the negative is it puts a racist republican on the ticket...that is a major drawback. We tried that with liberman, how did that work out for hte party?
Negatives? Pretty high. Ideally, Obama wants a Veep he can trust, one who can reliably stick the political knife into the backs of your opponets.
Uhm....with Clinton as VP, Obama would have to watch his back constantly, particularly with Bill running around.
Nope, not gonna happen. Nor should it.
I kinda like the idea of Kathleen Sibelius (sp?), gov of Kansas, as Veep. Or Janet Napalitano (gov of Arizona). On paper, Sibelius is the better pol, although she has no DC experience.
Unrelated note, the longer Clinton campaigns, the more, ultimately, she'll need to be in Obama's good graces, not the other way. There's an inverse effect going on, that the longer she stays on the presidential campaign stage, the lower her poll numbers will go.
Just an observation....
a) The "average Democratic voter" who took the poll likes the idea of a "Dream Ticket" because he's been conditioned to the MSM's idiotic conceit that this should end like some "fair and balanced" sitcom where everyone hugs at the end. People who know politics understand that Hillary as VP is a lose for all involved, and aren't even considering this.
It's no good for Obama, for the reason brat describes. She'd use what little power she had as VP to stab him in the back every chance she gets.
It's no good for Hillary, because it won't be the equal partnership that the "dream ticket" dreamers are imagining. Obama isn't Dumbya, and he won't need a Veep who secretly runs the show or is a partner. Hillary gets more of what she loves most (power) by staying in the Senate. The only thing I like about the "Dream Ticket" is that it takes her out of the power equation for at least 4 years.
Finally, it's no good for the Dems' chances in the general. For every voter she brings in by being on the ticket, she'll lose two who dread the idea of her being a "sniper's bullet" away from the Oval Office.
b) It's a bad signal about how the party works. The Dems have to get past the point where a destructive "my turn! MY turn!" sense of entitlement gets rewarded.
This primary is also a power struggle between the DLC establishment that's made the Dems the party of losers and the reform wing led by Dean. The reformers have been on the ascent since 2006, when they demonstrated that the 50-state strategy works, but the DLC has shown itself unwilling to admit it's wrong and release its grip. This is an opportunity for the party to pry their fingers off the controls.
Deals will be made, but they'll be of the sort you described yesterday, and focus on paying off the victims of Hillary's bad financial management (Hillary herself excluded).
c) The Dean wing of party will put an end to it, not Obama. We'll see what Edwards says this morning: if he endorses Obama, she's told the DNC she'll stay in til the end; if he's neutral and doesn't rise to the interviewer's bait, she's indicated she's getting out and Dean told Edwards to stand down. There's also a range of responses in between.
The party and country has come to a bad turn when we're talking like Cold War Kremlinologists.
If the blue collar white men are the real issue, I think Webb would do the trick for Obama - plus, he came out of a loyalty background. He's turned into a populist, which would be good, he has FP and military chops, and he has a kid fighting the war. Plus - he's fuckin' white.
The women like me, straight, white, of a "certain age" would fall into line just for the sake of not having McCain appointing any SCOTUS judges. Plus there's a bit of sex appeal to each guy. Don't know what to do to please the lesbians, though. In my Stonewall group, they're all for Hillary.
a definite con is the lobby money problem. We can hit mccain hard on all the lobby and influence pedaling, but not if someone on our ticket has some of the same kinds of skeletons in the closet. Did you see the arizona land deal news on mccain today? We can't make hay from stuff like that if we are saddled with the clintons who have taken A LOT of support money from lots and lots of lobbiests
I loved Hillary through last year then she started showing this 'win at all costs even if it drags down the party' attitude. I think she's shown that she can't be trusted. She believes she's better than Obama have a hard time taking a backseat to him.
I'm hoping for Bill Richardson but realize that the US may not be ready for an African-American/Latino ticket.
And then Obama dies...and guess who becomes President?
Not feeling this idea at all. Why can't she go away for a good 10-15 years and leave us alone?
I don't want to see/hear her or Bill Clinton for awhile.
I have serious Clinton fatigue.
I agree with others that have said that Richardson as VP is too big a middle finger in the Clintons' face to happen-not that I don't think they deserve all sorts of real and metaphorical middle fingers, but I just don't think the Obama campaign wants to antagonize them more than they have to. Besides I think Richardson would rather be Sec. of State-and after this administration, won't it be a delight to have someone capable of diplomacy in that position.
As for a "pro" of having Clinton as #2, there is the old "keep your enemies closer" advice. This may be more important in the election than in the administration, though, since there's not too much mischief she could make from her Senate seat if Obama winds up having the long coat-tails and large margin of victory I expect him to.
For the record, I think that is highly unlikely to happen. Even if offered, Clinton is unlikely to accept-she really thinks Obama is going to lose to McCain and I doubt she wants to be on that tainted ticket.
What I expect will happen is a "cold offer," wherein the offer of VP is made with the clear understanding that it is to be turned down. Clinton will claim to have a charge to keep (yes, I did that on purpose-sorry) for the people of NY, Obama will look magnanimous, Bill Clinton will get moist-eyed and bite his lip, and the whole affair will continue as previously scheduled.
Webb is ONLY good on the war - otherwise, he is literally a DINO, having actually changed parties, but maybe not ideology. Too bad - I like him, but he's been on the wrong side of a lot of stuff, including the FISA immunity nonsense, if I'm not mistaken. I'd rather not see him in line for the presidency.
Since I think that Hillary will be a LOT better than her myriad critics in the blogosphere, and that Obama can't possibly be as good as his most racid followers expect him to be, I wouldn't be opposed to a *Unity ticket.* That said, I would prefer that the Dems try to be just a little less twee and nominate a white guy. Yeah, I know, they are SO 2007, but maybe it would be a good idea to not keep trying to push the envelope in this particular election. I would just LOVE to see Edwards in there - he was always my first choice, and while VP *can* be a thankless job, it puts him in a good springboard position and if Obama had any brains, he would just hand healthcare off to Edwards...
Well, John Kennedy made Lyndon Johnson a "cold offer", and Johnson took it:
" 'He wants it', the dazed Jack told his brother.
'Oh my God', Bobby exclaimed. 'Now what do we do?' "
http://findarticles.com/p/articl...i_19898073/
pg_1
a) pros/cons of Clinton being on the ticket'
b) "politics as usual" v. Obama's current campaign, and
c) does the situation (the politics) require Obama to make a VP offer?
a) IMHO, there are NO pros.
Cons:
Obama inherits her baggage.
If you get Hillary, you get Bill.
two race baiters for the price of one.
If there is a policy disagreement and President Obama overules her, Hillary will go whining to the press, "He won't listen to me because I'm a woman (SOB)."
b) It will be seen as politics as usual, thereby weaking Obama's presentation, just to make Hillary happy.
c) Obama has won the nomination on his own terms . The situation does not REQUIRE him to make a VP offer to Hillary.
She has done nothing to deserve such an offer.
Hillary lost, she should now rally around and fully support the Democratic nominee.
A proper cold offer is one, to invert the usual formulation, that cannot be accepted.
It's not a real offer, but rather something promised or given in return for everybody coming out and saying the offer was extended.
Brat Johnson and Obama Til Denver Johnson are right. (Blazing Saddles reference).
don't fall for it -- this narrative is straight from Planet Clinton! I don't believe the average Dem wants to see the Dream Ticket -- nope. Doesn't pass the smell test.
I don't see why he has to make a deal with her at all -- he has won. With Oregon, it will be OVER. She is continuing to damage herself... why should he give her anything??? To appease her -- why?? I bet there are a lot of Dems on the hill who will be happy that she has been knocked down a peg or two from her royal status -- starting with Pelosi.
pros of clinton on the ticket. she still has the chops. she's shameless enough to mould the message. as a VP attack dog she would be pretty good.
con: the biggest i can think of is that with her as VP she would want to continue with the cheney expansion of the scope and power of the office. i have never been sure of that being a good idea. i think a more ideal choice for the health of the nation would be somebody willing to do less not more.
despite the window dressing the bulk of obama's campaign is politics as usual. it has to be to enjoy the success he's been having.
as for being required. . .that remains to be seen. maybe sen. clinton can be mollified with senate majority leader (i have always preferred to think of her as a "national" senator who trancends merely representing a single state) and some other goodies tossed her way. i prefer her health care plan to obama's for instance (i preferred edward's plan to both of theirs though)
I'm a little unclear re. this Senate Majority Leader idea I see floated here and there
Is there any indication that Harry Reid would willingly give the title up? I'm really asking-it's possible, but it seems strange that he would step down after just 2 years in the big chair.
Wall Street Journal:
http://online.wsj.com/public/
art...clarations.html
Obama Now Takes The Lead in Superdelegates Too
May 09, 2008 6:19 AM
ABC News' Karen Travers Reports:
For the first time this campaign season, Barack Obama has surpassed Hillary Clinton's support among superdelegates, according to the ABC News delegate estimate.
Sen. Obama, D-Ill., picked up two superdelegates this morning giving him a new metric to tout in addition to his current commanding leads in pledged delegates, popular votes, states won, and money raised.
Rep. Donald Payne, D-N.J., switched his endorsement from Clinton to Obama and Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., endorsed Obama. DeFazio was previously uncommitted.
With these endorsements, Obama has the support of 267 superdelegates and Clinton has 265 superdelegates.
Every news organization's superdelegate count is a little different because it is an imperfect science. Since October 2007, the Political Unit has continuously reached out to the nearly 800 superdelegates to determine their candidate preference. We also reach out regularly to the Obama and Clinton campaigns for their superdelegate lists and work to confirm any that they include on their lists.
Clinton’s advantage among superdelegates was once massive and has been dwindling steadily since Super Tuesday, when she was ahead by over 60 superdelegates.
I don't see him choosing HRC. It undermines his 'change' theme, and 'being his own man'. Plus, the country needs to get away from having a Bush or a Clinton on a presidential ticket. Twenty-eight years is long enough.
What did Edwards contribute to the 2004 ticket? He won't be the VP nominee because we can't have 2 one-term US senators on the ballot.
I kind of think Obama was just being nice when he said that. I don't think there's a snowball's chance in hell he would choose her for VP -- he'd be crazy to. All that Clinton shitbaggage would do nothing but weigh him down.
No +, just -. Meanwhile there are many other prospects out there that would be +++.
I still do not understand why Obama, the Democratic party, or ANYBODY, owes the Clintons ANYTHING. Nor, why there is this perception that we can't afford to piss them off. THey have squandered every last cent of political capital they had -- and Bill his "legacy" -- on their despicable tactics in this campaign. Let me add that I really liked both of them before all of this started.
Also I just gotta say, Bill on the Supreme Court is ALMOST the most ridiculous thing I ever heard of...... almost right up there with Harriet Miers, except for the fact that he's smarter than her.
a) Having Clinton on the ticket shores up the Hispanic and women's vote, as well as the older white poor, working-class and middle-class vote.
Errr.... bullshit. No, wait. BULLSHIT. This is a perfect example of why Hillary needs to go far far away from any further representational government. This is not an arguement, its a manipulation. And its offensive. Slice and dice neeeeeed to go away from the public discourse. Period.
b) The signal it will send when he doesn't ask her will see bigger gains and huge sighs of relief not only from his supporters, but from several chickenshit clintonistas.
c) He doesn't have to do anything regarding the clintons' campaign. The last thing he should do is reach out to bail her out of anything. IF she wants to come across as a strong independent woman this is the one thing she should take responsibility for. He should allow her to do that.... out of respect.... so as not to appear that he thinks she needs rescuing. That "offer" could be construed as a condenscension and lead to calls of misogyny. Not a dime.
Doesn't require him to "act" at all. She's been hanging herself since her gross failure to plan past super tuesday. Pray continue. Yes, Jesse, the point is to win the nomination AND to purge the party of the Clintons' AND the DLC Republicans. It needs to happen.
It doesn't require him to make a VP offer and to do so would be to cave like congress after/since the mids. No.
On another poll just this morning 77% say he should NOT offer her the vp.
Rasmussen reports will shortly stop covering the primaries and concentrate on the Obama/mccain matchup.
Oh..... we're always nice 
I'd rather see her on the Supreme Court
Oh.... we also do NOT need her as senate majority leader. My gawd how she could tie him up with thaaaat. We don't need that clintonesqe constipation, we need flow. Hillary is not about flow and that would be a disaster.
Ditto what Bollox Ref wrote above as far as change goes. But too much change will be, well, too much for some voters. IMO Obama MUST select a white man as his VP. Perhaps that Evan Bayh from Indiana.
We don't need her on the supreme court. Anyone who wants to claim a victory in a state where she's the only person on the ballot demonstrates one of the many many many lack of ethical judgements that do not need to be on the supreme court.
Look, Hillary and Bill need to go far far away. Maybe bush needs some help clearing brush or something. I don't know but after their behavior of the last year, they need to go away. Maybe they could do another buddy up thing with daddy bush. Play some golf.
Clintons.Go.Away.
Obama surely doesn't need to give more incentives to whackos to shoot him, so that a neo-con war hawk can become preznit and wage war on Iran.
Right now, the Dems just need someone, anyone, to tell Hillary Clinton to get fuck herself and be done with it.
The idea IS to win the election, but Hillary Clinton will do almost as much damage to that prospect in the second spot, as she will at the top.
For practically this entire campaign, she's gotten a free ride from the republicans. If she were in process of winning the nomination, instead of losing it, the change in their rhetoric toward her would be breathtaking.
And it will be breathtaking, if Obama is brainless enough to put her on the ticket.
The GOP will be able to focus all of their party's anger and frustration at having the wheels come off, on the Clinton's.
They'll be running ads with footage of Hillary and Bill, asking "Do we really want these people back in the White House?"
I'm also tired of people speculating about the possiblity of Obama being assassinated. It's macabre, not "savvy".
That's the only path to power left to Hillary and Bill, and it's not one that I want to be open to them.
Obama's pick for veep should be someone of integrity AND electability, and Hillary Clinton, by a mile, missed the cut for both of those qualifications.
NOTHING has changed in the way Republicans and conservatives view HIllary. NOTHING. They will turn out and crawl to the polls on bleeding stumps to vote against her, no matter her position on the ticket.
For Obama and the democrats to put the Clintons anywhere near the white house will cost us at least 10 percentage points in the general. She and Bill are the perfect example of the kind of politician who's gotten us into the fix we're in. If Obama is cynical and stupid enough to put her on the ticket, it could easily cost us the white house.
I feel confident that he's got more smarts AND courage than that.
Edwards didn't endorse Obama officially on the Today show, but the only candidate he really talked about was Obama, with statements like these:
"Well, I think right now Barack Obama has the better chance, because it looks like he's going to be the nominee. But I think what he brings to the table is the capacity, No. 1, to unite the Democratic Party. No. 2, to bring in new voters, to bring in people who haven't been involved in the process over a long period of time, and to get people excited about this change."
and that voters are ...
"looking for a leader, a leader they can trust, and somebody who will fight for them every day, and I think Obama will do that."
I don't know about you, but that sounds like a strong endorsement to me. He implied that the "official" endorsement will come no later than June 3rd. All of this tells me that Hillary promised Dean she'll drop out, but that he'll just have to wait another 2 or 3 weeks for her to do it.
The promise to drop out meant she was spared the embarrasment of an official Obama endorsement by Edwards, but her pissy insistence on wasting time in the service of her ego meant Obama got an unofficial endorsement. If she shows signs of renegging, they'll go through this again next week with Gore.
So Hillary supporters should understand this: it's over. You have until June 3rd to go through the motions, whine about "egghead elites" and black voters and misogyny, and try to broker some backroom deals. But it's over, she's out. No soup for you. NEXT!
Edwards also said he voted for Obama last Tuesday.
(sorry for not "playing nice" on that last line, Jesse, but the "Soup Nazi" reference seemed so appropriate when it came to letting Hillary's core supporters know that it's done but for the whining).
One other thing: The Veep nominee is traditionally the hatchet-wielder for the ticket, while the top person keeps their hands relatively clean.
If the dems COULD force Hillary on Obama, then, in the general election, the republicans would have a FUCKING field day showing that clip of her endorsing McCain as a potentially good Commander-In-Chief, and leaving Obama out.
With her track record, she would be practically useless against the republicans.
I think THAT little vetting of McCain, which got a TON of pub, will, itself, and happily, be enough to put the quietus on this bullshit about having her as our veep nominee.
Obama NEEDS to put the whole politics-as-usual stuff behind him. Picking Hillary would do the exact opposite, to the voters.
After nearly 8 years of C+ Augustus and his miserable, bloody, Hillary-assisted, fuckups, the American people are ready for a leader. Obama, and we, have a great opportunity to make progress, but he has to continue to show the courage and smarts; the LEADERSHIP, that he's been showing. If he does that, the delegates, and the voters, will come to him.
And he won't have to cut shitty deals like bribing Hillary to get out of the race, by paying her with money or with the vice-presidential nomination, to get them.
It's ok for Obama to praise her, but it HAS to end there.
E.G.; no veto for her of a cabinet position, etc., for Bill Richardson. What he did, in endorsing Obama relatively early, took courage and honesty. And by Yahweh, we've seen precious little of THAT, these past 7-plus years.
Including, from Clinton, herself.
ObamaTilDenver;
She's hoping for a last minute Rove "gotcha", and don't put it past her, and Bill, to manufacture one.
I've been saying, let her run, she's hurting herself more than Obama, but she is MUCH less of a threat to the status-quo/power-elite that has brought us to the miserable point we're at, than is Obama. And they know it.
With so many republicans and conservatives with their political backs to the wall, they would love to have her to run against, and, as we've seen with Limbaugh, etc., they will do practically anything to help her.
It IS important for her to get out. The problem is that she'll probably win W.Va., and Kentucky, as Obama concedes, and then she can string it out some more.
(She and Bush are excellent at THAT.)
She's the last, best, hope, for the people who are responsible for Bush's two terms. The democratic leadership needs to get off their asses and start hammering on her, to get her out.
It's not VP-offer time, as Larue said: it's horse-head-in-the-bed time.
Horse head in the bed!! I luvs it!
Hillary just rejected the latest plan to seat the Michigan delegation, which would have, with Obama's agreement, given her 69 votes to 59 for him, from a contest in which he honored the party's request that he not campaign, and did not even put his name on the ballot.
At this point, I see NO compelling reason for Obama or the democratic party to offer this candidate anything but a cosmetic pat on the head, and a "Now go back to your Senate seat." order.
Up: In the last 24 hours, Obama has picked up at least three more superdelegates, and, as someone posted, is, for the first time, in some counts, ahead of Clinton in the supers.
We could use a bandwagon. Then, Hillary can get out of the way, or get run over. :o)
Well, I am SURE the Obama camp would prefer she wait until after W. VA and KY - she is slated to win and win big there, and it won't look very good for Obama to lose to...nobody...
Maybe her pretty pony, "Desert Star" could pull the bandwagon...
http://bp3.blogger.com/_U_YfQjqn...0-h/
horsing.jpg
"Howard Johnson is right!"
Hillary & her husband are liabilities in the campaign for so many reasons but one is that Obama would be set back into the Pastor Sound-bite circus of answering for others' behavior rather than moving his agenda; it also allows McCain & Co. to paint him as a non-entity, a strategy they're sure to pursue in some fashion.
And as Howard Johnson says, they've shown themselves totally untrustworthy when it comes to political power ...
"more beans, Mr. Taggart?" "I reckon you've had enuff!"
I'd like Obama to present any veep choice in the context of exactly what that job entails in his administration, starting with a clear declaration of just which branch of governement the VP belongs to.
Getting the ticket elected is job 1, but it better befits Obama's message to defy conventional expectations. I recall quite a few were surprised with Bill Clinton's choice: What? another southener & of the same generation no less? In the end that worked out better than fatuous "ticket balancers" like Bentsen & Lieberman, no?
"She's hoping for a last minute Rove "gotcha", and don't put it past her, and Bill, to manufacture one"
Agreed. But this isn't 2000 or even 2004. The MSM may bite if she tries to Swiftboat Obama, but the liberal blogosphere has many eyes, and unlike the MSM we actually check the facts.
"It IS important for her to get out. The problem is that she'll probably win W.Va., and Kentucky, as Obama concedes, and then she can string it out some more."
I don't know if she will win those, and certainly not with impressive margins. The momentum behind Obama with both kinds of delegate is becoming obvious to everyone at this point, and the endorsements (official or otherwise) are flowing in every day.
In any case, you're correct: as long as the MSM and the DNC still pretend in public that Hillary has a shot, she'll take advantage of it to ratfuck Obama. Even (or perhaps especially) if it means giving her fellow war hawk McSame an advantage in the general election.
But today's Edwards interviews indicate that she's agreed privately to concede before June 3rd. The next 2-3 weeks will be Hillary's Festival o' Spitefulness, but otherwise it's over.
Once Barack Obama officially clinches the nomination, his first mission is to unite the Democrats. An Obama/Clinton ticket is the best way to accomplish that difficult task.
I am really surprised at the animosity some Obama supporters have for Clinton and vice versa.
Obama may not need Clinton to be on the ticket, but he certainly needs overwhelming support from her constituency in order to defeat McCain.
Hat tip: Jack and Jill Politics, Daily Kos.
http://rasmussenreports.com/
publ...l_tracking_poll
Rasmussen Reports has been tracking the race for the Democratic Presidential nomination daily for nineteen months… since November 2006. For the last few months, the most remarkable feature of the race has been its consistency and stability. Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are both running historic campaigns and both have captured the votes and hearts of distinct and important constituencies within the Democratic Party. Obama has won Primaries in states where the demographics favor his campaign and Clinton has won in the states that favor her campaign.
However, while Senator Clinton has remained close and competitive in every meaningful measure, she is a close second and the race is over. It has become clear that Barack Obama will be the Democratic nominee.
At the moment, Senator Clinton’s team is busily trying to convince Superdelegates and pundits that she is more electable than Barack Obama. For reasons discussed in a separate article, it doesn’t matter. Even if every single Superdelegate was convinced that the former First Lady is somewhat more electable than Obama, that is not enough of a reason to deny him the nomination.
With this in mind, Rasmussen Reports will soon end our daily tracking of the Democratic race and focus exclusively on the general election competition between Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama. Barring something totally unforeseen, that is the choice American voters will have before them in November. While we have not firmly decided upon a final day for tracking the Democratic race, it is coming soon.
Attention Superdelegates:
It is time to end this.
Stop bullshiting.
It is time for an intervention.
Tell Sen. Hillary Clinton it is time to go home.
Sen. Barack Obama has won the Democratic nomination for President of the United States of America.
Infodog: yes. :o)
This election of all recent ones, we don't NEED "balance".
We need a VP nom who is foaming at the mouth to kick the living shit out of the people who've nearly ruined us. (They may HAVE. It remains to be seen.)
I think some payback would go down quite well with the voters. :o)
Now he's gotten a recent pickup of 5 supers.
And the endorsement of the American Federation of Government Employees, which has about 600,000 members. :o)
http://apnews.myway.com//article.../
D90I8D702.html
I am really surprised at the animosity some Obama supporters have for Clinton...
-Why?
As I have stated before, since 1992 Bill and Hillary Clinton had gained the reputation of being these big policy wonks.
But when Barack Obama stopped being a novelty and became a competitor, the Clintons went directly to the race card.
They did not talk policy.
And Hillary Clinton is STILL using the race card, even knowing she has NO CHANCE of winning the nomination.
Hillary, the game is over.
It's time to go home.
More surprising to me is the lack of animosity toward the behavior of Hillary Clinton by anyone in this county. What she's done and is doing is defenseless..... and disqualifies her for any public office.
She's basically called all the people voting for her stupid and racist. No one else did. She did.
We don't need that on our ticket. I got banned from a website for warnings about identity politics.... where it would lead. And here we are.
Animosity is least that her behavior deserves.
Like Election Referee, I am puzzled at the bizarre hatred so many Clintonoids have for Obama and that the Oborg Collective has for Clinton.
Note: The majority of Clinton supporters are not "Clintonoids", and the majority of Obama supporters do not belong to the "Oborg Collective". I refer to the people who waste emotion on either of these bland moderate Democrats, the ones who think the other Democrat is not merely mistaken but evil.
We're supposed to be the party of moderation and reason, people. Unreason and hate belong to the Elephascists. I see a disturbingly irrational, dittohead-like intensity from the Oborg here, and if I cared to search, I could probably find Clintonoid-infested blogs which displayed the same kind of problem.
This reminds me of the clash between the "Judean People's Front" and the "People's Front of Judea". 
I know it goes against all the supposed guidelines for picking a VP, but I think Dick Durbin would be the right person for the right job. I think the era where a VP was picked for geographical balance is over. The only problem is that it is unconstitutional but that didn't stop two Texans from going into the White House in 2000.
Durbin and Obama are very close in terms of outlook and ideology and I Durbin has experience in the party leadership and would fit very nicely in the role of running mate. OK so maybe the Constitution counts for something here so who looks most like Durbin from another state?
Bill, if you think that Obama and Clinton are equals in:
their support for bush (and Hillary's) clusterfuck then you need to get back on the turnip truck.
the degree of corporate support they've each gotten, versus the grassroots support they've gotten, then you need to join the flat-earth society.
the kind of campaign tactics they've used, then you need to...just get better informed.
and if you think these two "bland moderates" are equally electable, then you need to...well, I don't know what you need to do, but you just need to pay more attention.
Bland moderates do not fire people up, and break EVERY record for campaign donations, with most of it coming in small contributions.
Those are VOTES, dude, and you need to understand that.
Obama is more honest about himself and the issues, by a mile, than is Hillary Clinton.
He has no blood dripping from his hands; he can go after John McCain, full-bore.
If he WERE light-bread-and-mayo, he'd still be the best candidate for us.
But, he's anything but. He's fervent, intelligent, and passionate about the chance to start doing something about the shit that bush (again, with Hillary's help) has dragged us into.
Trying to equate the two of them is as dishonest and ignorant as are Clinton's supporters.
BTW, if you want to play "referee", you should have been calling Hillary for the knees-to-the-groin and the eye-gouging, a long time ago.
OK—I am biased, since Wes Clark would have been my first choice for POTUS if he had run this time, but I think he would be the perfect VP choice.
First off, I think we need a Southern white guy with a strong military record to counter the McCain advantage. And as another poster said above, we probably shouldn’t go for both a woman and a Black man this time around, since that really might freak a lot of white male voters.
Clark would appease the Hillary voters, since he has been a staunch supporter of hers all along, but he wouldn’t offend the Obama voters, because he has never gotten down in the dirt or attacked Obama as other Hillary campaign operatives have. Also, he has been absolutely selfless about campaigning and fundraising for all sorts of Democrats since 2004, so there are a lot of favors to call in.
He is a brilliant Rhodes Scholar, and also from Arkansas, which carries the cachet of Bill Clinton for those who were hoping this would be Bill’s third term.
He is a handsome son of a gun, which does count with a lot of people.
He has been a FOX News analyst, so he is known and admired by a lot of the voters we might otherwise never attract, and yet he has always smacked the FOX Fools down whenever they tried to pull any of their BS in his presence.
He speaks well in public. Two great public speakers on the ticket would highlight McCain’s clumsiness and gaffes.
Notice that he brings all the same advantages Webb would bring, but none of the disadvantages, since he isn’t DINO, but rather a genuine progressive. Also, he has served under both Republican and Democratic administrations, and he has the ear and the trust of much of the military brass, who spoke to him when they wanted to make stuff public that they did not dare to say themselves in public.
He has even been a Republican in the past, but has left that behind. But he still has connections to that side of the aisle and can work with them, as well as fans among Republican voters.
His heroism in trying single-handedly to save, at great risk to himself, those men who were killed in Bosnia when their Hummer went over a cliff would be a nice counterbalance to McCain’s MSM-pumped up war hero persona.
Also, his military experience includes command positions--i.e., executive roles--whereas much could be made of the fact that McCain has never had any executive experience.
Clark for VP!
**BTW, Edwards (who was my second choice, after Clark, for POTUS this time)probably would not take the VP slot again, and I want him to be named Attorney General, to clean up that snakepit over at the DOJ and to do some real investigating of the Bush administration's crimes.
I honestly believe that the only reason she is still in the race is to collect enough donations to help pay off some of her debt. If she openly admits that she is done, all those donations stop.
The big money donors are probably quite done giving her money, but she can still get little old ladies on fixed incomes to send her $5 and $10 contributions they can ill afford.
tanbark said:
If he WERE light-bread-and-mayo, he'd still be the best candidate for us.
But, he's anything but. He's fervent, intelligent, and passionate about the chance to start doing something about the shit that bush (again, with Hillary's help) has dragged us into.
I have a theory about his apparent centrism. My guess is that he is actually more progressive than he seems, but that he is smart enough to know that only an apparent centrist can get elected. He also is smart enough to know that he will probably have to move slowly at first. But I believe that once he consolidates his position as POTUS, he will try to push a more progressive program than many expect.
tblue - Wes Clark. Yes, he would have been on my cabinet list as Sec of Defense. But he blew it with me when he signed on with the clintons' campaign. I think this signals his unwillingness to move from the way things were done in the past. It also shows he supports maintaining the imperial dynasty attitude that got us here. I was highly disappointed in his choice. That disqualifies him from any input in the new administration. :-(
re: BTW, if you want to play "referee", you should have been calling Hillary for the knees-to-the-groin and the eye-gouging, a long time ago.
Why do jump to the conclusion that I haven't been critical of Clinton? The fact is I have called some "fouls" on the Clinton campaign: Election Referee: referee whistle category.
Just like you, I've posted a lot here, and at Drift's, and at Digby'.
You may have put up some things that were critical of her in a general way, but usually it was part of the same old "Obama's one too!" stuff that you just posted here.
I don't claim to have seen every post of yours, but I don't recall a single one singling her out for her campaign tactics, nor, for that matter, on her positions on the issues.
Instead, you have put up MANY, MANY, more posts that were scornful or critical of Obama, or that, again, myopically lumped them together, which, as I said, is nothing but Hillary shitspeak.
Sorry, Bill, I didn't see anything on that that looked like a good, healthy, rip of Hillary, for, for example, her long-running support of the clusterfuck.
Nothing about her sucking up to Rupert Murdoch and taking his money.
Nothing about how she damned Obama with no praise, in practically the same breath when she was pimping John McCain as good commander-in-chief material.
There are many, many, things that she needed a smack for, but precious few of them have come from you, and , near as I can tell, the ones that did, were just more of the same nonsense about there being little or no difference between them.
In fact reading your blog, I gotta say if you WERE a ref, and I was on the board, I'd vote to pull your license. :o)
Lastly, there is this signifigant difference:
I think the american voters are going to give Barack Obama the chance to show if he's a different breed of cat from Hillary Clinton.
:o)
Tanbark, if you think there is some vast gulf between the People's Front of Judea candidate and the Judean People's Front candidate, you need to hang around Shakesville more often.
BTW, Liss is not a Clintonite; she supported Edwards. Also BTW, I voted for Edwards on Super Tuesday. Both the remaining Democratic candidates are too corporate-friendly for my taste, but as I noted on another blog, I'll take rational, moderate conservatism over mouth-frothing batshit-crazy fascism, which is what the Repugs offer.
Tanbark,
Sorry, wrong again! I have never been scornful of Obama. I'm sure some Clinton supporters consider my blog biased in favor of Obama. I've been more critical of Clinton than Obama. I respect both of them and I'm simply calling for Democratic Party unity as the only way to defeat McCain.
An Obama/Clinton ticket may not be the best choice. Obama is the nominee. It's time for Democrats to unite behind Obama, not attack each other.
what i just don't get, don't get at all, is how anybody calling themselves a Democrat can be anything but pissed, disgusted, & royally fed-up w/ Clinton by this point...for gods sakes, even before she started her campaign antics, & went elephant-in-must nucking futz, she just spent the entire two terms of the worst president in history as a senatorial ally, backscratcher, ass-coverer, & all-around neo-nomenklatura...Obama is what he is, & at this point, isn't it patently obvious that the reason he's done so well is because of what he is not? namely, Hillary Clinton?? this primary is getting truly ludicrous, & it makes me worry for Democrats, starting with myself...things i would have once found heinous & offensive, i now just find funny & truthy...
wo ist Steiner, indeed...
"Rasmussen reports will shortly stop covering the primaries and concentrate on the Obama/mccain matchup."
Clearly a company run by misogynists.
"I am really surprised at the animosity some Obama supporters have for Clinton and vice versa."
It's simple: Obama supporters have animosity for Clinton because she's dead wrong on major issues like Iraq and "Homeland Security" and because she's run a divisive and dirty campaign (an incompetent one, too, but that just inspires pity) and kissed up to sleazeballs like Murdoch and Scaife.
Clinton supporters have animosity for Obama because he's a big ol' woman-hater who doesn't understand that "it's her turn! HER turn!". 
Hope that helps you out, Ref.
"Obama is the nominee. It's time for Democrats to unite behind Obama, not attack each other."
At this point, the only people who aren't acknowledging that it's time are Republicans, racists, the MSM, the DLC, and some Boomer feminists (actual and wannabes). For their own separate motivations, they keep encouraging the attacks, while most everyone else has begun to ignore Hillary as a contender.
So except for a couple of trolls and a few die-hard Clinton supporters who show up with hit-and-run comments, you're kinda preaching to the converted here.
Ivory Bill & E-Ref --
If you want to know why the Hillary Hate I'd blame those ex-Edwards people with their crazy notions of addressing poverty & taking on corporate power in this country ...
-- that's only 1/2 snark, actually --
It did appear that the Edwards support moved overwhelmingly to Obama after JE dropped out, & even if it started out a little cool for Obama (like mine) it's heated up as Team Hillary shames itself on a daily basis.
Anyone checking through an assortment of blogs can see the unfortunate effects of online group-think, I grant you (the Orange Monster has so many low-info, 3-line "Clinton Sux" diaries on it you'd lose count in just a few hours; we've seen similar chaff on pro-Hillary sites). But that doesn't change the fact that she's throwing everything overboard in order to keep her campaign afloat.
And this is what galls me: she's not pressing any real cause here. If Kucinich, Edwards or another candidate stayed in to the bitter end because there was an issue, a bill, a position they couldn't let the front-runner ignore, we might see them as quixotic or counter-productive, but at least one could see a hint of principle to their efforts. Hillary's not basing her continued run on such a foundation -- the foundation shifts week by week: this week it's "hard-working whites" next week it'll be something else & something just as ill-defined. Couple that with the media-ready frames & phrases they've been using & you've got Insult on an epic scale.
It's all too Ashlee Simpson for words ...
Trying to equate the two of them is as dishonest and ignorant as are Clinton's supporters
...myopically lumped them together, which, as I said, is nothing but Hillary shitspeak.
tanbark --
These two quotes cross the line. Don't do that please.
Everyone --
Tone it down. NO PERSONAL ATTACKS.
We are near the end of the primary season. Finally.
CHILL OUT. It's okay to disagree, but leave room for each other to express opinions, even opinions you strongly disagree with. Don't attack other people or speak in a way which could be interpreted as an attack on other commentators or bloggers.
GNB is and will remain a safe place. Grrrr.
Well, I've been over at Digby's, stirrin' the pot.
Here's the ladle I used. :o)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o...h?
v=oXmYVRIpu2w
Never mind that shit...Here comes Mongo!
infodog,
Right on. If Hillary was campaigning on some issue she felt dear about, her continued presence in the campaign would be warranted. But all she is campaigning on right now is what she was before, to be "Hillary Clinton: First Female President of the United States". We don't need that sort of vanity with our economy imploding and two endless occupations.
Tanbark, IBW, et al. ,
I started off as a Kucinich supporter as I was all of last time. Kucinich is a very uncompromising supporter of good ideas which would save this country in the long-run but would absolutely get him destroyed by all the monied interests in the short term just like when he was mayor of Cleveland. I would've voted for him regardless, but he dropped out before I could because of shameless- absolutely shameless- support of primary opponents by so-called progressives like Kos.
So I was left with finding a candidate that could beat Hillary Clinton and that was Barack Obama. Why did I principally vote against Hillary? Because her decision-making process is 180 degrees off of what we need for the future. These 8 years in the Senate have been a credentialing of sort for her, a resume booster for her to jump into the presidency on.
And what was her most notable vote during all this time? Giving George W. Bush the power to invade another country, kill its people and rape its resources whenever he "felt like it". An enabler along with John Edwards(yep Edwards supporters him and Kerry did it too). And she did this specifically because she knew that she would be running for President and voting for the war was the politically safe thing to do. The only other alternative explanation is that she really believed in it, which is even worse.
So my vote for Obama was a vote against Clinton and a vote against this war. If Obama doesn't pull out of there he is going to have hell to pay and I will not vote for him again.
They both have shitty healthcare plans and a middling approach to an economy that needs drastic restructuring. I do really admire the way Obama had run his campaign and his abilities to trick the traditional media narratives that exploit his "unforgivable blackness". His ability to not be pigeonholed is what is going to allow him to beat McCain in the fall.
more clinton meme-pushing on the "..a majority of... obama supporters would love to see a hillary-obama ticket.."
the msm/hillary spin machines just made the pooh-bear vomit.
tblue: not to mention that Wae Clark actually won a war, without much American deaths.
Dear Jesse, having been through a few of your monitoring sessions I have to say today's judgements have been fair.
Perhaps I may request of you that from here on out the name Hillary Rodham Clinton and all variants and abbreviations, initials, codenames, etc, be either xxxed out, blanked out or banned in some manner.
She is now a non-person in the Democratic Party realms, as is Bill, and it pains me greatly that so much time, energy and electronic flow is being wasted here upon her and her seemingly delicate sensibilities.
Let us write her political epitaph and be done with it, I beg of you.
Perhaps "Here lies the white, college educated, certainly elite, female political career of HRC, a talent lost to the twin abysses of poor strategy and slightly MORE than dog whistle racism. Amen and Halleluyah."
Thanks, Jess, thanks a million.
Jeffrey St. Clair came up with an interesting theory about Hillary's motivations a few weeks ago: He thinks that McCain - assuming, by some miracle, the old bastard actually manages to snatch the White House this year - has the makings of a one-term President if ever there was one. According to this train of thought, Hillary is counting on that, and is priming herself for running in 2012. That would explain why the Clintons' behavior has been so damnably destructive and reckless this election cycle. They really are hoping McCain will win, so they can step in & take over for him in 4 years' time.
I don't know if I buy that...I would have simply chalked their behavior up to typical DLC selfishness, but the end result is much the same in either case.
"by some miracle"
Only if voter suppression, vote fraud, and the full support of the Corporate Holodeck Media count as "miracles".
Bill...well, yeah. There is that.
The only thing negating the possibility is if the vote isn't close enough to make that an option this time. Viewed in a certain light, it would then certainly appear to be in the Clintons' interest to make the vote as close as possible. Hmmm, maybe there is something to St. Clair's theory at that.
RC: :o)
Commenting by HaloScan
