get to specifics.

    And I seriously doubt he will choose Hillary for VP.  His ego, his campaign advisers, his desire to make history all by himself ... all of that points to him choosing someone other than her.  

    Which will, of course, shock those who are assuming it'll be her and cause them to take another good, hard look at him ... and then decide he's not worth the risk and vote for McCain or stay home that day.


    Have any of these anti-Clinton people (5.00 / 7) (#107)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:53:33 PM EST
    said anything honest?

    The day video of Hillary talking to supporters and telling them she was still trying to get their voices heard, the media and Obama folk were busy saying Hillary ASKED to NOT have her name placed in nomination.

    It's been one lie after another.

    What we are going to be able to get is a front row seat watching the Democratic Party destroy what we know to be the fundamental truths of a democracy. They are taking away our vote.

    And, we thought the first election in Iraq was just for show.


    He's very pragmatic though. (none / 0) (#202)
    by andrys on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 03:47:10 AM EST
    Maybe that's why the long delay.

      I would think he'd rather get into the White House than do it alone and feel the loss of all that.

      His senior staff has made it clear to reporters galore that there is NO way that she will be the VP candidate.  But he's also been known not to take advice.  So it'll be interesting.  There's no question he'll pick up LOTS of votes if he does it and just energize the party.  As BTD says, it's such a no-brainer.

      Oh, and Bill?  Use him in the rural districts -- he actually was very helpful to Hillary there.  And if Obama wins, make him a roving ambassador, traveling the world on behalf of the U.S., if he's so worried about his presence in the White House.

      Ah well, no doubt, a pipe dream.  But it would be so great to have a united, energized (meaning not just 50% are energized) party.


    I'm glad poor wittle Richardson..... (5.00 / 6) (#92)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:38:08 PM EST
    ...finds comfort in that. I guess the idea of an actual vote that might really count strikes terror in his heart. Guess he still thinks he's going to be the VP.

    Judas Ricardson on the ticket (5.00 / 3) (#116)
    by Aqua Blue on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 09:04:44 PM EST
    would lose my vote for sure.

    His betrayal showed me his lack of character.


    Hmmm... (5.00 / 4) (#78)
    by kredwyn on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:31:51 PM EST
    I think this "remember, she hasn't really been the subject of a negative campaign since late February" should be underscored with italics for the sheer...conflama of it.

    Conflama is pure drama :) (none / 0) (#88)
    by bridget on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:36:49 PM EST
    perfect word ... hadn't heard it before

    lol@"Girl, that boy I am dating is just full of conflama."


    Poblano's commentary (5.00 / 4) (#97)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:41:19 PM EST
    Re-invigorates my opposition to the idea of a unified party.

    People like him don't deserve it.  Nor do they even want it.

    Obama must decide (5.00 / 5) (#103)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:49:09 PM EST
    what he wants more --

    to win the election, OR

    try against all odds to prove that his campaign was right all along about the "new map" and "new politics".  

    It seems to me that Obama can allow himself to be used by the Dems who want to wrest control of the party from the Clintons or he can win the election.

    Oh my goodness (5.00 / 5) (#111)
    by Lahdee on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 09:01:50 PM EST
    I had quite a heh out loud moment as I read
    ...I don't know how well she'd hold up after coming under attack in September and October.
    Are these people for real?

    No (5.00 / 3) (#144)
    by Miri on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 10:08:53 PM EST
    I don't want Hillary as VP pick.

    She would end up another Ferraro. Blamed for Obama's defeat.

    Obama cultist and media groupies would blame her for his defeat.

    I want Hillary far away from Obama. Let him go down to defeat on his own.

    That's nutz. It's Obama's job to win. (5.00 / 4) (#156)
    by masslib on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 10:52:25 PM EST

    LMAO. Oh the threats have (5.00 / 6) (#158)
    by LatinoVoter on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 11:03:18 PM EST

    Everybody run to your nearest Obama office and volunteer or else...

    Reality, not a threat (5.00 / 0) (#162)
    by 2012 ABH on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 11:13:02 PM EST
    No, you don't have to volunteer or vote for Obama, but apparently you can't see beyond this election.

    Oh I get it. (5.00 / 8) (#179)
    by LatinoVoter on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 11:53:00 PM EST
    You're not threatening me you're threatening my hypothetical children and grandchildren.

    I have bad news. I'm a homo and I don't think I'll ever have kids or grandchildren.

    You need to diversify your threats you could threaten me with the loss of a gym membership* or dropping Bravo from my cable package.

    *who am I kidding? I've never seen the inside of a gym.


    Spoken like a true Obama supporter (5.00 / 5) (#160)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 11:10:50 PM EST
    Rangel, Clark, Gramma, Wright, Pfleger, and all the other busunders would say the biggest drawback to Obama is that he is big on revenge and punishment of all who think differently than he does.

    Seems that's exactly the kind of people he attracts, as well.

    PUMA is the tip of the iceburg (5.00 / 6) (#167)
    by katiebird on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 11:22:25 PM EST
    PUMA could shut down tomorrow.  It wouldn't change this story (BTD's Post) Or Obama's negatives Or the way he polls or who he'll choose for VP -- or any of a hundred issues -- at all.

    Blame PUMA if you must.  But, Obama's his own worst enemy.  

    His supporters don't do (5.00 / 3) (#172)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 11:27:33 PM EST
    him any good, either. At least not when they are like the one posting threats as fast as he/she can type.

    Well, if your candidate loses (5.00 / 5) (#168)
    by masslib on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 11:23:33 PM EST
    in the most Democratic year in the last 40 good luck having any influence at all.  I don't even know if Hillary plans to run in 2012.  Frankly, your talking crazy.

    There's a HUGE difference between (5.00 / 2) (#170)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 11:24:50 PM EST
    not voting for a candidate who is clearly unqualified, and inexperienced for the job of President, and not voting for a candidate just to get even with them because you don't like the people who supported him/her last round.

    This is your first time voting, isn't it?!

    C'mon, there Sher (none / 0) (#196)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:46:47 AM EST
    the comment doesn't deserve that troll rating.

    You lurk in the background, rarely participate in the conversation, and looking at your history, you are actually stalking several commenters here.

    Doesn't it get tiresome for you?


    Just to get this straight (5.00 / 8) (#174)
    by misspeach2008 on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 11:36:01 PM EST
    If a group of Democrats or former Democrats refuses to vote for Senator Obama in 2008 because they don't think he's qualified to be president or they object to the way he became the nominee, other Democrats will refuse to vote for another Democrat in 2012 to get revenge? I'm only asking because of the accusations of revenge or sore loser reasons for voting. I just want to make sure that those accusations are recorded for prosperity.

    Yes, she will need that support (5.00 / 5) (#177)
    by ChrisM on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 11:44:13 PM EST
    and will probably work and campaign for it, just like she did in this primary when she campaigned for the core Dem constituencies...

    as opposed to taking them for granted and assume that "they have nowhere else to go so we can insult and demean them, they'll come home."

    Actually I agree (5.00 / 2) (#182)
    by miriam on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 11:58:36 PM EST
    There surely will be payback if/when Obama loses.  So much, in fact, that I can see the entire Democratic party imploding...which will be a damn good thing. Most people will never swallow the "It's Hillary's fault" since it is all too clear that Obama is his own worst enemy.  Insulting Wes Clark was among the latest most perfectly stupid, self-destructive things any candidate has ever done. Obama is managing, against all odds, to dismiss and piss off every Democratic fence-sitter who was still considering voting for him.  Who will be left wanting to support him and his absymal, egocentric, adolescent judgment?  Michelle?    

    No, your's are. (5.00 / 2) (#185)
    by tree on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:07:24 AM EST
    Act like a juvenile stereotype, get mistaken for one. Threatening payback is so junior high.

    It's sher, the rating troll in disguise (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:11:10 AM EST
    Over her/his limit on newly registered screen names.

    That's hysterical. Sher uprated herself (5.00 / 2) (#194)
    by Cream City on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:17:45 AM EST
    in a comment below.  Brings a whole new level of meaning to "echo chamber."

    Gandhi (5.00 / 4) (#190)
    by Valhalla on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:37:21 AM EST
    "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."

    Getting a wee bit desperate, are we?

    2012 for Hillary:

    -- can't game the red state caucuses, that was a trick that could only work once.
    -- can't orchestrate organized voter intimidation, also a trick that could only work once.
    -- HRC starts her campaign the way she worked this one from March on -- when Obama flatlined while she won over the trust of a clear majority of voters in the large and key swingstates
    -- No MI/FL delegate fakery by the DNC, so no RBC stealing votes for Obama
    -- all the trendy minions are already tiring of Obama, their interest won't last until November, nevermind 4 years
    -- Netrootz credibility gutted by Stalinst opinion-suppression tactics and obvious failure to choose winners (see Edwards, John).
    -- no one likes to be associated with a loser (see Kerry, John)

    But no, really, just keep pushing the threats, I'm quivering in fear.  I promise.

    Ignorant (5.00 / 2) (#193)
    by chopper on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:02:29 AM EST
    Obama may be smart about book-learning, election law, and election fraud, but when it comes to choosing friends, associates, or VPs, he is ignorant.

    Just look at these people - Rezko, the Chicago crook, the racist and anti-American preachers, the Iraqi criminals, Ayers, the terrorist bomber of American sites, Hamas, the Black Panthers, etc.

    Do you really think that all of a sudden he is going to get smart about choosing a VP.  If he was smart he would have chosen Hillary months ago.

    Remember how Michelle hated Hillary.
    He is either ignorant or hen-pecked or both.  

    He has very poor judgement in any case.

    Half would be more hopeful, sher. (5.00 / 2) (#195)
    by Cream City on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:19:22 AM EST
    Problem is that he can't get to 50 percent.  He's still stuck in the 40s. . . .

    Hillary Would Serve (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by bob h on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 05:44:10 AM EST
    as a flak-catcher for Obama, and would hold up well.  I gave to Obama, but will give no more if he does not pick her.

    Obama smeared Hillary as wanting to kill him... (5.00 / 6) (#204)
    by lambert on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 06:34:32 AM EST
    ... in February, with the RFK thing?

    Gee, I'd forgotten that. My chronology must be all off.

    But Poblano's an expert, so I guess he's right!

    Am I missing something here? (2.00 / 0) (#26)
    by KVFinn on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:49:37 PM EST
    I don't really understand what the problem is with the comment.  Did you think he meant how well she'd hold up personally?  He's talking about her bounce, her polling, her numbers, etc.  Based on the system he uses (the nearest neighbor stuff), it makes for a difficult to predict scenario.

    Yes you are missing something here (5.00 / 11) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:54:10 PM EST
    There is nothing negative left to say or not heard about Hillary Clinton.

    She will hold up where she has always been - a lot of people hate her - Republicans and Obama supporters, more really like her - the ones that Obama needs to win the election.

    The comment is idiotic. Completely idiotic.


    It's typical for Poblano (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by kredwyn on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:34:06 PM EST
    the same guy who decided that the Thomas database wasn't good enough for his research.

    huh? (none / 0) (#87)
    by andgarden on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:35:06 PM EST

    back at the orange... (5.00 / 5) (#99)
    by kredwyn on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:44:10 PM EST
    he and I got into it about the fact that he was using one "independent" (according to him) source for his diary on HRC's legislative record. The number of things that his datatbase of choice didn't was stunning (pieces of legislation that were introduced one way...but got passed in a whole 'nother way weren't included). His claim that she was nothing but a Post Office namer re: legislation introduced.

    I pointed out that the Library of Congress's Thomas had a list of all pieces of legislation that she'd introduced including those that wound up passed in other ways as well as the more honorary stuff. And instead of revising his diary accordingly, he kept insisting that his source was "independent" and completely ignored my point that the "independent" source wasn't as good as the proverbial horse's mouth (aka Thomas).

    It was a fascinating study in "hands over ears...la la la--I can't hear you" crap.


    Congressional staffers (none / 0) (#108)
    by andgarden on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:54:10 PM EST
    use a slightly better version of what is essentially the same thing. Clueless, indeed.

    Clinton nepotism (2.00 / 1) (#206)
    by Fen on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:21:33 PM EST
    DYNASTY meme???????/  Give me a break.  Hillary is not Bill's daughter or his chattel.

    Hillary would not even be a NY Senator if she hadn't been married to Bill Clinton.

    And careful with the chattel comments. She's been a cuckhold for most of her marriage.

    Alternate Viewpoint (1.85 / 7) (#7)
    by Jade Jordan on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:31:43 PM EST
    While he would gain the support of some Hillary fans he would lose the support of much of his base.

    Many people who support him, volunteer for him, and donate money, would not if he picked Hillary.

    I would not vote for him with her on the ticket.  I would vote independent.

    This is a very pro-Hillary site but for every PUMA and Clintonite that hates Obama there are hundreds of Obamanics who do not like Clinton for a variety of reasons.

    This comment won't be popular here but Obama needs his own presidency not a Clinton shadow presidency.  I can envision a separate VP Clinton and hubby press conference for every decision that Obama makes that they disagree with.  I can envision leaks and undermining his presidency the entire time.

    Please Obama recognize that the Clinton era needs to be over.

    Really? (5.00 / 15) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:33:37 PM EST
    You mean Obama supporters would not vote for Obama if he picked Clinton?

    Let me put it this way, Bullsh*t.


    yea, polls seem to show the opposite of (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by DandyTIger on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:36:34 PM EST
    that alternative viewpoint. Polls if I remember correctly show that more Obama supporters would vote for Obama with Clinton as VP than Clinton suppoters will support Obama without Clinton as VP. So I'm not sure where this alternative is coming from. Hmm, something in the drink perhaps. Snark.

    So the question is, (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by Nevart on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 11:08:17 PM EST
    ...who are the more loyal Dems then?

    The answer is (5.00 / 7) (#180)
    by Cream City on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 11:54:03 PM EST
    those who stayed loyal to the Dem party for decades.

    Then it wasn't the Dem party anymore, when it went Rovian and broke rules and even its charter.  

    We're still loyal to the Dem party.  And we want it back.  If it comes back to us, we'll be ready on day one.


    Lest he reverse the current trend, Obama isn't (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by tigercourse on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:35:06 PM EST
    going to get any kind of Presidency whatsoever.

    I don't believe he would lose that base at all (5.00 / 8) (#13)
    by miguelito on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:36:32 PM EST
    as that base says, the fate of the world depends on not letting the Repubs win the WH, so we must all elect Obama.  So if they picked HRC that would evaporate?  The "variety of reasons" his base does not like HRC has come directly from his campaign using cribbed notes from the nineties along with the introduction of the race card.  If she was the vp pick, his followers would fall in line.  It might take a big speech though.

    After (5.00 / 19) (#17)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:40:32 PM EST
    he deep sixed you guys on FISA you'd complain about Hillary being on the ticket? LOL!

    Your comment may be very popular here! (5.00 / 17) (#19)
    by Cream City on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:41:40 PM EST
    If we had a poll, it would be the hands-down winner of best yet seen for cluelessness by the losers to come.

    You keep clinging bitterly to that CDS, 'cause the way it's going, it will be all you have on November 5.


    and the Obama era (5.00 / 5) (#27)
    by cawaltz on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:51:24 PM EST
    will be over before it ever began. There will be no unity as long as half the party continues to ignore she won half the Democratic base.

    He Just Can't Win Then (5.00 / 5) (#34)
    by JimWash08 on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:57:53 PM EST
    While he would gain the support of some Hillary fans he would lose the support of much of his base.

    Many people who support him, volunteer for him, and donate money, would not if he picked Hillary.

    Barring a divine intervention, I believe Obama will remain the lame duck candidate that many have already labeled him to be.

    He doesn't choose Hillary, he loses a significant group of women/white working class/Hispanic voters.

    And according to you, if he chooses Hillary, he loses his base of young/AA voters.

    So, on that account, he's a loss waiting to happen.


    And this is why Obama will lose (5.00 / 11) (#35)
    by Jjc2008 on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:58:05 PM EST
    His peeps simply do not get it.  Describing all Hillary supporters as hating Obama is at best ignorant, at worst, cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.  Most of us do not hate Obama but we do look with disgust at the tactics of his team.  And do know that at best they are two candidates the same on the issues.  We happen to think she is the one that works harder and will work harder.

    The Obama supporters with CDS are not democrats and never have been.  They are independents and young people who have bought into right wing smears.  A little bit of truth would go a long way with them.
    But if for them this remains about winning as if it is an American Idol contest, then you will get what you deserve.


    JadeJordan...WHY does the Clinton... (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Shainzona on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:58:35 PM EST
    era need to be over?

    I'm serious.  I just don't understand that sentiment, other than CDS, so I really would appreciate your thoughtful answer to this question.


    I think that people like Jade (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by rjarnold on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:44:59 PM EST
    have a really simplistic view on the Clintons and politics in general. They think that the Clintons are pro-war, pro-corporate politicians that are controlled by lobbyists. They also see the Clintons as people with no character that would do anything to win. And Jade probably thinks the opposite about Obama even though Obama isn't even better policy-wise.

    People that think like that see things in black and white and don't really know anyhting about policy.


    Well.... (5.00 / 3) (#115)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 09:04:25 PM EST
    People that think like that see things in black and white and don't really know anyhting about policy.

    They don't really know anything about people either.


    Clintons Are Self Serving (3.00 / 2) (#134)
    by Jade Jordan on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 09:38:40 PM EST
    Looking from the outside I have always felt that everything the Clintons have done is solely to benefit the Clintons and not the party.

    That is why we lost control of the congress during Bills reign.

    The slash and burn nature of the primary and the vitriol by Bill since the primary is a bitter pill.

    I dislike the DLC Corporate Leaning Clinton Era.  I am ready for a people powered administration.

    I don't deny the fact that the Clintons have a lot of loyal followers.  I am weary of Bill most of all and look forward to turning the page.


    It's Obama supporters like you (5.00 / 6) (#138)
    by masslib on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 09:55:28 PM EST
    who will lose this election for him.

    OY (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by IzikLA on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 09:55:34 PM EST
    I'm sure someone will have a better response to this but I just think it's crap.  I guess the Clinton's did nothing for America?  I guess maybe we are better off with losing Democrats so the Republicans can get into office?  I guess you don't realize that Obama is no different...

    Me?  I'd prefer to have someone who I knew would be fighting for me.  I don't mind Obama all that much but I have never once bought this post-partisan unity schtick.  It's is much ado about nothing if you ask me...


    Sheesh (5.00 / 10) (#140)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 09:57:41 PM EST
    CDS in a one comment nutshell.

    Not one bit of substance but every lie ever sold.

    Well done.


    You feel ???? (5.00 / 8) (#142)
    by Jjc2008 on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 09:58:32 PM EST
    From the outside?  

    But you KNOW nothing.  See that's the sad part.  Feeling Obama is inspiring.  Feeling the Clintons are evil.  Maybe that's how you live your life in...some kind of good vs evil mythology.  

    Everything the Clintons have done has been for themselves comes right out of the religious right and the rovian mentality that convinces people they can "tell these" things just cuz!

    PROVE it.  Show me facts of how Hillary Clinton in college switched herself from her parents republican world view to her own was for her personal gain?  Show me how in college organizing a demonstration to get her college to include more minority students was for her personal benefit?  Show me how her going to DC to work to bring down Nixon was for her personal benefit.  Show me how pushing to open clinics for the poor women and children of Arkansas was for her personal benefit.

    Bill and Hillary chose public service because they believe in making the lives of people better.  People believing the right wing hype of the evil Clintons are either woefully ignorant of reality or easily lead, both characteristics of the right.


    One more thing.... (5.00 / 10) (#143)
    by Jjc2008 on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 10:03:37 PM EST
    any one who can think has to wonder.  If Hillary or Bill only cared about themselves, then you have to know they would retire.  They are quite well off thanks to their books; they have more fame than most people in the world; in much of the world (outside the US, the home of CDS) they are beloved and welcome.

    Bill and Hillary could live lives of the idle rich, on the most exquisite beaches of the world, on yachts and in seclusion.  

    Instead Bill spends countless hours trying to better the lives of some of the most impoverished people on the planet.  Hillary chooses to work to improve the lives of Americans.
    Yea, they really are out for them selves (picture a rolling eyes icon).


    it's stupidty (5.00 / 3) (#148)
    by ccpup on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 10:25:21 PM EST
    like this that just makes me sad.

    And it's stupidity like this which makes the "Average American" the laughingstock of most of my friends in other countries.

    It's just ... mind-boggling.  Kind of like a "this is your brain on CDS" promo, you know?


    If you don't like (5.00 / 9) (#151)
    by Inky on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 10:31:06 PM EST
    the DLC Corporate Leaning Clinton Era, then perhaps you shouldn't be supporting the candidate whose chief economic adviser Austan Goolsbee is also the chief economist for the DLC. If you are ready for a non-corporatist, then perhaps you shouldn't be supporting the candidate who chose Jim Cooper, one of the most conservative Democrats in Congress and leading spokesman for the insurance industry position on health care reform, a man who more than anyone else in Washington helped to defeat health-care reform in 1993, as his point person on health-care reform.

    I could go on and on, but it's just so hopeless. You have absolutely no clue as to why we lost control of Congress during Bill's reign.

    As I've said before, I never realized that I belonged to the Clinton wing of the Democratic party until I saw what the alternative was.


    bwahhahahahah (5.00 / 2) (#192)
    by Valhalla on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:41:01 AM EST
    "people powered administration"?

    Let me guess, you also think his FISA vote was just a big fake out because once he gets in office he'll jump into a phone booth and come out as Super Secret Progressive Man!


    Ahhh (none / 0) (#137)
    by IzikLA on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 09:51:26 PM EST
    I seriously love this comment, thank you Shainzona!!!  One of the things I've heard over and over again and yet the question I still can't get ANYONE to answer is WHY?

    Because (none / 0) (#146)
    by Cream City on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 10:14:34 PM EST
    it's the sort of answer we get from people who haven't voted before or perhaps voted for Nader, people whose parents voted and raised them Republican, people who spent the Clinton years watching pop-up video. . . .

    Let's see - (5.00 / 13) (#43)
    by Josey on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:00:55 PM EST
    Obama flip flopped on FISA, public financing, and a plethora of other issues and his infuriated base remained.
    But you assert, if he chose Hillary - his base would desert him.
    You've got a really bad case of CDS!

    Yes (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by standingup on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:02:09 PM EST
    We must end the terrible, horrible, no good, very bad Clinton era.  I can't imagine another period of peace and prosperity.  If Obama does get elected, it will be a shadow presidency but we should at least keep it from being a Clinton shadow presidency.

    And here I thought Poblano's comment (5.00 / 12) (#54)
    by Anne on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:10:38 PM EST
    would be the knee-slapper of the evening...

    Let's try to remember that the only way there could be "hundreds" of - to use your term - Obamanics (soon to be Obama-depressives, I think) for every Puma and Clintonite would be if he had received a hundred times the votes she did, and we know that didn't happen.

    To read your comment, one would have to conclude that the only logical choice for Obama's VP is...Obama himself, because that's the only way he's ever going to have his own presidency.

    And given that Clinton has been doing nothing but urging her supporters to get behind Obama, your "vision" of daily Clinton VP pressers where she takes him to task is just laughable.  Really almost not deserving of comment, but it's just too much to pass up.

    It is my hope that the Obama "era" is blessedly short (it has not, nor will it ever be, "sweet"), and teaches all the Obamanics, who thought the way to remake the party was to jettison its most loyal and hard-working members, that they have a lot to learn.


    Ha! (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by chel2551 on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:29:19 PM EST
    Let's try to remember that the only way there could be "hundreds" of - to use your term - Obamanics (soon to be Obama-depressives, I think)

    They're already jumping ship, the little rats.


    Alternative Viewpoint. Here's mine... (5.00 / 8) (#59)
    by masslib on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:13:16 PM EST
    Despite what Obama needs, the country needs either a Clinton Presidency or a Clinton Shadow Presidency.

    I addressed that in the other thread (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:37:09 PM EST
    Then his base is deranged.

    And it's clearly something that does not exist in reverse.

    This point discredits support for Obama and turns it into the act of a deranged person.


    Wow, so FISA isn't a dealbreaker but... (5.00 / 5) (#95)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:40:31 PM EST
    ...Clinton as VP is?

    Jade- sorry but that is absurd (5.00 / 0) (#102)
    by kenosharick on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:49:05 PM EST
    or do you really believe that Obama's supporters are so blinded by hatred and CDS that they would throw the election away for "the ONE?" BTW- your ability to clairvoiantly (is that a word?) see into a future Obama WH is truly amazing!!

    If Obama isn't smart enough to pick HRC (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by angie on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:49:38 PM EST
    and he seems to be intent on not picking her despite the fact that this was the closest primary in the history of the Dem party & the ONLY way to truly achieve unity, then he isn't smart enough to be President.

    I think Jade is correct (5.00 / 0) (#113)
    by s5 on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 09:03:23 PM EST
    I like Hillary (I just happen to like Obama better), but adding Hillary would be a huge disappointment for a lot of people. I think Obama's most hardcore supporters would hold their noses and still vote for him, but Obama supporting right leaning independents would abandon him for McCain. There's a lot of pent-up dislike for the Clintons in this country, and while I agree that most of it is irrational, winning elections is about navigating the irrational.

    For whatever it's worth, I guessed Richardson months ago. I don't have a strong opinion about Richardson (and for that matter, I barely care about who ends up as VP), it's just a gut feeling, and I would happy to be right purely for the thrill of being right. :) I think Clark may be my actual top pick.


    There's nothing "pent-up" (5.00 / 5) (#125)
    by tree on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 09:18:06 PM EST
    about it at all. CDS sufferers have been in full vent mode for months.

    And I'm not sure that Obama has many right-leaning independents left these days.


    Heh (5.00 / 4) (#126)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 09:21:22 PM EST
    The empirical evidence is just the opposite but what the hell, let the CDS rule you instead of the facts.

    How old are you? (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by Miri on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 10:22:06 PM EST
    Do you know that Bill Clinton left office with 66% approval rating?

    How old are you? 12?


    Yea we know (none / 0) (#145)
    by Jjc2008 on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 10:10:18 PM EST
    it's calle CDS and it's silly, and ridiculous.  Pent up dislike is a mild term.  And if right leaning independents are a part of Obama's base, that scares me a lot.  Obama has already flip flopped, played to right center....if these so called independents are his base, what the hell will he do in office???

    He's already thrown Clark under the bus....... (none / 0) (#150)
    by sallywally on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 10:27:03 PM EST
    told Clark there was no reason for him to attend the convention, unless I've missed something today.

    No, all the polling pretty much negates that (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by Valhalla on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 09:25:08 PM EST
    anyone who can swallow the Kool Aid can swallow anything.

    They, like Judas Richardson, will comfort themselves by making up stories -- heck, I can write they're breast-beating scripts right now:

    1.  He had to do it to win the election, and it doesn't matter because VP has no power anyway.

    2.  Clinton the She-Monster forced him to do it.

    3.   It's the most genius move ever!  Only Obama could have thought of it.

    4.   (my favorite):  He's only pretending she's his VP pick now, he's secretly planning to fire her as soon he gets in office, right before he starts enacting his secret progressive policies.

    The KA crowd will swallow anything.  Anything.

    If this is true: (1.80 / 5) (#24)
    by Faust on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:46:00 PM EST
    I would not vote for him with her on the ticket.  I would vote independent.

    Then you are just as crazy and stupid as the PUMAs.


    The Pumas (5.00 / 15) (#32)
    by Jeannie on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:55:12 PM EST
    are looking more and more sensible by the day.

    Then call me names too. As I said (5.00 / 12) (#74)
    by zfran on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:29:13 PM EST
    upthread, I thought I would vote for Obama if Hillary were on the ticket. That was then, this is now. Now, even with Hillary on the ticket, I would not vote for them. Obama has said he doesn't need my vote, he doesn't care about my vote, he voted against my constitution, he may be pro-choice, but he's not for women's right to choose (w/out clergy/family or anyone). He is not the "inclusive" dem I thought the party represented and his minions are mean, nasty, and he has not lifted a finger to stop the vile nastiness they project. The DNC etal blew this one big and if Obama wins, I fear for my country, my rights and my children.

    MORE crazy than the PUMAs (5.00 / 3) (#94)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:39:06 PM EST
    There isn't a PUMA who would make the same kind of non-vote in reverse.

    So.  MORE crazy than the PUMAs.  The equivalency would be a false one qualitatively and quantitatively.


    Exactly (1.25 / 4) (#38)
    by JimWash08 on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:59:07 PM EST
    Then you are just as crazy and stupid as the PUMAs.

    JadedJordan....surely you jest....after (none / 0) (#121)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 09:09:21 PM EST
    watching obama these last two months, his supporters would let out a collective sigh of relief, thinking his butt would be retrieved from the fire.  In a sane world, the better ticket is definitely Clinton/obama.

    The Bill Wildcard (none / 0) (#15)
    by DemForever on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:38:32 PM EST

    Only CDS could (5.00 / 16) (#50)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:05:19 PM EST
    make people think Bill Clinton would be a wildcard for an Obama/Clinton ticket.

    Honestly, people are just lunatics when it comes to the Clintons.


    Do they think Bill is going to drop off the face (5.00 / 3) (#119)
    by ruffian on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 09:07:16 PM EST
    of the earth if Hillary is not the VP?  He'll still be out there, getting press, saying whatever is on his mind. If Obama agrees with him, which I believe he will 99% of the time, great.  If not, he can respectfully disagree and move on.  This will be true regardless of what Hillary's job is.

    the stupid...it burns...


    The only 2 term Dem President since FDR (5.00 / 6) (#106)
    by angie on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:51:27 PM EST
    yeah, what a liability. {rolls eyes}

    Not just two term (5.00 / 5) (#109)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:57:06 PM EST
    The highest rated president since they started keeping track of job approval.

    How much time do you think GWB (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by ruffian on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 09:29:03 PM EST
    has spent worrying about what Bill Clinton is out and about doing in the last 8 years?  Has there been a hint of Bill undermining him - even though Bill hates everything he has done?  Not that I have seen. Bill Clinton is no more a 'wildcard' than G. H. W Bush, who has also kept a respectful distance, even though I'm sure he has had to bite his tongue to shreds.

    Typical Kidstuff from the "everyone but (none / 0) (#57)
    by bridget on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:12:27 PM EST
    Hillary folks" who lack sense of history and nothing but:

    lol@"remember, she hasn't really been the subject of a negative campaign since late February, ..."

    How old is this quoted Poblamo fellow?
     18, 21, 25, or as "old" as 36 years? 40?

    Thats the internet for you .... so many bloggers to quote, so little time to read ;-)

    He's 12* (none / 0) (#80)
    by kredwyn on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:32:53 PM EST
    *not really...but it sure seems like it at times when trying to understand his logic.

    Project much, Poblano? (none / 0) (#101)
    by ruffian on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:46:29 PM EST
    The thing I've learned in the last 8 months is that CDS is much more prevalent among Dems than Repubs.  Poblano imagines all kinds of horrible things about the Clintons that have not yet been said, beyond even Rush's wildest dreams.  Too funny.

    Ask them why the Clinton Era has to be over and you get inane muttering about dynasties and 'Bush, Clinton, Bush Clinton'.  Indeed, the mental children are running the show.

    On some level I still think Obama is smarter than most of his supporters.  He may yet do the right thing - if those Ohio polls look even worse mid-week.

    You mean he's going to (5.00 / 6) (#112)
    by BrianJ on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 09:02:49 PM EST
    Apologize to Clinton and her supporters for his sexist, racist, and otherwise dismissive comments, ask his SDs to support her for the nomination, and gracefully step aside?


    Dammit.  That WOULD be the right thing, but you're right in that he won't do it.  He'd rather rule in hell than serve in heaven, to quote Milton.

    Seventy-nine days from now, he'll be giving the Bestest Concession Speech EVAH!  And the Clintons will be running the party so it can win for a change.


    one wonders (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by ccpup on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 09:09:08 PM EST
    which direction his numbers will move post-Faith Forum in light of all his "uh"s and "um"s and maddening inability to actually settle on an answer though he talks incessantly.

    I suspect this will be the beginning of people turning away from him because the Man in no way measures up to the Hype.


    I'd guess the same direction (none / 0) (#154)
    by BrianJ on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 10:47:13 PM EST
    As they've gone for a while-  you'll probably see him lose the last percentage point of his lead before the convention.

    VP (none / 0) (#136)
    by lilburro on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 09:45:25 PM EST
    or not, she would be a shot in the arm for his campaign.  Want to defray the Clinton hijacks convention rumors?  Have her campaign for you a week straight beforehand.

    ...huh? (none / 0) (#191)
    by nathanp on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:38:00 AM EST
    You think the way to convince someone worried that Clinton will hijack the convention is to stick her in front of cameras for a week?

    The payback is now (none / 0) (#166)
    by Jjc2008 on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 11:19:09 PM EST
    It's Obama's Clinton hate machine that won't turn off.   The name calling, the temper tantrums still go on.  It's getting old.

    Hillary has to fight her own battles. (none / 0) (#178)
    by masslib on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 11:48:54 PM EST
    I'm not out here to protect her imagined 2012 run.  LOL.  Your point is pointless, and not worthy of legitimate argument.

    who knows really (none / 0) (#205)
    by MrPope on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:26:40 AM EST
    who knows really if Hill as VP would guarantee a win  or give the speedboat crew more ammo.

    And if Obama does want to pick Hillary as VP... he has to wait to the last minute to not seem as if he was forced into it.

    I still think its a 70% chance he picks Hillary.

    It is the strongest ticket.

    I would love to see HILL  rip Mccain daily.