Drive Launched To Form Unity Ticket

by Todd Beeton, Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 06:12:09 AM EDT

Marc Ambinder brings us the news that a former Clinton staffer has launched a petition drive urging members of the DNC to support a ticket featuring both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

A Clinton insider who served as ex campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle's executive assistant for several years has set up a new website, http://www.voteboth.com/ and plans to register with the Federal Election Commission today.

VoteBoth urges Democrats to support a joint Clinton-Obama ticket.

Its creator, Adam Parkhomenko, resigned from the campaign three weeks ago.

As Ambinder says, this raises the question of whether this effort is being driven by the campaign itself, although Parkhomenko insists it's not.

It will be interesting to see what sort of support such a drive gets considering Parkhomenko's "Clinton/Obama" construction doesn't seem to even consider a scenario in which Obama is on the top of the ticket. Actually, it's difficult to imagine the fiercest of partisans on either side signing on to this, not to mention the skepticism that either would or should accept such a ticket that permeates conventional wisdom among those who are less invested in the outcome. I still stand by the assertion that Clinton and Obama are each the other's best VP choice, even looking at it by objective measures, but I wonder if this is still the dream ticket that it used to be.

Tags: 2008 Presidential election, Barack Obama, Democratic nomination, Dream Ticket, Hillary Clinton (all tags)

  • 276 Comments
  • 0 recs
  • Share
  • Permalink

Comments

276 Comments

Shadow_head_small
Re: Drive Launched To Form Unity Ticket

hahaha I love how its Clinton-Obama

if people REALLY wanted this to have a shot, they wouldn't keep putting the guy who is in first place, on the 2nd spot on the ticket.

this was dead from the gate.

by TruthMatters 2008-04-07 06:14AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Drive Launched To Form Unity Ticket

This ticket potentially gives Obama a best case scenario of 16 years in the White House (8 years as VP, 8 as President) vs a best case scenario of 8 years if he runs for President now.  Clinton does not have 16 years left in her career.  I'd think the extra Obama time in the White House would make the ticket be MORE attractive to Obama supporters.

by jrsygrl 2008-04-07 09:10AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Seriously?

I'd think the extra Obama time in the White House would make the ticket be MORE attractive to Obama supporters.

Was that snark?

by Bob Johnson 2008-04-07 09:15AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Snark? I. Don't. Think. So.

by Shazone 2008-04-07 09:27AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
So the writer thinks it would be 'more attractive'

... to Obama supporters to have him on the ticket as Clinton's VP -- when he is the leader and the likely nominee.

If it was not snark, then I am actually laughing even harder.

by Bob Johnson 2008-04-07 09:31AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
But the comment you suggested was a...

snark related to the fact that BO is a lightweight who can use some intense study-time rather than expect voters to give him on-the-job training.

Hey, we're talking about rescuing a nation after 8 years of Bush...and it's going to take a hell of a lot more than pretty words.

by Shazone 2008-04-07 09:54AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Um, no...

Perhaps that is what you're reading into it.

The post said nothing about Barack Obama being "a lightweight" or any of the other inanities you added to your post.

Try reading it again. I'll repost it for you:

This ticket potentially gives Obama a best case scenario of 16 years in the White House (8 years as VP, 8 as President) vs a best case scenario of 8 years if he runs for President now.  Clinton does not have 16 years left in her career.  I'd think the extra Obama time in the White House would make the ticket be MORE attractive to Obama supporters.

by Bob Johnson 2008-04-07 09:59AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
BUT, your blockquote was only this:

"I'd think the extra Obama time in the White House would make the ticket be MORE attractive to Obama supporters."

I read that as training that he needs.

by Shazone 2008-04-07 10:05AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
You're reading into it.

The comment suggests that 16 years, total, in the White House would be more attractive than eight.

by Bob Johnson 2008-04-07 10:07AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Given how incompetently

Clinton has run her campaign versus how masterfully Obama has run his, I would argue it is Clinton that needs the seasoning on how to be an effective leader. That she started with every single advantage from money to party machinery to name recognition, to a front loaded primary schedule to having a former President who was formerly widely respected campaigning for her to having a large number of early and substantial endorsements to having all the people and generals and operatives President Clinton ever appointed to call favors from - and yet, she is being toppled by an "inexperienced" kid from Chicago?

Being a leader does not mean knowing everything - it means being able to pick up a phone or call a meeting and get any information you need, then having the qualities that allow you to make effective and forward thinking decisions, to surround yourself with people who are supremely competent and knowledgeable rather than people who are supremely loyal. It means being able to put the nation and the Party's interests and the minority and oppressed and underrepresenteds' interests  above your own and do what is for the greater good in the longer term. It means being able to inspire, motivate, unify, and energize citizens and peoples and nations to actually do the things you want, lest your solutions die on the vine, and to combine their energies in the synergistic effort that put us on the moon and won WWII rather than exploit the divisions of humanity and act as the spike in the crack that divides further with each blow of the hammer.

Judging by the effectiveness, inclusiveness, enthusiasm, and outreach and movement building of the 3 contenders campaigns thus far, I'm willing to bet that Obama, with his leadership style, could get more done in a better way with longer lasting and deeper reaching results than Clinton and McCain combined. But that's only based on the common denominator of building 100+ million dollar organizations of hundreds of thousands of stakeholders in a competitive nationwide race. I could be wrong.

by Reality Bites Back 2008-04-07 10:32PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Comment of the week

And it's only Monday.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-04-08 06:58AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Given how incompetently

Obama has not faced the GOP fully on yet.  That will be the true test as to how his campaign will go.

by jrsygrl 2008-04-08 10:30AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Given how incompetently

I laugh at the idea that Clinton has faced the GOP. I laugh at the concept that she has been vetted. Were she able to somehow acquire the nomination at this point, I'm willing to bet the Republicans have been sitting on 7 years of dirt that will make the Ken Star investigation look like a Q&A session. Every business deal, associate, hundred million dollar library donation, trip, pardon, indiscretion, misstatement, distortion, and tactic will be exposed and exploited. Not to mention that Clinton will now have to defend her own false claims with regard to Northern Ireland, Kosovo, Bosnia, China, her healthcare nightmare story, her "criticism" of the war, her initial vote on Iraq, false anti NAFTA claims, and her Colombian trade dealing lobbyist campaign strategist - in addition to the mass of dreck we can expect the Republicans to dig up or assert.

Now it's possible that Clinton has some dirt on Obama that would end his campaign, but I have the strange feeling that she is just the type of person to have already used it. If Obama can endure and succeed against the opposition research of the Clinton machine, when his own Party's primary challenger is bolstering the Republican over him, and he can survive all the back-door dealing, push-polling, Nevada shenanigans, Muslim claims, Rezko claims, Wright claims, drug use claims, false claims about his abortion record and NAFTA record by Clinton all the way back to digging up his kindergarten papers - barring that Clinton has thrown the kitchen sink except for the faucet - I'm willing to bet he's been pretty well vetted.

And as for facing the GOP - better to face the GOP than to "triangulate" and become them. Better to take them on in your own battle field than to try to out-hawk and out-experience and out-national security credential McCain. With one self induced blunder after another, if Clinton can't even beat 'Mr. Inexperienced' with all of the overwhelming advantages she started with, then how could she ever hope to take on the full force of the GOP?

by Reality Bites Back 2008-04-08 01:20PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Given how incompetently

Wow - so over 30 years (actually probably closer to 40) of intense scrutiny by the GOP makes one NOT fully vetted.  I mean so many politicians have undergone that exact level of scrutiny.  Christ I remember Dukakis' wife drank rubbing alcohol after dealing with ONE election cycle of the mud she has dealt with for DECADES. Grown men (ala Musky) have CRIED on national TV dealing with the GOP's tactics during ONE election cycle.  And Hillary Clinton has endured decades of this. But I'm sure through it all they are sitting on the REAL deal controversy.

You know, it is VERY upsetting how people in this country ignore all that she has endured. I mean how many politicians can say they had a special HATE newsletter circulated on a monthly basis by a radical political smear machine when they were still beginning in their career?   You can like or dislike her ideology, but to turn your back on what she has endured is unconscionable & personally offensive to me. Her intelligence & political visibility as an activist in her early 20s garnered her a great deal of notice & not all of it was good (a la the GOP).

So laugh if you will - I can't imagine how many people would have gone through what she & her family has & still remained sane, much less asked to continue in the thick of it after decades of this scrutiny, when there was absolutely nothing in equivalent personal gain to be achieved!

by jrsygrl 2008-04-08 03:59PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Given how incompetently

Okay, then show me the vetting of the Clintons for all of their activities SINCE 2001. I guess $109,0000,000 is nothing in personal gain?

They have only just released parts of their tax records which have been undisclosed since 2001. They have not revealed details of multi-tens of million dollar donations to the Clinton Library. They have not released details of the First Lady's documents and schedule. I'm not saying there's any scandal hidden within, except that it has not yet been vetted and to claim that Republican nastiness from 1993 to 2000 means that it has been vetted is false. And to think that the Republicans would unleash anything they know now rather than waiting until she had the nomination and was irrecoverably close to the election is to not appreciating their nefarious cunning.

I think the whole nature of politics is more base and Machivellian than ever, and as much as I think the harassment Clinton has received from the Republicans is wrong and often nefarious, I do not believe that she has been more vetted than Obama for her activities over the past 7 years. I don't think I owe her any added unconditional support because of Republican attacks and it is not my place to be a Clintonbot loyalist and ignore the conduct and management of her campaign. As I've said a million times before, I was a supporter, advocate, and defender of Hillary Clinton right until she started campaigning like Rove. Her repeated bolstering of McCain while attacking Obama made it clear that she puts her own ambition above the Democratic Party or the nation, and I find it VERY upsetting how people in her campaign have not stepped back and demanded more from her than trying to prove she can campaign like a Republican.

by Reality Bites Back 2008-04-08 04:57PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Given how incompetently

The DNC needs to learn how to fight like the GOP machine if we want to win. The only reason they have ever won a vote is due to their superior manipulation skills.  However, her campaigning is NOTHING at all like Karl Rove & she has in NO way smeared Obama & it is fairly repugnant to me when people somehow draw such a parallel.

I highly doubt with the level of scrutiny paid to them over the past decades that they suddenly went nuts in the past 7 years knowing Clinton was going to run for office & thinking it wouldn't be scrutinized. Of course, it truly doesn't matter; as Karl Rove has proven it is only the manipulation of perception that in fact is key in who wins in the end NOT the attributes of the candidate. Otherwise we NEVER would've had W or Cheney in office...

Regardless the level of participation in GOP skepticism & determination, by her own party, to deny credit that is due to Clinton is what I find disconcerting.  I didn't say you have to vote for her or agree with her ideologies but to A) say that she hasn't been fully scrutinized given the level of unprecedented smear that has been directed her for so many DECADES & B) to minimize her contributions to the party & politics is patently dishonest.  That is my point.

by jrsygrl 2008-04-08 05:13PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Given how incompetently

I don't understand. What does the Party owe Clinton - the nomination?

Were she any other person than who she is, everyone would have been demanding she exit the race by now.

If Clinton had won twice as many states as Obama and nearly a million more popular votes and a dozen contests in a row and led Obama in delegates and won more delegates in every single election day since New Hampshire and Obama needed to win 70 percent of remaining districts to win and was polling better than Obama against McCain in nearly every matchup, and yet Obama vowed to take it all the way to the convention for a floor fight and was repeatedly talking up McCain - what would the reaction be of every Democrat in power? They would be demanding he exit the race immediately. I think Clinton is cashing in on her equity. She may be burning through it, but she is getting equity for who she is.

And many loyal Democrats still believe the triangulating, centrist, swing-state policies of the Clintons are what lost the Democratic Congress, governorships, and "red" states for nearly a generation. In fact, the DNC only recently rejected the Clinton 50% + 1 swing state strategy and went with a 50 state strategy that is paying huge dividends and we are actually winning - and a lot of people have had it with Mark Penns and Terry McAuliffes, and the ineffectiveness of their strategy that is partially responsible for the fall from inevitability of the Clinton campaign. Darwin is once again vindicated.

What else, pray tell, do 'we' owe her?

by Reality Bites Back 2008-04-08 06:33PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Given how incompetently

She has EARNED respect from her party & deserves to get it (she is not). She deserves the right to campaign without constant calls to drop out which has been since the day she first came in with less votes then expected...

by jrsygrl 2008-04-09 11:13AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: So the writer thinks it would be 'more attract

Huh? What is snarky about suggesting that it would be desirable to have a candidate that you like in the White House for 16 years vs 8 (in optimum conditions)?  Why would that be so horrible?  It would also allay the concerns of the Clinton supporters & allow them to get to know Obama better...It has pluses (& minuses) for both camps but seems to be a balanced solution to bringing the party together again.

by jrsygrl 2008-04-07 10:05AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
He's the likely nominee.

Your suggestion is akin to telling someone at the Olympics that if they take a dive and accept the silver at the next two Olympics, they're almost guaranteed the gold at the following two Olympics.

Makes absolutely no sense.

by Bob Johnson 2008-04-07 10:08AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: He's the likely nominee.

Not really... Obama's demonstrable experience is a real issue & it makes the VP role a very good opportunity for him both in a career sense as well as for the Dem. party to know him better.  

Besides as VP he would have the ability to provide substantive influence & he would also have the opportunity to spend DOUBLE the time in the White House affecting policy.  And winning the nomination  does not mean the most electable candidate is selected.  If it were, Edwards (or other candidates) would be the nominee.

Between Clinton & Obama, on a national level, Clinton is more likely to have the knowledge & ability to fight the GOP & win the G/E.  Additionally she has over 30 years of experience as a political activist.  Obama as VP would have a strong voice in policy & the opportunity to mollify any concerns re: capability. And, I can't repeat enough his supporters would see him have affect for DOUBLE the time then if he were to headline the ticket.

There are pluses & minuses here for both sides. The Obama camp of course just wants to go for the gusto b/c they believe he can win the national election.  Clinton supporters see the enthusiasm surrounding Obama but know that the G/E is a whole different ball game.  Additionally, our country is in a mess right now & Clinton has a legacy which demonstrates much more clearly how she would govern. With Clinton we know what we are getting; with Obama we are relying on what we are told we might get.  Further, some Clinton supporters might not think that Obama is qualified to even be VP but might be willing to compromise since so many see such greatness in him.  So there are positive/negative sentiments that can be felt on both sides - which is why this solution is called a compromise.

by jrsygrl 2008-04-07 10:54AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Disagree.

Clinton has run a lousy campaign. She has shown little ability to be more successful than Obama versus McCain. Polls don't support that assertion nor do the facts of the primary season.

No, the Clinton team is not in possession of some superior vision of the general election. There are plenty of Dems who think Obama is a better candidate versus McCain than Clinton, including more Senators.

And I will suggest that no matter who the Dems nominate, the nominee will crush McCain. He's a lousy candidate in a very, very bad year for Republicans.

But to suggest that Obama take the VP slot when he is almost certain to be the nominee is some kind of of odd dream ("Obama will agree to become Hillary's VP!") that only the most ardent Clinton supporter would believe at this point.

Sorry.

by Bob Johnson 2008-04-07 11:22AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Disagree.

I think you underestimate the GOP's ability to win.  It should be a forgone conclusion that the Dem party will win the presidency given the state our country is in, but keep in mind W survived for another 4 years & got a Rep. dominated Congress, with record low approval ratings.

And please don't bash Kerry as your response; there was absolutely nothing wrong with him as a person or a politician - the GOP smear machine was once again more adept at manipulating many simple minds.

Additionally, once again we don't have politically a whole lot to determine HOW Obama will steer us back on track; with Clinton we have a much more transparent record to make an assessment regarding how she would preside.  

And finally I think the party has treated Clinton awful for many reasons, some of which are very ugly. But as a candidate, she knows how to fight the GOP machine b/c she has been there, done that more then just about anyone.

by jrsygrl 2008-04-07 11:34AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
'Bash Kerry?'

Where did I do that?

by Bob Johnson 2008-04-07 11:40AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: 'Bash Kerry?'

I never said you did - some people criticize him for "losing" the last election when in fact he was a perfectly good candidate.  The point is despite record low approval ratings, W got the election again which means the Dems are in no way shape or form guaranteed to win this election.

by jrsygrl 2008-04-07 12:16PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
The people bashing Kerry here are a few Clinton

... backers who bash anyone who endorses Obama.

In fact, here's a post from yesterday calling Kerry a "moron" that was recommended by 13 Clinton supporters, including a number of folks whose diaries regularly make the rec list.

You need to tell your fellow Clinton supporters not to call Kerry names.

by Bob Johnson 2008-04-07 12:27PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: The people bashing Kerry here are a few Clinto

Actually, I am talking about conversations I've had online elsewhere with Obama supporters when I pointed out that W wound up with the Presidency again.  Regardless, we are straying from the ultimate issue here & I'm not sure what the point is of doing that.  

by jrsygrl 2008-04-07 12:39PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
And you seem to mistake Hillary for Bill.

Hillary is not Bill. Not by any stretch, politically. She hasn't been tested in either of her Senate runs. Judging by how her campaign has gone this time, I see zero proof that she'd know better how to handle McCain than Obama.

by Bob Johnson 2008-04-07 11:42AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: And you seem to mistake Hillary for Bill.

Not really - she has been the focus of a very targeted, intensive smear campaign by the GOP since she was first lady of Arkansas. And prior to that she was highly visible to them with her part in the Watergate impeachment...

by jrsygrl 2008-04-07 12:14PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
The whole premise of this thread should be
Obama/Clinton, not the other way around, as there is no way Clinton wins the nomination.  This is the late-stage bargaining by some of the Clinton people, an underinflated trial balloon, and folks, it ain't happening.  
As to Obama/Clinton, I think Obama would rather keep two starving pit bulls under his bed.
by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-04-08 07:08AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: The whole premise of this thread should be

No Clinton has more experience & likely does not have 16 years left in her political career; Obama more than likely does.

by jrsygrl 2008-04-08 04:01PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: So the writer thinks it would be 'more attract

"Huh? What is snarky about suggesting that it would be desirable to have a candidate that you like in the White House for 16 years vs 8 (in optimum conditions)?"

Well for starters, all the people that were voting for Obama, they were voting him for the presidential nomination, not the vice-presidential one. If you want to negate their votes, don't expect them to like it.

Secondly, Hillary's real VP would be Bill. Obama, no matter what his official title, would be mere decoration. Which Hillary supporters of course already believe him to be, but it's insulting to the people that believe Obama has substance and who voted him because of that substance.

by Aris Katsaris 2008-04-07 01:27PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: So the writer thinks it would be 'more attract

So you think that the VP in the Clinton administration will have no say?  Look bottom line for the experience & background that Obama has the VP slot would be an EXCELLENT opportunity for him. And if the concerns of others are warranted & he isn't ready to immediately be President given the fact that we are in some of the worst times in our country's history, how awful would it be for him, his supporters & the party to prematurely take the nomination? Instead we get someone in there who definitively has the experience to get us back on track & if Obama is as great a man as many believe him to be then he will most certainly be ready to take over & have a wonderful legacy to lay out for himself in the future, with a greater period of influence to boot.

by jrsygrl 2008-04-08 05:35PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Drive Launched To Form Unity Ticket

Nope. I don't want him twiddling his thumbs in cold storage as number three behind Bill and Hillary.  Ask Gore how fun that is.

by mikeinsf 2008-04-07 09:53AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Drive Launched To Form Unity Ticket

I don't think you get what the Obama movement is about.  It's not about giving him 8 years to become a tired, conventional politician under the tutelage of Bill and Hill.  It's not about Obama being sent out to defend Hill's policies and getting enmeshed in defending the policy choices of both Clinton Admins I and II, so when he actually gets to run on his own account, he's dragging a record of policy choices in 2016 that started in 1993 -- none of which he himself had made.  It IS about having a clean break from the past, with a new, energized democratic congress behind a young, charismatic leader.  

by Headlight 2008-04-07 10:25AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Drive Launched To Form Unity Ticket

I don't care about a movement; I care about the best candidate assuming the position to clean up this mess that we have in our country.  Clinton has been involved in politics for over 30 years; I have a much better idea as to how she would get this country back on track.  We don't have much to base our opinions of Obama on at this point, as far as determining his ability to clean up the mess we have in this country.  That is a problem.

by jrsygrl 2008-04-07 11:05AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Drive Launched To Form Unity Ticket

In other words, all the talk about giving Obama 16 years is really about giving Clinton 8.  

by Headlight 2008-04-07 11:40AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Drive Launched To Form Unity Ticket

huh??? I was pointing out before why this ticket could provide a very valid appeal to an Obama supporter; IOW illustrating the positives of the ticket for an Obama supporter.  I have repeatedly stated, as is present in all compromises, there are perceived pluses & minuses for both with this ticket but the overall yield might provide a benefits that everyone may find desirable.

by jrsygrl 2008-04-07 12:19PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Drive Launched To Form Unity Ticket

Plusses and minuses for both?  OK, let's consider what those are.  For Obama, he relinqiushes the top spot on a ticket where the person who would the presidential nominee has fewer pledged delegates than him.  He gets to spend most of the next decade in a job that has less actual power than his current job in the Senate, and has no decision making power over the record he would, when his chance to run comes in 2016, have to defend.  And he relinquishes any mantle of change agent, because after 8 years as #2, you are the embodiment of the status quo.  

On the good side, he has free housing, which he doesn't get as a Senator.  

For Clinton, she gets to be the presidential nominee even though, by conventional measures, she lost the race.  She has a charismatic vice presidential running mate who would help her pull in the african american vote that she has alienated by pushing the rightful nominee out of the way.  Once elected, she is under no obligation to give her VP a job, and can essentially ignore him.  

Quite honestly -- I can't imagine Obama accepting the VP slot from Clinton.  He has more ability to affect change in the Senate, and in 2016 he'd still be in as good a position to run for President from there as from a Clinton white house.  This whole "dream ticket" concept requires that Obama submit to a nightmarish 8 year stint playing second fiddle to the person who beat him out of it.

by Headlight 2008-04-07 06:52PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Drive Launched To Form Unity Ticket

The VP job is one of an empty suit who gets free housing?! I  think there is just a bit more responsibility entailed in the role.  Otherwise, I need a job; please nominate me - it sure sounds good!

And FTR there are people that I know who don't even feel Obama is qualified for the VP role but it is a compromise to accelerate him on the road for the White House.  

I'm talking about a nominee that has the experience to get this country back on track & fundamentally that is a big issue that will be raised in the G/E & unfortunately has the ring of legitimacy for both parties. This gives Obama the opportunity to rid himself of that perception/establish a track record so people can better understand HOW he will govern.

Clinton by far is the more qualified candidate with a sound political record that people can look to in order to determine how she would be President.  In turn Obama would have the opportunity to, optimally, be in the White House for 16 years.  I don't believe Clinton will physically have a career for another 16 years.

by jrsygrl 2008-04-07 07:17PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
While you are prognosticating,

Obama has politely but firmly (as always) refused any idea of him being vice president.  We should take him at his word.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-04-08 07:22AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: While you are prognosticating,

Because a politician has never changed their mind?  Although I do agree that he probably perceives it to be in his best interest to run as President.

by jrsygrl 2008-04-08 10:29AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
As the prohibitive favorite

perhaps he can be forgiven for that perception.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-04-08 12:01PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: As the prohibitive favorite

If he indeed is not up for the job or doesn't win the G/E then his perception would be a mistaken one that we will all pay the price on.

by jrsygrl 2008-04-08 12:18PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Obama was born ready.

We'll be in the best hands in many and many a year.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-04-08 12:24PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Obama was born ready.

Right he should've just been given the job while he was in the bassinet...

And "born ready???" I can't believe people say Hillary Clinton, who has been working as a visible political activist for close to 40 years, is displaying entitlement by daring to think she is qualified to be President, when others say a candidate was "born ready" to do the job.  Talk about giving someone carte blanch!

by jrsygrl 2008-04-08 12:28PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
The man is smarter than Hillary ever thought of

being, and that's saying something.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-04-08 12:42PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: The man is smarter than Hillary ever thought o

Wow a lot of very intelligent people are missing it then.  Look I have no doubt the man must be intelligent given his accomplishments; but to suggest that he is smarter than Hillary Clinton is, in my, & many other intelligent individuals' opinions, highly ridiculous (not too mention laughable). Regardless, of your perceptions regarding his intelligence, since you seem to think an ability to be President is something you are just born with & capability can simply be measured by intelligence, I guess we should just hand out IQ tests & whoever scores the highest gets the office. @@  Maybe we could get one of those elementary school age kids who is going to MIT to take the job - after all they are probably smarter then both Obama OR Clinton!

by jrsygrl 2008-04-08 03:47PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
When you graduate Magna Cum Laude
from Harvard Law, that means you're even smarter than Hillary Clinton.  Hillary never was able even to pass the bar exam.  If you want to go down the tubes with Hillary, that's fine with me, but you need to realize that she's run a truly dumb campaign, completely out of tune with the new reality.  She's taken 150 million dollars and flushed it down the toilet, about eleven million of it to the detestable Mark Penn, who still, against all sanity, has an important role in her campaign and is still being paid huge money, probably in advance, unlike many little businesses who helped her in expectation of actually getting paid when they sent the bill.  Pray tell, explain to us what is intelligent or even competent about that, that we may absorb the wisdom.
  Obama, on the other hand, has run an absolutely brilliant campaign.  Near flawless, really.  A four year senator blowing the Inevitable One out of the water with eleven straight victories by an average margin of 33 points.  His is a campaign which will be studied intently by those seeking higher office for many decades to come.
by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-04-08 06:50PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: When you graduate Magna Cum Laude

Now Hillary Clinton never passed the bar exam - Please let the Bar Association know ASAP that she practiced law unlicensed...

Sigh - I KNOW people who have graduated top of their class from Ivy League schools & are Drs/Lawyers - trust me it is not the mecca of intelligence that you seem to think it is @@

I think what is happening here is that we are experiencing some of the worst times in our country & are desperate for some sort of new solution or miracle to make things better.  Instead of looking to someone who we know about that has the experience to bring us back, we have become enamored by something new, something that offers us a glimmer of psychological hope. Things are horrible in this country & people want to believe that some miracle is going to pull us out.  I have tried, in vain, to see the qualities projected on Obama.  I mean people state ad nausuem that there is something "special" here with him - but I just don't see it.  I think people are so desperate for some sort of miracle that they have clung to this concept of hope to see them through.  I don't think it is so much his campaign as people's desperation that has caused them to cling to something different.  And that concerns me b/c from a factual standpoint I just don't see what this man is going to be able to accomplish that Hillary Clinton can't do & then some.  Like I said the true test of his campaign will be against the GOP.

by jrsygrl 2008-04-09 11:07AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Drive Launched To Form Unity Ticket

Yeah... Clinton/Obama is real cute. clearly, it comes from the same delusional thinking that says Hillary losing is really Hillary winning.

by mikeinsf 2008-04-07 09:48AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Drive Launched To Form Unity Ticket

Yeah... Clinton/Obama is real cute. clearly, it comes from the same delusional thinking that says Hillary losing is really Hillary winning.

by mikeinsf 2008-04-07 09:49AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Drive Launched To Form Unity Ticket

No it is realistic - Clinton has the experience needed to get the country back on track, Obama has time to attain it as well as potentially have DOUBLE the years of experience in the WH. It is actually a LESS risky venture for him b/c if they lose the road to the WH he can still campaign again BUT if he loses as the nominee (which many suspect will happen  due to his inexperience in dealing with the rigors of campaigning against the GOP) he is over.  Additionally if he were to actually win & he can't fill the shoes of President during one of the WORST periods in our country's history then he has just tainted his legacy & harmed the party.

by jrsygrl 2008-04-08 05:38PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
I see no other way we actually win

in Nov. without both of them on the ticket.  Just to refresh all of your members, I think Rasmussen or Gallup said 22% of each candidate's supporters wouldn't vote for the other in the fall... if a third of those keep their word, we lose the election- its that simple.

We need Clinton to keep the Latino/Hispanic vote and we need Obama to ensure that African Americans turn out in historic numbers.

Its simple, we need both.

by linc 2008-04-07 06:19AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Nah

Clinton would need Obama, but Obama would not need Clinton.  He needs a military figure, or someone with extensive foreign policy experience.

Obama-Gore would be a pretty hardcore ticket.

by Dracomicron 2008-04-07 06:25AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Those ardent HRC supporters

aren't just going to swing to Obama with anyone other than Clinton on the ticket.  Hell, it will be a big nose holder for me and I am fiercely party before personality!

by linc 2008-04-07 06:27AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Those ardent HRC supporters

Then let them vote for someone else....

Seriously, I just said in another thread that I am now officially tired of the blackmail on either side.  This "give my candidate the nomination or else we'll leave" meme.

If you can't vote for the Democrats in November no matter who is at the top of the ticket, or on the ticket period, then don't.

I'm done begging people for votes.  I'm voting D in November just like I do every year.  If other people don't want to because their grapes are sour or they don't like the nominee, that's fine.

Do whatever gets you through the day.

by JenKinFLA 2008-04-07 06:32AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Wise words

It is pretty tiring; I try to talk sense into the Obama supporters I know who try to talk about how they'll never vote for Clinton... a lot of them are independants and Republicans, though, so I don't meet much success.

Then I realize that she's not going to be on the ticket, and I relax about it.

by Dracomicron 2008-04-07 06:43AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Wise words

It's on either side.  

If your candidate is not on the ticket, whether it be Obama or Clinton, and that is enough for you not to vote Democrat in November, don't.

I read comments yesterday from another website that advocated voting GOP downticket as well... to send a message to the Democratic party if Obama gets the nomination and to make things harder for him if he wins the general by throwing Congress back to the GOP.  

Seriously, your vote is your vote, and if you can live with it, and if sending messages is what matters to you, then do it.

Like I said, whatever gets you through the day.  I am voting big D in November, like I do every election...  I would like a lot of company, but I'm not going to beg people to consider the future of the country or SCOTUS... I consider those things.  I also vote Democratic with those things in mind.  I'm not big into messages sent, received, or otherwise...  I'm one little voter.  

If you want to vote Dem, do it, if you want to vote GOP, do it, if you want to abstain, do it.

by JenKinFLA 2008-04-07 06:54AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
To be sure

I'm an independant, but I vote for Democrats because I'm generally liberal and, more importantly, the Republicans have proven themselves corrupt and soulless.

If more Republicans were like Gov. Sarah Palin, it would make my choice harder.

by Dracomicron 2008-04-07 07:11AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: To be sure

Well, as long as Club or Growth continues their reign of terror against moderate Republicans, they will continue to push the Republican party out of step with mainstream America.

by JenKinFLA 2008-04-07 08:16AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Those ardent HRC supporters

"Then let them vote for someone else...."

Thank you so much for GIVING me permission to vote as I choose. It's so nice to know I live in a democracy (so long as it's in line with what BO supporters want).

But please, do stop trying to beg for votes, especially through insults and antagonism and name-calling... works for me.

And I have not read ANYWHERE this great line of yours: "give my candidate the nomination or else we'll leave". What I have read is HRC supporters being tired of the BO mantra---Drop out.

by JHL 2008-04-07 06:57AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Those ardent HRC supporters

I'm not giving you permission, it is not mine to give.

But if you have not seen the threats of defection on either side, then you need to pay closer attention.  One thread yesterday pegged the defection from the Democratic party if Clinton does not get the nomination at between 1/4 to 1/3.  I don't know where they pulled the numbers from, but they were posted.  There are posts on just about every progressive site threatening to vote for McCain or not at all if so-and-so is not the nominee.... including this one.

Oh, and not only have I stopped begging for votes, but I do not insult (unless through very selective interpretation), I try not to antagonize, and I call out people for name-calling on either side.

by JenKinFLA 2008-04-07 07:06AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
EXACTLY

"I'm not giving you permission, it is not mine to give."

Go re-read some of your comments. They are insulting and antagonistic whether you deem them as such or not.

by JHL 2008-04-07 07:14AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: EXACTLY

all I said was if you don't want to vote for someone, don't.  If you want to leave the Democratic party, leave...  It's not my place to tell you what to do and I am of no mind to try to convince people who have already made up their minds what to do.

If that's insulting, then I'm sorry, but I have developed a fairly thick skin on these boards of late, so maybe I didn't see it.

by JenKinFLA 2008-04-07 07:42AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Those ardent HRC supporters

I don't know where they pulled the numbers from...

I have an idea.

by bookish 2008-04-07 08:44AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
I am almost to that point myself
but I just don't want to lose this one, its our turn damn it!  


I don't see it as begging- I see it as maintaining our determination to kick the GOP to the curb, once and for all.  I will be damned if I let a little party infighting destroy our chances in the general...


now when I am queen and priss of all, I will get right on that ;)
by linc 2008-04-07 07:00AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: I am almost to that point myself

I think begging (of, if you prefer, "asking politely") is counter-productive.  If supporters of Hillary Clinton do, or do not, decide to support Barack Obama as the nominee, they'll do it for reasons that have nothing to do with what I want.

And asking them makes it personal, and obscures that fact.

by Mostly 2008-04-07 07:44AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: I am almost to that point myself

I don't think it's going to be an issue. In the end, Clinton will have to campaign on Obama's behalf if she hopes to leave any of their legacy intact. There's just a lot of hurt out there as the writing on the wall becomes more legible.

by bookish 2008-04-07 08:47AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Those ardent HRC supporters

I am done caring about the blackmail too.  

A few things to consider:

1) Hilary supporters claim that all of the "real democrats" are Hilary supporters and that Obama's support is entirely indies, cross overs, and new voters, but that the base is solidly Clinton.

2) Around 800,000 more people have voted for Barack so far.

3) Polls show about a quarter of Hilary's supporters threatening to abandon everything that makes them a democrat and stay home or vote for a man who represents the opposite of the democratic agenda.  A quarter, that's one fourth of the less than half of the people who have voted in the primary season so far.  

4) If all of the folks threatening it actually carry out their sour grapes threat they amount to less than one eighth of the total number of people who have voted in the PRIMARIES, which amounts to an even smaller portion of the GE electorate.

So here's the question:

What reason do we have to believe that there aren't more new voters, crossovers votes, and indie votes that we didn't get in 2004, than there are folks who don't give a damn about the democratic agenda despite claiming to be the reliable democratic base?  

If these people want to walk away and lose any voice at all in the future of the party (not because they've been kicked out , but rather because they chose to become irrelevant by walking away) then let them.  

I would really really rather not lose them.  We should try to mend fences.  We should acknowledge that both sides' have supporters that are consistently rude.  Both sides have some supporters who typically aren't rude, but have from time to time had passion get the best of them.  Both candidates have some dedicated, hard workers who are an amazing asset to the democratic party.  We should try hard to unify.

But, I will not get knock kneed and freaked out, nor will I waste my time once a person makes it clear that we give them their candidate or they'll take their ball and stomp all of the way home.  I am not going to be blackmailed....

... and I am not convinced that the "new votes" that Barack Obama gets aren't enough to make up for and maybe even surpass the number of folks in the "democratic base" that are willing to abandon the political agenda of the democratic base.

by lockewasright 2008-04-07 07:48AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Those ardent HRC supporters

I think there's something to say for politeness, but as far as trying to persuade Hillary-only voters, don't bother because it only makes it worse.  This whole primary has gotten too personal as it is, with everyone accusing everyone else of being rude or worse.  Why make it more personal?  Why frame it so that if they vote for the nominee it will be a personal favor?

If I try to persuade a Clinton supporter, it makes it about me, instead of the issues.  Besides, no one is going to support the nominee because we think they should anyway; they'll either do it or not do it for reasons of their own.

So don't bother.  There's no point.

by Mostly 2008-04-07 07:56AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Those ardent HRC supporters

OH WOW!!! Just wow!!

Someone tell me again how a president McSame isn't a screaming nightmare for women.  Talk about MISOGYNY!!  Holy freakin' shit!

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/McCain_tem per_boiled_over_in_92_0407.html

by lockewasright 2008-04-07 09:15AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Those ardent HRC supporters

well, that's lovely....

although, I knew he was nightmarish for women when he praised Scalia as a model Supreme Court Justice.

by JenKinFLA 2008-04-07 09:25AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Those ardent HRC supporters

It's the Cult of Personality thing:
Obama supporters aren't real Democrats, states that swung to Obama aren't important states, Richardson is a Judas, the entire media and Democratic leadership is biased, negative views of Clinton can only be explained as sexism, blah blah...

It's an inability to accept that maybe people just don't like or trust her as much as they do.

by mikeinsf 2008-04-07 09:59AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Those ardent HRC supporters

So very agree.

by Lettuce 2008-04-07 08:31AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Those ardent HRC supporters

You HONESTLY think all 22% vote for McCain.  not a chance.  

by yitbos96bb 2008-04-07 08:27AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Yeah,

he needs Clinton because she'll bring her supporters to the polls to vote. Alone... BO has no chance. He and many of his rabid supporters have made it clear he can win w/o the HRC Dems. Good luck with that!

by JHL 2008-04-07 06:30AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Yeah,

I doubt Clinton would even want to take a VP spot, so I guess those supporters are lost anyway, no matter what we do to please them.

And as such it's meaningless to cry over them; like Clinton herself they mainly seem to suffer from a massive entitlement complex where not accepting their innate superiority means that we're offending them, uppity kids that we are, insulting our elders and betters.

"He and many of his rabid supporters have made it clear he can win w/o the HRC Dems."

What exactly did Obama do to make you feel undesirable? Not withdrawing from the primaries when he's in the lead? Not accepting a VP spot when he's in the lead?

by Aris Katsaris 2008-04-07 07:39AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Yeah,

"no matter what we do to please them".

Tsk tsk.  It really isn't about us.  Both sides are pissed off at the other side for being bullyish and taunting; I think this primary needs to be depersonalized right-quick.

That starts with not trying to "please" Clinton supporters, or even asking them to vote for the nominee.  Either they do or they don't.

by Mostly 2008-04-07 07:46AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Yeah,

We don't have to please anyone, 'tis true.  However, we shouldn't go out of our way to piss folks off either.

That said, shouldn't the lead of this post be that a group is forming to give Sen. Clinton the nomination?  Consideration of a joint ticket that only allows for one name order isn't really a consideration.  

I can remember when it was the votes and the delegates that mattered.  

Silly me.

by niksder 2008-04-07 08:21AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Nah

If you think for one minute that Al Gore would consent to being 2nd on Obama's (or anyone elses) ticket, you are in fantasy land.

by Denny Crane 2008-04-07 08:30AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
I dunno about that.

Al Gore is not an egomaniac.  If he thinks that he's the best choice for unifying the party, then I think he'd do it.

He's not power-mad or terribly ambitious, but he'd be able to push a lot of his environmental agenda as VP.

by Dracomicron 2008-04-07 08:44AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: I dunno about that.

No but arguably Gore is certainly more qualified to be President then Obama or many other candidates.  Just b/c one candidate is popular doesn't make them more qualified then another person...

by jrsygrl 2008-04-07 09:12AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Nah

Frankly, I think Al Gore will choose to stay out of it.  He's already been VP.  Now, he's found an new and useful task for himself, and enjoying unprecedented success.  

Why would Al want to stop the important work he's doing in oder to take up second fiddle once again?  It appears to me that he is having greater success and more fun these days than he's even had before.  I'm sure he'd be honored to be asked, but I can't see why he'd be interested.

by BillCat 2008-04-07 08:54AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Well, it would let him be MORE successful

Obama would certainly give him serious control over recruiting for the EPA and writing environmental policy.

That's gotta be serious incentive right there.

by Dracomicron 2008-04-07 09:08AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Well, it would let him be MORE successful

Frankly, Al Gore has done more for the environment during his period out of government than he ever managed while on the inside.  Sometimes, a committed person who is not in government can do more to move the agenda along.  

I'm not at all convinced that Al would be "MORE successful" as you claim, if he became VP again.  

by BillCat 2008-04-07 10:17AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
It would give him resources to back up rhetoric

No question that he's been successful so far, but, with very few actual duties as a vice president, there's nothing saying that he couldn't continue operating as he's been so far by raising awareness; it'd just be that he wouldn't have to lobby anyone to create the right policy, he could just do it.

by Dracomicron 2008-04-07 10:59AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Hmmmm. He needs a military...

person or foreign policy person because he's such a lightweight in those areas...so you might be wright, er, I mean right.

But that person better be able to make up for the 7 or 8 % of HRC supporters who won't vote for BO and any combination.

That's going to be a heck of a job, boyz.

by Shazone 2008-04-07 09:30AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Hmmmm. He needs a military...

Nice to bring in Wright, erm "right".  You totally Iraq... I mean you totally rock.

by mikeinsf 2008-04-07 10:02AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Or Wesley Clark

A Hillary supporter with class, a white Southern male, smart, a good man to have around in a crisis.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-04-08 07:28AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Or Wesley Clark

Given that Wesley Clark has endorsed Clinton  I am somehow skeptical that he will look to run on Obama's bill.

by jrsygrl 2008-04-08 05:44PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Drive Launched To Form Unity Ticket

, it's difficult to imagine the fiercest of partisans on either side signing on to this...

Todd, why do you say this?

by TexasDarlin 2008-04-07 06:19AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Drive Launched To Form Unity Ticket

well I can tell you for the Obama side,

she is not ahead, so she doesn't get to be first on the ticket, thus Obama supporters nor Obama for that matter are going to accept this.

when if he sits still for 2 more months he gets the nomination anyways

by TruthMatters 2008-04-07 06:20AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
and then loses the general

because the pomposity of some of his supporters is starting to seep into his head.

Sorry, that was rude.

by linc 2008-04-07 06:23AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
It's not rude nor pompous

to simply observe the fact that she is trailing him. That is objective reality.

The only pomposity here rests in a Clinton faction putting forward a ticket at this point with Hillary at the top.

by Bee 2008-04-07 06:28AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Your apology seems a bit "forced"

Needless to say, no one is going to offer the VP to the other just to satisfy calls for party unity. Choosing each other for the 2nd slot defeats the underlying foundation of both of their candidacies. Hillary can't choose as VP someone who she doesn't believe is competent to run Nat'l Security or the economy. Obama can't ask the special interest/90s candidate to be his VP on a platform of change.

If there is pomposity coming from one side, consider which campaign has been the only one floating the idea that the other candidate be forced into accepting the VP.

by highgrade 2008-04-07 06:31AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: and then loses the general

The person trailing wants to be in the leading position -- and you're accusing Obama's supporters of pomposity?

Have you ever tried to rid your personality of all the arrogance and entitlement?

by Aris Katsaris 2008-04-07 07:42AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
They really don't get it, do they, linc?

And you know what - when BO loses in November they are going to be screaming it was all Hillary's fault.

The fix is in.  Dean and Brazile and the Establishment Boyz picked Obama and they will do anything to see him win the nomination.  But they refuse to see that they can't win the GE.

Sad.  So sad.

by Shazone 2008-04-07 09:33AM | 0 recs
Mars_attacks
Re: They really don't get it, do they, linc?

Ridiculous comment, as usual.

If you have anything constructive to add to the discussion,  by all means, please do.  If not, why not just shut up a little?

Tiresome.  So tiresome.

by fogiv 2008-04-07 09:56AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
We need to have a moritorium

How 'bout all supporters of both candidates knock off saying that the other Democrat is going to lose, eh?

Nobody here has a time machine to tell us what the future is like.

by Dracomicron 2008-04-07 11:06AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Drive Launched To Form Unity Ticket

Sorry, but I diesagree completely.  Both Obama and Clinton want to be president.  Both of them being politically savvy, the choice for VP will largely be determined by how that candidate will help to win the November election.  Frankly, whether they a great friends or are 100% aligned on policy is very much a secondary concerned.  Those differences are sorted out later.  

The most important job of a vice presidential candidate is to help the presidential candidate win the November election.  JFK chose LBJ, for instance, not because they were great friends, but because he knew that Nixon was a very strong candidate, and LBJ would help to win many much-needed electoral votes in the South.  

by BillCat 2008-04-07 09:04AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Not sure that's the best example

Considering LBJ kinda took the presidency in a completely different direction after JFK's death.

I'd be concerned about that sort of legacy.

by Dracomicron 2008-04-07 09:10AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Not sure that's the best example

LBJ took the presidency in a different direction?  How so?  

It's hard to know what Kennedy might have accomplished, but a lot of his legislation was mired in congress.  Kennedy had, to his credit, the successful conclusion of the Cuban missle crisis, but he also had the disasterous Bay of Pigs fiasco, and (as did LBJ) he got us more deeply involved in VietNam.

LBJ got a huge amount of extremely important legislation put into law.  Medicare, the voting rights act, the Community Colleges Bill, and lots of other highly important social legislation.  

In any case, the point is that presidential candidates pick running mates who will help them to win the presidency, not necessarily the best person to be vice president.  For example, lets move to the Nixon presidency.  Nixon needed to make peace in his party after a bruising nominating process.  According to accounts, he called in his chief rival, Nelson Rockefeller, and (in exchange for Rocky's support) allowed him to name the vice presidential candidate.  This, we got Spiro Agnew, who as chosen largely to mend a rift in the Republican party, as well as for his appeal to Southerners.  Certainly, he was not chosen to for his stellar abilities!

George H.W. Bush was certainly a surprise when picked by Ronald Reagan!  

Dan Quayle was chosen for his good looks and his supposed appeal to younger voters.

Grover Cleveland picked Adlai Stevenson to balance his ticket and, he hoped, to carry Illinois.

Read the wikipedia article on William A. Wheeler, where presidential nominess Rutherford B. Hayes left the choice to Roscoe Conkling, a New York party boss.  

by BillCat 2008-04-07 11:07AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Look at the comments
its all Obama supporters exemplifying this partisanship- they are the ones with the complete contempt for the competition.




It makes me wonder if they are more concerned with this primary than they are actually winning the general.
by linc 2008-04-07 06:25AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
It is looking at the general

Clinton is not the best choice for Obama in the general.  There are other options that secure important parts of the base.

by Dracomicron 2008-04-07 06:34AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Women are not important parts...

of the Dem. base?

You lose!!!  

by Shazone 2008-04-07 09:34AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
I call BS

No one said that, so please try not to inject sexism into a conversation where none exists. If that's the only way for you to make your point, then your point isn't worth making.

by bookish 2008-04-07 09:46AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Draco said:

"Clinton is not the best choice for Obama in the general.  There are other options that secure important parts of the base."

His words.  Not mine.  So if it's BS, call him on it!

by Shazone 2008-04-07 09:50AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Draco said:

Uh, where is the mention of women? Or do you see things that don't appear to everyone else?

That chip must weigh a godawful amount.

by bookish 2008-04-07 10:02AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
It's omission, not comission.

The exclusion of women as an important part of the base is what I am referring to.  The commenter should have said "other important parts of the base".

Because s/he didn't and also dimissed HRC, it's pretty apparent s/he was excluding women - the most important part of the Dem base.

by Shazone 2008-04-07 10:08AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: It's omission, not comission.

That is utterly ridiculous.  And really sort of insane.

Do you even bother to hit the preview button before you make your comments permanent? I find it keeps me from saying more stupid shit than I already do.

by bookish 2008-04-07 10:19AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Sorry - it's my legal training...

that makes me understand that sometimes omission makes someone as guilty as comission.

And yes, I do preview what I write.  Don't assume that because you disagree I am the one that is wrong.

by Shazone 2008-04-07 10:22AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
You must be a prosecutor n/t

by bookish 2008-04-07 10:27AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Always a defender.

by Shazone 2008-04-07 11:56AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Could've fooled me n/t

by bookish 2008-04-07 12:05PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Gotta know your law before...

you can defend your client!

by Shazone 2008-04-07 12:23PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Women are not important parts...

This assumption that all women are so rabidly for Hillary and against Obama that they'd run to McCain.... is an assumption.

by mikeinsf 2008-04-07 10:05AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Women are not important parts...

I know. I'm aware. Several family members are hardcore for Hillary right now, but we had a long talk over Easter and they'll all vote for the nominee, whoever it is.

The shrill hyperbole exists in large part only in these partisan candidate echo chambers, so it tends to be mostly self-gratifying and -absorbed.

by bookish 2008-04-07 10:12AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Women are not important parts...

Umm family members of mine that are party loyalists who are actually discussing sitting out of the election if Obama is the nominee are not women..they are middle aged men.  They are just NOT impressed by Obama and are insulted at the intimations that have been made that he is somehow as qualified as Clinton for the office of the Presidency.  There are however other candidates, who if they had received the nom. they would've enthusiastically supported. So no it isn't about some sort of entitlement complex re: Clinton; it is about the fact that there are real concerns re: Obama's ability to fill this role right now and instead we are rejecting a perfectly capable candidate.  This country is a mess right now & it is tough to vote someone in that we have no clue how they are going to rectify the situation.  However, the Supreme Court is on the line which does provide a sound argument for voting this time around.

by jrsygrl 2008-04-07 11:00AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Women are not important parts...

It's a ridiculous insinuation that keeps being made that somehow we can have no idea what Obama's policies would look like. Anyone with internet access (and I assume that includes yourself) can easily find a broad-ranging outline of the various plans that he has laid out on his website (just like Clinton). And they're not dissimilar from what you would expect of any Democratic candidate.

If you don't like Obama, that's your right. But don't act as if he is devoid of substance and use that as a reason to not make a fair assessment of his policies.

I'm glad that you see the importance of electing a Democrat, no matter who, if only for the sake of SCOTUS placement. But there is much, much more to Obama than a compelling speech and an empty suit.

by bookish 2008-04-08 02:40AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Look at the comments

Well, look at the comments from Hillary supporters that say, if she's not on the ticket, they won't vote Dem in November...

How is that not also fiercely partisan.

The concern with the primary over the general extends to both sides.

by JenKinFLA 2008-04-07 06:35AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
You forget that HRC most likely
represents the majority of actual registered democrats in this country.  There is a reason we support her, just as there are reasons you all support Obama.


Its the reality of the situation.  It is arrogant to assume, as several posters up thread have, that Obama will be able to get someone other than HRC on the ticket that will motivate the dem base more than HRC.  Its says to every HRC supporter that we are just weak minded and not as supportive of our candidate as Obama supporters- if that was the case, this race would have been over a month and a half ago.
by linc 2008-04-07 06:41AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
If Clinton supporters are

the "actual registered Democrats", then why are so many of them threatening to vote for McCain? Over half of them in NC alone.

Obama converts Repubs and more independents. That's what you need to win elections. Most of those folks will not vote Dem in November with Hillary at the top of that ticket, and no party loyalty compels them to do so. Obama's candidacy can secure those indies and western Repubs, but not Hillary's. Whether we like it or not, it is what it is.

I can understand conditional support from voters who have no historical ties to the Democratic Party. I have a pretty hard time understanding folks who call themselves true Democrats crossing over to McCain just because Hillary was beaten out for the nomination.

I'm a lifelong yellowdawg Democrat, and even my grave concerns about Hillary and personal respect for John McCain will not push me to vote for a Republican in November.

As for the ticket, putting both of them on there in any order is a longshot at best. You don't have two headline acts, and I can't see Hillary playing 2nd banana. The fact is, if she manages by some miracle to get the nomination, she'll need exactly what Obama has, but I can't see him taking a VP slot when his campaign has been built on a repudiation of her brand of politics (again, it is what it is). OTOH, if Obama wins the top spot, there's nothing she gives him as a veep that he can't get elsewhwere without the competition for the spotlight, and if she loses, we (and she) are better off with her in the Senate, where I think she'd do her best work without much worry about re-election or seeking higher office. I also think she'd make a solid SOS or even SCOTUS justice; but her prospects for higher office become pretty much nil after this race is concluded.

by SuperTex 2008-04-07 06:59AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: If Clinton supporters are

the "actual registered Democrats", then why are so many of them threatening to vote for McCain? Over half of them in NC alone.

Someone broke that number down, and it turns out that the reason that 56% of Clinton voters are going to vote for McCain in North Carolina is because if the polls hold up, her share of the democratic vote is going to be tiny, and what looks like a large number (56%) is actually quite small. These are voters that normally support the Republican anyway.  The actual number of McHillary voters (that is, people who want Clinton first, McCain second) have stayed the same - the percentage has increased because Clinton's share of the total vote has gotten smaller.

In other words, there may be a backlash, but it's not in NC.  That number is right in line with the number of crossovers against Clinton, Gore, and Kerry, give-or-take a couple of percentage points.

by Mostly 2008-04-07 08:04AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
I won't vote for McCain...I will

write-in Hillary.  And I am a registered Dem...at least until MI and FLA delegates are decided.  

If Dean/Brazile throw the nomination to BO by not seating these representatives of the voters of those states...well, all bets are off.

by Shazone 2008-04-07 09:37AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: I won't vote for McCain...I will

MI and FL still? There's no way to fairly seat MI, and besides, this is what your candidate thought just prior to the MI primary:

"I personally did not think it made any difference whether my name was on the ballot. You know, It's clear this election they are having is not going to count for anything."

So you may want to cut it out with the MI talk. I say seat 50% of FL per the vote and seat a split 50% of the MI delegation at the convention. And that's about as fair an offer as you can expect.

Guess what? Obama still wins going away.

by bookish 2008-04-07 09:55AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
I disagee..along with a heck of a lot...

of other people, including many many in Michigan and Florida.

So keep tlaking to yourselves on this one - you lose!

by Shazone 2008-04-07 09:58AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: You forget that HRC most likely

I support the Democrat.  

That I defend Obama here is as a reaction to some of what I have seen, but if Clinton gets the nomination, I will advocate for her, defend her support her, work for her, and vote for her.

I don't care who the nominee is..  It will not change my vote.

And nothing has been said to Clinton supporter that implies that you are "weak minded and not as supportive" by my interpretation of the comments.  Clinton is not the end all and be all Democrat however.  There are Democrats that like her and there are Democrats that do not.  There are other Democrats who are popular with Democratic voters as well.  For instance, the act that she is aligned with the DLC does not sit well with some of the more liberal Democrats that I have spoken to.  

Personally, I think any talk of veeps is premature.  We need to figure out the nomination first.

by JenKinFLA 2008-04-07 06:59AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: You forget that HRC most likely

It is arrogant to assume, as several posters up thread have, that Obama will be able to get someone other than HRC on the ticket that will motivate the dem base more than HRC.

I think you're taking it wrong -- the issue I see with Hillary as VP is that she'd bring along a lot of her polarization.  Obama's done a good job at pulling in some moderate Republicans and independents, and having Hillary on the ticket risks those folks.  He could add someone as VP (Richardson?) that has a lot of Hillary's plusses without risking her negatives.

If there's any arrogance in this siuation, it's Clinton's.  She's got got almost no shot at the nomination (especially with the PA polls tightening so much), and she's offering HIM the VP slot?  What gall!

by ChrisKaty 2008-04-07 07:20AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Polarization does not belong exclusively...

to HRC.  In fact, her polarization is due, in part, to BO's hateful campaign and the repeating of Repug swiftboat talking points against both Clintons from the 1990's - sadly picked up and repeated by BO supporters.

I think there's a lot of polarization against Barry, too.  I know a lot of people who absolutely will not even think of voting for him.

I hope he does pick Fuzzy Richardson - that ship will be fun to see sink.

by Shazone 2008-04-07 09:41AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Polarization does not belong exclusively...

Shazzie (I hope that doesn't annoy you),

Your ominous portent that 22% of Hilly (nor that) supporters will not vote for Obama has made me wet myself. I think I'll crawl into a dark corner and cry for a while. Thanks.

by bookish 2008-04-07 09:59AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Troublemakers

You've got a handful of (supposed) Hillary supporters here who are trying to stir up trouble by getting others to agree that they will not vote Dem if their candidate doesn't get the nomination.  And since she is highly unlikely to get the nomination, these troublemakers are really just shoring up support for the republicans.  First it was 'we will vote McCain in November', now I'm hearing 'we will vote republican down-ticket too'.  Anyone who says that is not a progressive, not a democrat and not worth wasting time on.

I'm happy to have any kind of friendly discussion with other DEMS about one candidate vs another but anyone who says they are defecting to the repugs is dead to me.

by GFORD 2008-04-07 07:44AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Troublemakers

Perhaps not supporters. It could be GOP trolls they're falling for. I tend to think anyone who would vote for McCain as either a sleepwalking zealot or someone who has conservative principles anyway.

by bookish 2008-04-07 08:57AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Clinton supporters think

Obama supporters are arrogant, pompous, disrespectful etc. if they note the simple fact that their candidate is winning the delegate count and the popular vote. Clinton supporters think that Obama supporters are arrogant if they play by the rules.

However, Clinton continues to say that all the nearly fifty-year old Obama ever did was make a speech. This is dismissive arrogance to the nth power, and this sort of vacuous contempt is repeated ad nauseum by the Clinton supporters who've ingested the most KoolAid. Some seem to even think that Obama might be a bit uppity.

Because many Clinton supporters have the mentality that it is pre-ordained that their candidate win, they see the prospect of Obama as a violation of natural order (something similar to the divine right of kings). Sean Wilentz is a good example of the academic version of this, but their are plenty of other examples all over the comments sections of websites spread around the internet.

by AdrianLesher 2008-04-07 06:41AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Clinton supporters think

Obama supporters in their Arrogance think that

Michigan counting is somehow outside the rules.  It isn't.  The jury is still out on that until the convention.  Count it as voted and Hillary is within 20 in the  PLEDGED delegate race.

Super Delegates supporting the candidate the majority of Democrats voted for is outside the rules.  It Isn't.  The Jury is still out on that until the convention.  EVEN IF THEY GO PUBLIC BEFORE THEN.

This race is still wide open.  That the press is reporting it as otherwise is shameful and likely to elect McCain.

by DTaylor 2008-04-07 07:05AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Clinton supporters think

within 20?

ok I gotta ask, how do you get that one?

by TruthMatters 2008-04-07 07:12AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Clinton supporters think

DTaylor's numbers are way off.  Obama leads by something like 80-90 if you include Florida, give Clinton her Michigan delegates, and give Obama none.

The delegate counter below is out-of-date, and includes superdelegates.

by Mostly 2008-04-07 08:08AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Clinton supporters think

The press is reporting it as a horserace.  Whether it is close or not, ratings are up so they will continue to report it as a horserace.

Michigan counting is "somehow outside the rules..."?

Either state counting is outside the rules.  They were told not to do something... they did it anyway.  They were told what the consequences would be, they did it anyway.  Neither state is supposed to count according to the rules.  Of course that will change because we so enjoy changing the rules... damn the consequences.

by JenKinFLA 2008-04-07 07:12AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
I'd like to see your numbers on that.

Michigan only has 150 or so pledged delegates, and even if we allowed that farce to count, Clinton would only get about 80 or so; Obama would still be up by 70 even if he got no cut of "uncommitted."

Not a single superdelegate has defected from Obama, but at least seven have defected (or been forced to resign in disgrace) from Clinton.  I don't see any convention scenario where the supers suddenly decide to cave to Bill Clinton's red-faced finger wagging.

by Dracomicron 2008-04-07 07:23AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: I'd like to see your numbers on that.

I count Hillary at 127 if Michigan counts.

by DTaylor 2008-04-07 01:12PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Clinton supporters think

Michigan counting is somehow outside the rules.  It isn't.

Yes, it is.  The DNC sets the rules, and they said those two states wouldn't count.  Both candidates signed a pledge that they wouldn't participate in the election.  It's possible that DNC changes the rules and allows them to count, somehow, but that would require a rule change from them.

I don't see how this could be much clearer.

by ChrisKaty 2008-04-07 07:26AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Clinton supporters think

You guys keep beating that drum, but it's a bad strategy.  Those states will be seated.  Watch.

by mikeinsf 2008-04-07 10:08AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Beware Greeks bearing gifts

Even if they'd said "Obama-Clinton," it would still be a Trojan horse.

by Dracomicron 2008-04-07 06:20AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Drive Launched To Form Unity Ticket

I just can't imagine Obama selecting Hillary Clinton as his VP. Can you imagine having a VP whose husband is a former President?The Clinton's would continually be promoting their own agenda.

Although it might have good P.R, the reality sounds like a disaster.

by drmark 2008-04-07 06:22AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Drive Launched To Form Unity Ticket

The VP only has as much power as the President allows.

But try this - can you imagine someone trying to run with their vice-president being on record as saying that they hadn't passed "the commander-in-chief test"?  The press would never leave it alone.

by Mostly 2008-04-07 08:11AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Would Clinton accept veep nomination anyway?

I just don't see that happening.  

Not that I see Obama offering it to begin with, but even if he did, I can't see her accepting.  She hasn't run in order to spend up to 8 years shutting up and toeing the line.

by RT 2008-04-07 06:22AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
She'd accept it.

That's why she's been floating this joint ticket stuff all this time.  On the surface, it's an attempt to get the uppity kid to take the VP spot, but what she's actually doing is trying to force him to take her as VP now that he's essentially inevitable.

It's her path to the presidency, in case she gets to become the LBJ to Obama's JFK.  8 years of watching your back doesn't sound too attractive to me.  Obama will refuse.

by Dracomicron 2008-04-07 06:31AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
It's a poor path to the Presidency

I agree that Obama will refuse to make the deal.  But I don't see it working out for Hillary if he offered and she accepted.  Three scenarios:

1) Obama/Clinton wins in November, and wins re-election in 2012.

Clinton's 68 when she runs in 2016, it'll be 24 years since she first became a national figure, the Clinton legacy will be ancient history, and a generation of younger, more attractive politicians will be chomping at the bit to run for President.

She'll have a chance, but it's not a great one.

2) Obama/Clinton wins in November, but loses in 2012.

If this comes to pass, whatever causes Obama to lose re-election will tarnish Clinton too.  Plus all the drawbacks of (1).

No chance.

3) Obama/Clinton loses in November.

The #2's on failed Dem tickets, from Muskie to Edwards, haven't done well in modern times.  Hillary might be the exception.  But she'd have to come up with some stronger selling points next time.  If she hadn't started off as the trusted, default choice, she'd be nowhere right now.

A realistic chance, but well below odds-on.  Maybe 25%, I don't know.

by RT 2008-04-07 07:59AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
25% is still better than now

She really wants to be president.

She'd also be playing the odds that a charismatic, transformative black politician might be killed in office.  Sadly, this sort of concern is not entirely without merit.  She could become president without having to win a primary and then run as an incumbant.

Further, if there's some sort of scandal and Obama would have to resign (and we all know he probably would, if it were a real issue), she would then get to be president as well.  Something like 25% of vice presidents have had to take on presidential duty for one reason or another.

by Dracomicron 2008-04-07 08:41AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: It's a poor path to the Presidency

I disagree. It's the best path and only chance to the presidency for Clinton if she loses the nomination.

Since the modern primary system began in 1972, Democrats have never nominated a candidate that ran and lost before, with the exception that a previous loser becomes Vice President. Psychologically, Democrats don't like losers because a previous loss is an indication of unelectability. On the other hand, Republicans love to nominate someone who came in second place in a previous nomination fight. They see coming in second place as gaining experience and a badge of honor.

by Zzyzzy 2008-04-07 09:01AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
It would be a truly sefless act

if she did that in order to still be in a place to help the country. I don't know if I could swallow that load myself if I were her.  Let me see- dedicate myself to my country for decades & then take direction from a man still in the throes of learning who wrote book reports on history making precedent that I was actually a part of which helped move the country & the party forward b/c somehow people perceive he can do a better job? I mean maybe she could get his lunch for him too & make his cofee?

More likely she will go be Governor of NY & run again next cycle.  

by jrsygrl 2008-04-08 05:54PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Drive Launched To Form Unity Ticket

This isn't a sincere effort. It's an attempt by a strong Clinton partisan to hold down defections from her camp.  

by politicsmatters 2008-04-07 06:27AM | 0 recs
Mars_attacks
Re: Drive Launched To Form Unity Ticket

WTF is this TR'd for?  Zerosumgame:  the ratings abuse is WAY out of line.

by fogiv 2008-04-07 10:07AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Drive Launched To Form Unity Ticket

Not gonna happen. Would'nt be prudent. Funny how it's only people associated with the Clinton campaign who continue to bring up this kinda thing. Listen, Hillary Clinton will not be president.Its that simple. All of her "supporters" should accept the fact that the majority of voters just feel as though she has too much baggage, and the Obama campaign has just run a better campaign.

by onlinesavant 2008-04-07 06:28AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Drive Launched To Form Unity Ticket

Hillary Clinton will not be president

And BO supporters better get used to the idea that he ran a primary campaign, not a GE campaign, and he is not going to beat McCain in the GE, so maybe you should start getting used to the idea that BO will and cannot win the GE.

by JHL 2008-04-07 06:34AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Drive Launched To Form Unity Ticket

BO will NOT and cannot

by JHL 2008-04-07 06:35AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Drive Launched To Form Unity Ticket

Well, while we are in the mood for predictions out of our collective backsides, who is going to win the Super Bowl this year...?  World Series...?  

Just curious, you seem to know what will happen in November even though it is April....

by JenKinFLA 2008-04-07 06:39AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Drive Launched To Form Unity Ticket

BO cannot win the GE w/o the HRC vote. That's not a pie-in-the-sky prediction. Go read the analysis on this that has been done extensively. By June, HRC supporters will be so fed up with all the crap slung at her that they just might write in her name (which won't count) and BO gets "un-gatz" vote---zero. None. And he will lose... But keep baiting HRC supporters... If that is your ultimate goal.

by JHL 2008-04-07 06:45AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Drive Launched To Form Unity Ticket

sorry but I don't consider those who say they won't vote for BO, the HRC vote.

they are at most 25% of her supporters, so actually those who say they wont vote for BO, are a minority and don't reflect her true supporters

its the same for BO.

every seems to think that since they hear it all over the internet it must be a majority, but its not, and McCain still has not solidified his base.

but I agree, those of you who want to blackmail saying you won't vote unless your candidate wins, well the writing is on the wall, HRC wont win, so those of you who are voting Republican, might as well leave a democratic blog alone, because we aren't going to be blackmailed, into voting how you want, thats a different party for you.

by TruthMatters 2008-04-07 06:52AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
The arrogance

of your comments is astounding, as if you have entitlement to the Democratic party because you are a BO supporter! You picked the candidate that suits your personality, that's for sure. And blackmail??? Such drama! Get over yourself. And don't tell me what I am, how I'll vote or that I'm blackmailing anyone. You're sick.

by JHL 2008-04-07 07:10AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: The arrogance

what are you talking about? I said this is a democratic blog, we support the democratic nominee who ever it is, if people say they don't then I said maybe they would like a blog where people support the person they want to vote for.

and yes, I don't think more then 15-17% will defect no matter the nominee.

you can disagree thats your opinion, but no the whole if Obama wins Clinton supporters wont back him, is wrong, they can say if Obama wins SOME of her supporters wont back him thats true, but it wont be more then 30% (according to polls right now)

and to me, 30% is a smaller number then 70%. thus that suggests to me that the Majority of her supporters will back the democratic nominee.

if you feel marginalized because I say those who won't vote for BO don't represent her true supporters, then I am sorry, but to me the 30% group don't represent the will of her supporters,the 70% do, if you want to vote for McCain feel free, but don't act like you are part of some great movement, even Hillary has already said she supports the party, if she loses she isn't going Independent she will campaign for BO, and she will try for the VP slot.

but nope, I don't care for people who will vote against what the issues they SAY is important only because they are sore losers, thats my opinion and I am entitled to it.

by TruthMatters 2008-04-07 07:17AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
As yes arrogance

is the new soundbite.

Okay, if you insist Obama supporters are arrogant then I embrace arrogance.  Arrogance is the new black and I shall wear it proudly.  Got anything else, maybe something substantive?

by GFORD 2008-04-07 07:55AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Bash, Bash, Bash...

yeah... go wear your arrogance to... and don't let the door hit you on the way out.

You got NOTHING else.

by JHL 2008-04-07 07:58AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Jeez, dude

As a once great man said, "Chill out."

We do have our fellow Dems. You should join our party on a permanent basis.

by bookish 2008-04-07 09:17AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
The Truth...

Matters? What, as long as it's YOUR truth? Your whole Truth? and nothing but YOUR truth?

by JHL 2008-04-07 07:11AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Drive Launched To Form Unity Ticket

20% of 25% is 5%

5% of DEMS voting GOP is DISASTER.

That eats a 10 point lead.

If Dukakis had the same number of GOP defect he would have beat Bush Sr.

If Mondale...no Mondale Lost by 18% but then thats the last election we say that large a cross over...

by DTaylor 2008-04-07 07:18AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Drive Launched To Form Unity Ticket

5% of Dems voting GOP is way below historical norms.  That's a landslide for Obama.

by Mostly 2008-04-07 08:16AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Drive Launched To Form Unity Ticket

Not really especially since McCain can't unite his party and Barack could easily make that up with the influx of young and  black voters. Also, we all know that this election comes down to just a few states and Barack will beat McCain in the key states that he needs to. Hillary can't even hold onto Washington and Oregon.

by regina1983 2008-04-07 08:18AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Drive Launched To Form Unity Ticket

That's been my thought the whole time. Any distemperate Clinton supporters who jump ship will be more that made up for by new participants and independents. I don't want to say good riddance, so I won't.

Anyone who sits on their hands in November will have to live with that choice. The ones who vote for McSame are just GOP closet cases who will finally have an excuse to embrace their inner demons.

by bookish 2008-04-07 09:21AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
You do realize how racist the word blackmail is...

...don't you? Please use another.

by Soitgoes 2008-04-07 08:52AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: You do realize how racist the word blackmail i

That's hilarious. Make another.

by bookish 2008-04-09 05:48PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Are you saying

Hillary won't jump in and rally her supporters to get behind Obama? I think that she would after an acceptable period of mourning and readjustment. To do otherwise would be reprehensible. She's very ambitious, but she's not suicidal - and at heart she's a real Democrat who supports our candidates.

I don't see Hillary outright REFUSING to actively support Obama in the fall. That'd be a terrible legacy for her to leave, and it would effectively end her political career.

by SuperTex 2008-04-07 07:05AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Are you saying

Ted Kennedy seems to have survived long enough to endorse Obama...

by DTaylor 2008-04-07 07:18AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Are you saying

Did he ever run for president again?  Did he ever again have a position of leadership in the Senate?

by Mostly 2008-04-07 08:17AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Yes -

Chair of Health Education and Welfare Committee (the position he wanted), most respected Dem in the Senate (consulted by every Dem Maj. Leader and even most Repubs), and much of his rather substantial legislative legacy has been accomplished since 1980.

by SuperTex 2008-04-07 08:29AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Eh...

apples-and-oranges there. Different time, different political atmosphere, different scenario.

Hillary is already a pariah to the right and the hardcore left. To fail or refuse to support our nominee would be the last straw for her. It would validate every criticism ever leveled against her. Doing the right thing - Being magnanimous in defeat - would make her a hero, team player, improve her standing and set a strong example. What she does after that is another matter, but I assume that she truly wants to work for the causes she espouses, so I would hold her to those commitments.  

by SuperTex 2008-04-07 08:26AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Drive Launched To Form Unity Ticket

you need to step down off your high-horse for a moment.

I have not once baited you.  That I teased you a bit for your predictions on the general was a tease not a bait.  

And no one knows what will happen.  Not even you know that HRC supporters will not vote for Obama.  Some of them may not, some of them may, but neither you nor I know what will happen in November.  We don't even know what will happen in May or June.

And my ultimate goal is for the Democrats to win the White House and increase their majorities in Congress.

by JenKinFLA 2008-04-07 07:24AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
The future is not written.

If there's anything I've learned from this primary is that if someone is saying that something is inevitable before the race even starts, it's not.

Obama can and probably will win.

by Dracomicron 2008-04-07 06:37AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: The future IS written.

His future is... All McCain needs to do is run one ad---Wright proclaiming God Damn America as the planes crash into the WTC towers and then Wright saying the chickens have come home to roost. Willie Horton redux. And 22% of Dem voters who will NOT pull the lever for BO in the GE. Do the math... as you all are so quick to tell HRC supporters. The votes he needs will not be there...

by JHL 2008-04-07 06:49AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: The future IS written.

yeah most people have ALREADY seen it.

who do you think knows about it now but will wait 4 months to get upset over it?

its already done its mojo, its out there Fox News ran it constantly which means, the GOP voters have seen it.

so please who do you think the Wright story will hit in 4 months that it hasn't hit now?

by TruthMatters 2008-04-07 06:53AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: The future IS written.

I know from talking to people ALL over the country---including "blue states & Red states" that the Wright thing is infuriating to them and it is not going away. Tell the farmer in Wisconsin to ignore it, or the miller in Maine, or the fisherman in Washington State, or the retirees in Florida, or the blue-collar workers in Michigan and Ohio... or even here in PA. Between Phila & Pitts there is a vast conservative, gun-rights, patriotic America that will be repulsed by BO association with Wright and his anti-American hate rants. Talk to them about Louis Farrahkan and Islam... All is needs to ignite is to be linked by association. I'm sorry that the Willie Horton redux will come in Nov. It's not a question of if, but when.

by JHL 2008-04-07 07:04AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
I'm not telling anyone anything.

I'm going to let them make their own decisions.  If it comes up in the general, Obama will make another speech to "continue the conversation," and another 70% of the population will think he did a good job handling the situation.

Obama is not John Kerry.  He will react to threats to his election.

by Dracomicron 2008-04-07 07:28AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: The future IS written.

and I know from having spoken to some church-going people, down South no less, that reducing a pastor's 30 year career to 10 seconds of soundbytes is insulting.

Seriously, I spoke to members of a congregation in North Carolina about it.  hey were more upset about the way Wright was being treated in the media than they were about what he had said.

by JenKinFLA 2008-04-07 07:29AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: The future IS written.

How you reconcile this supposed repudiation of Obama in places like PA with the polls tightening so much there?  It doesn't seem like it's so fatal to me.

by ChrisKaty 2008-04-07 07:31AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: The future IS written.

And HRC won't have the same problem being linked to all of the scandals of her husband's administration?  
Just how long you think a negative campaign of association is going to last in this political climate?
Obama never said it.
Obama renounced it.

However, ALL of HRC's problem have been of her own doing.

See the difference?

by xodus1914 2008-04-07 07:35AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Drive Launched To Form Unity Ticket

I hate to break this to you, but Obama ran a primary campaign because it is a primary

I know Hillary threw that out and went after Obama like it was a general election after Wisconsin, but that's her problem.

Obama will run a general election campaign against McCain as soon as Hillary gets out of the way.

by bawbie 2008-04-07 06:59AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Get's Out of the Way...

nice. Really nice. Sorry she is "Blocking" his coronation, while there's still 10 primaries to go. But ok... when she gets out of his way, he'll be in more trouble.

by JHL 2008-04-07 07:06AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Funny

I seem to recall that it was Obama that was blocking Clinton's coronation back on Super Tuesday, when she expected to be done with the primary.

by Dracomicron 2008-04-07 07:29AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Not funny...

she NEVER called for BO to drop out of the race. Even when se as astronically ahead in the polls.

by JHL 2008-04-07 07:50AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Not funny...

He never called for her to drop out either.

by Mostly 2008-04-07 08:19AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
BS

Yeah right. That's what he has his surrogates do and wy he had to say, she can tay in the race as long as she wants to... so kind of him after he had all his minions call for her to get out---Dodd, Pelosi, Brazille, the MSM, etc...

by JHL 2008-04-07 08:22AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: BS

Um... WRONG!

Pat Leahy was the only "minion" to call for her to get out, and he did that on Vermont Public Radio, which I know I listen to for all my political news.

by bawbie 2008-04-07 08:24AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Clinton surrogates

Seems like Clinton surrogates are telling Obama to drop out even now.  That's what this article is about, isn't it?

What's that?  These yahoos don't represent Clinton?  Well, the people who have called for Clinton to drop out don't represent Obama, either.

Be fair.

by Dracomicron 2008-04-07 08:50AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Not funny...

Has Obama called for Hillary to drop out? Hillary was basically telling everyone to drop out on February 5th because she would have the nomination.

by regina1983 2008-04-07 08:21AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Not funny...

Well that is because she was never once in the lead once the actual contests started.  I want the Rangers to actually go to the series every year too but once they are 15 games under .500 at the all-star break every year I give up the dream.

by kasjogren 2008-04-07 08:22AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Not funny...

That's right. Polls, not PRIMARIES. Hilary's supposed lead dissipated as soon as the primaries/caucases began. WHich means it wasn't real to begin with.

by xodus1914 2008-04-07 08:24AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Drive Launched To Form Unity Ticket

You can just say it a lot, but excessive repetition is more irritating than convincing.

Explain why.  Actually, explain why Hillary, with her lower positives and bigger negatives, is MORE electable.  That's the real question.

I don't doubt that you believe this, but you're looking at Obama's positives and dismissing some and his negatives and accepting them all.  And you're looking at Hillary's positives and accepting them all and negatives and dismissing some of them.

The American public, as a whole, disagrees with you to this point.

by Rorgg 2008-04-07 10:10AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Drive Launched To Form Unity Ticket
I would actually like to see Clinton/Obama. The sole reason I'd like to see him as VP is that he's young, he'd be what 56 in 8 years? That could set us up for 16 straight years of Democrat Presidents. Omama could be in perfect position for 2016.
by Dave B 2008-04-07 06:29AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Because you boomers are so good at running things?

Right.   The country is completely fucked up because of older, more experienced Americans mortgaging our future for the now.   You people need to go retire to Florida and let us kids take over.   We can't possibly do any worse than you have for 3 decades.

"He's too young!" sounds to me like someone is feeling a bit too old.   With good reason.

by beermeister 2008-04-07 01:27PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Because you boomers are so good at running thi

Nothing like an encounter with an asshole on the internets.

I wasn't implying that Obama needed to grow up first.  WTF?

It's not boomers that fucked up the country.  It was Republicans.

And WTF?  You want me to retire at 46?

Do you want to support me?

Do you want to support my 9 year old daughter?

Go have another beer bong.

by Dave B 2008-04-08 06:40AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Drive Launched To Form Unity Ticket

Has Hillary offered to be VP?

I'm not sure she'd be right for the job.

She'd have to show a lot of willing

by wrb 2008-04-07 06:30AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
No.

The window of opportunity for this closed some months ago, when Obama won Iowa.

Ad it's completely absurd to bill this as Clinton-Obama. He's ahead, and he's going to be our nominee. The runner-up does not get to offer the winner the number two spot.

by MBNYC 2008-04-07 06:36AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: No.

I think the window closed when Senator Clinton made the absurd CiC comment.  Funny side not, McCain today said Obama was qualified to President.

by kasjogren 2008-04-07 08:24AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Drive Launched To Form Unity Ticket

The one thing that would be amusing to me would be to see all of the people pushing the Rezko, "typical white person," etc. slime in the recommended diaries suddenly support a joint ticket 100%.  That would be comedy gold.

by rfahey22 2008-04-07 06:44AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Drive Launched To Form Unity Ticket

I've thought since NH that both will be on the ticket.  The fallacy of this site is in only promoting Clinton-Obama instead of Obama-Clinton when Obama is a virtual certainty to be the nominee.  I think that Obama will definitely offer the VP slot to Hillary.  I'm less certain she will accept, although it's not out of the question (she MUST say it is out of the question right now - in fact, they both MUST - because they are still running for the top spot - that doesn't mean it really is out of the question after the nomination is officially settled).

by NJIndependent 2008-04-07 06:49AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Unlikely

I'm not saying this as an Obama supporter (which I am) but as an observer with as much objectivity as I can muster:  Obama's strategy to win the general, which has largely remained unchanged over the primary season, does not account for taking on political rivals as VP.

He's going to go for the best person for the job, the person that will shore up any of his own weaknesses (actual foreign policy, executive, or military experience, for example).  

The greatest coup would be to get Al Gore.  We all know he's passed the Commander in Chief test.

by Dracomicron 2008-04-07 07:42AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Unlikely

I don't think there is too much incentive for Gore to accept it...

He got the popular vote for President, I cannot see him accepting another veep position.

by JenKinFLA 2008-04-07 07:52AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Nancy Pelosi was right.

You cannot have someone who's put John McCain ahead of you in terms of "crossing the commander in chief" threshold as your vice-president.

by Mostly 2008-04-07 08:21AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Nancy Pelosi was right.

Exactly. Also, Hillary is the total opposite of what Obama's campaign has been about. Hillary doesn't even provide the foreign policy background that he is looking for in a VP.

by regina1983 2008-04-07 08:23AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Maybe not.

Obama is crafty, though.  He'll offer it anyway and let Gore think about it.  He probably already has.

Nobody is more qualified for the job.

by Dracomicron 2008-04-07 08:52AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Unlikely

Obama is a smart fellow.  He is going to go for the vice-presidential candidate who will do the most in terms of winning the BO the presidential election.  If that person also happens to be the best choice for VP, that's a big bonus, but it's never been a necessity.  

For VP, esepcially when the electoral vote contest may be very tight, you pick someone who can help deliver a key state or two, or a good-sized block of votes.  That leaves a bunch of decent candidates.  

If the nominee is Obama, Clinton could deliver an advantage with the female and hispanic votes, as well as older dems and independents (some of whom might support McCain, who has done well with the critical independent voters, who will probably determine the outcome of the race), Richardson could help with hispanics and might also help to win NM (with only a few electoral votes) - and there are many other possiblities, because it does not have to be one of the candidates for the nomination.  How about Michael Bloomberg, who might help in the Northeast and with more fiscally conservative voters?

If the nominee is Clinton, Obama would help with the younger voters and the black vote, as well as with the left wing of the party.  

Of course, if the convention fails to nominate on the first ballot, that's when things get really interesting.

Generally speaking during the nomination process, democratic candidates try to sound a bit more left than they really are, while republicans do the same on the right.  Once nominated, the battle over the large centrist block of voters begins.  That's where elections are won or lost, by successfully courting the middle-of-the road voter!  (Note: fortunately, McCain is a bit stuck here, as he also needs to keep the religious right part of his coalition happy enough to come out in force.)

by BillCat 2008-04-07 09:32AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Drive Launched To Form Unity Ticket

The idea of a Barack/Hillary ticket is so absurd that to suggest it is to sacrifice one's credibility.  There is somewhere between a 0 and 0% chance of that happening.

What would the single most unifying politician in America gain from putting the most polarizing politician in America on his ticket?

I appreciate that Hillary supporters see fine qualities in her.  But the inarguable, inescapable, undeniable fact is that she is now viewed unfavorably by a clear majority of Americans.  She currently has a 37% approval rating nationally.  37%!  That simply doesn't help Barack.

Barack will choose someone who brings national security credentials to the table, someone like: Jack Reed, Jim Webb, Wes Clark, or Anthony Zinni.

by nocore 2008-04-07 06:54AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Drive Launched To Form Unity Ticket

"What would the single most unifying politician in America gain from putting the most polarizing politician in America on his ticket?"

Most polarizing politician?  I had no idea that George W. Bush was even being considered for VP! <GRIN - just kidding>

by BillCat 2008-04-07 09:55AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Drive Launched To Form Unity Ticket
Good lord the delusions continue. Obama is never, EVER, going to even mention the idea of putting Clinton on the ticket. He can do much better than that! The Clinton Machine is dead, let's give it a quick burial and get on with the nation's business.
by jwolf 2008-04-07 07:01AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Drive Launched To Form Unity Ticket

Either Gov. Sibelius of KS or Gov. Napalitano of AZ would be a much better choice for Obama's #2. She would appeal to Hillary's main demographic strenths and put KS or AZ into play.

by Kobi 2008-04-07 07:11AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Napolitano

Putting AZ into play would be a hell of a gutsy move, being that it's McCain's home state.

She also has executive and foreign policy experience, which would make her a good match.

by Dracomicron 2008-04-07 07:45AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Napolitano

She would also be a good match if Obama just can't stomach Clinton on the ticket. But from watching news programs, there is a feeling that Obama is looking for a white male as a running mate because he just thinks that having a black man and white woman on the same ticket is just too much change for the average American to handle.

by Zzyzzy 2008-04-07 09:12AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Napolitano

Not just that, but Obama's white male demographic needs a little work vs. McCain.

I dunno.  I'd love to see a female VP, but it might not be practical at the moment.

by Dracomicron 2008-04-07 12:34PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Napolitano

Napalitano is also a former Republican (not a plus in my book, but we're talking nuts and bolts politics) and she's a very popular two term guv in AZ

by Kobi 2008-04-07 01:52PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Drive Launched To Form Unity Ticket

Hillary and her close to 2,000 delegates aren't going anywhere.  I think Obama will have to offer her the VP job and she will probably accept.  Otherwise you could be looking at a brokered nasty convention in August.  Hillary does not want to go back to the Senate.  If Obama leads narrowly in both the pledged count and popular votes in June, then he will have to offer the VP job to Clinton.  An Obama/Clinton ticket would be a pretty strong ticket.

by karajan72 2008-04-07 07:02AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Drive Launched To Form Unity Ticket

I suppose now that there's a website, Obama will just give up?

That's the only way it would be possible. If Clinton were to win the nomination it would take some huge scandal that certainly would also disqualify him from VP.

by BlueGAinDC 2008-04-07 07:03AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Drive Launched To Form Unity Ticket

I would feel much better about voting for Obama knowing that Hillary and Bill will be there for advise when he needs it.  They would be great for him.  She would accept VP and Obama has to put her on the ticket if she wants it.  For the sake of the party.  

by karajan72 2008-04-07 07:03AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
After this primary?

He'd only do that if he wanted to be looking over his shoulder for eight years.

Clinton is more valuable in the Senate, anyway.  Who could he trust more to push health care legislation?

by Dracomicron 2008-04-07 07:47AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Drive Launched To Form Unity Ticket

I'm sure Obama would like to have Bill Clinton second guess his every decision, and a Vice President who resents the fact that she's #2 and not #1.
It's time for some new faces. Obama showed that he can pick the right people to  shore up his weaknesses by picking a campaign team that has run one of the most sucessful, come-from-nowhere campaigns in history.
I think we can trust him to pick people that would complement him, instead of picking people like the CLintons who (while competent) are mostly the opposite of everything he campaigned against. We know that Barack will pick people who are best for the job, regardless of party affiliation or who they are friends with.  

Obama knew enough to beat your candidate. Trust him enough to lead this country.

by xodus1914 2008-04-07 08:33AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Drive Launched To Form Unity Ticket

You are worrying about the wrong set of people.  I really don't think that the Clintons are the second-guessers Obama has worry about.  The Republicans and the conservative press are, quite frankly, much more inclined to do so, and to air their opinions loudly.  

Oh, and by the way, Obama will need to shift focus, regarding "everything he campaigned against."  In the general election, he could really use a seasoned, charismatic campaigner like Bill Clinton.  

The big matchup has yet to come!

by BillCat 2008-04-07 10:13AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Drive Launched To Form Unity Ticket

Bill Clinton is going to galvanize the Republicans and the conservative press. I think he is best served working behind the scenes.

by xodus1914 2008-04-07 10:45AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Drive Launched To Form Unity Ticket

I am a hillary supporter and i will have a hard time voting for Obama if he doesn't put Hillary on the ticket as well.  I still think Hillary has a chance to be the Presidential nominee however.  But if Obama wins over the supers in June, he will have to put Hillary on the ticket if she wants it.  Otherwise he will come across as arrogant, crass and petty once again and alienate half of the Democratic party.

by karajan72 2008-04-07 07:06AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Drive Launched To Form Unity Ticket

"But if Obama wins over the supers in June, he will have to put Hillary on the ticket if she wants it."

...and the incredible arrogance of entitlement continues. Wow.

by jwolf 2008-04-07 07:25AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Obama doesn't have to win over the supers

All he has to do is get at least 44% of the pledged delegates between now and 5/20.  The supers will sigh in relief and endorse him knowing that he has an unbreakable lock on the delegates chosen by the voters.

They will have a safe excuse to go against the First Family of the Democratic party without fear of public outcry.

by Dracomicron 2008-04-07 07:51AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Drive Launched To Form Unity Ticket

Then don't vote. WE don't blackmail here in democracies.  

by regina1983 2008-04-07 08:25AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Drive Launched To Form Unity Ticket

"he will have to put Hillary on the ticket if she wants it"

He will have to?...
...because it's again about what Hillary wants, isn't it? Not about whether she has managed to convince the voters or not.

What about what Hillary will have to do? Why do we never hear about Hillary's obligations towards the winner, and we only hear about the winner's supposed obligations towards Hillary?

Either way -- it'll be near impossible for Obama to put Hillary in his VP position even if he wanted to -- because she's on record saying that he hasn't passed the CiC threshold. You can't have your VP on record saying you aren't fit to be president. It'll be then that Obama's gonna become unelectable, if he were stupid enough to offer the VP spot to Clinton.

What I hope Obama does is offer the position to Wes Clark who's been a Hillary supporter so far. That will hopefully be enough to show he's seeking for unity in the party -- and Wes Clark hasn't been so stupid as to bash the eventual democratic nominee the way Hillary has done, so it won't condemn the ticket the way Hillary's presence would.

by Aris Katsaris 2008-04-07 09:00AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Drive Launched To Form Unity Ticket

Jesus.  Such entitlement.  Soooo... if he picks someone else it's arrogant.  Why?  Because it's owed to her?  The Party's more than the Clintons.  Perhaps it would be a good thing to remind the Clintons of this.

by mikeinsf 2008-04-07 10:38AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Drive Launched To Form Unity Ticket

Why would he put someone on his ticket that doesn't think he's qualified to be President?

by chewie5656 2008-04-07 03:23PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Drive Launched To Form Unity Ticket

Clinton/Obama ticket?

We've been through this before. The person in SECOND does NOT top the ticket.

Why does this fantasy keep recurring?

by Kobi 2008-04-07 07:08AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Drive Launched To Form Unity Ticket

"We've been through this before. The person in SECOND does NOT top the ticket."

Politics has a logic all its own.

Expect a Clinton/Obama ticked IF

Clinton wins majority of popular vote

or

Clinton has a 100 super delegate pad built in

or

Clinton has a rules committee 20-30 vote pad built in among Obama's or Dean's representatives.

or

Team Democratic party Believes that Team Obama absolutely 100% can't win in November.  This is not currently the case.

or

Team Obama realizes that they can't win in November at the top of the ticket but can win as VP this is also not presently the case.

by DTaylor 2008-04-07 07:27AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Drive Launched To Form Unity Ticket

If I understood you, you just said that the popular vote winner should win the nomination.  That's the equivalent of saying that Puerto Rico, which doesn't vote in the GE, should have a greater say than Maine, New Mexico, Nevada, Washington, Minnesota, and Iowa combined.

It's a cute way of saying "caucuses don't count".  It's also the only metric that she can possibly win.

by Mostly 2008-04-07 08:29AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Drive Launched To Form Unity Ticket

Many Obama supporters see him as a vehicle for change, and they see Clinton as a continuance of a cycle.

Pres. MoreOftheSame + VP. Change = more of the same.

It is a ticket that makes sense to Clinton supporters, because it gives them exactly what they want; Hillary in power.

It is a ticket that gives nothing to many Obama supporters, because they do not come to campaign for the man's personal power, but for the new type of governance he advocates.

by TakeBackTheHouse 2008-04-07 07:13AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Drive Launched To Form Unity Ticket

Well said.  Exactly!

by mikeinsf 2008-04-07 10:34AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Drive Launched To Form Unity Ticket

What kind of Unity are you showing when all you say you want is a Clinton/Obama ticket? This is not a Unity tickey petition. This is a Clinton for President petition.

Do they really think people are stupid?

Shame oh her.

by comingawakening 2008-04-07 07:13AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Drive Launched To Form Unity Ticket

What kind of Unity are you showing when all you say you want is a Clinton/Obama ticket? This is not a Unity tickey petition. This is a Clinton for President petition.

Do they really think people are stupid?

Shame oh her. by comingawakening

My Thoughts: Hillary should take it personally that Obama supporters attack Hillary, because we view Obama as inexperienced. Unlike Obama, Hillary supporters actually can used independent judgement. Hillary does not think for us; she only represents our values. So, the next time you attack Hillary for something her supporters said, we'll take it personally and attack Obama in the same manner.

by Check077 2008-04-07 09:51AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Drive Launched To Form Unity Ticket

If this were a sincere effort to form a "unity" ticket, it would be worth taking seriously.  But it's not.  It's just one more desperate Clinton fourth quarter gambit aimed at turning a loss into a miracle victory.

Clinton has been behind in both the popular vote and the pledged delegate totals for week upon week upon week.  She is losing; and has been for some time.  Some of her supporters now calculate that the only way of pulling off the turnaround is to promise Obama delegates - whom they apparently take to have the spines of jellyfish - that if they betray their candidate she will hand him the VP consolation prize.

What's next?  She'll promise to make Obama the pool boy for the sake of unity?

I'll believe Clinton is truly interested in unity on the day she says that, as the second place candidate, she would accept the second spot of the ticket and encourages her supporters to support Obama's candidacy.

by Dan Kervick 2008-04-07 07:13AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
I've not seen a Clinton endorsement matter before.

I'd love to be proven wrong, and I'm not even saying this is special.

When did the Clintons make a difference as endorsers in the GE?   I'd argue that Gore was hurt by distancing himself so strongly from Bill, but Lieberman staying on the Senate line (supposedly to keep Blumenthal from running for it?) made a big difference too.

I don't remember Kerry getting such a big boost either, but then again I don't remember that much effort going in past the rumor that Carville sunk Kerry's ship in Ohio's possible recount.

And zero coattails for Clinton in my memory.     HRC didn't spread her 30M around too much even though she basically had a bye in the most important opportunity in her life to sway Congress back to Dem.  

(She did give Lamont some love, and that made my decision hard.    Lamont endorsed Obama though, even though Obama kinda stiffed us.   Like I said, a hard hard choice after JRE dropped out.)

Again, I'm not even saying this is special.   Gore's endorsement of Dean gave me a thrill but didn't move the needle after 48 hours.

So maybe all this tough talk on either side staying home is just what it is, talk.      I'd be more worried that Obama's fans stay home since younger folks have a poorer record of showing up.   And I say that as an Obama supporter.

by drowsy 2008-04-07 07:13AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
This effort vs. Penn's demotion.

Sorry, I had one more thought.    This is basically a "damning with faint praise" effort to weaken Obama some more they found that before TX, gelding BO by referring to him as Veep worked.    The personal connection does not past the smell test for arm's length.

With that in mind, I'm glad Penn is still around, since maybe he's not free to freelance against Obama in another non-arm's-length attack.

by drowsy 2008-04-07 07:17AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
If Obama wins

he should pick the VP nominee he feels comfortable with who also improves his chances of getting elected.

If he decides this is HRC fine.

However, it should not be assumed that she will get the VP nod. And HRC supporters will offend me if they pout and whine that HRC is entitled to get the VP nomination.

The HRC campaign has engaged in racial divisiveness that painted HRC into a corner where she needs a credible Black running mate.

However, just because the HRC campaign will need to put a qualified African-American on the ticket to salve over the campaign's anti-Black tactics, this does not mean Obama is in the same situation.

by Carl Nyberg 2008-04-07 07:44AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: If Obama wins

Considering that Senator Obama was the one who's national campaign co-chair is teling black superdelegates that if they don't vote for Obama, they're more or less race traitors, the Obama supporters seem to continually insinuate that the Clinton supporters are race baitors, and Obama's "spirtual mentor and life long friend" is going around touting that AIDS was created by white government members to kill blacks and that 9/11 was revenge on White America (two statements Obama never denounced), I don't think you want to go there factually on race baiting.

Senator Obama knows that race baiting is good politics because, after his campaign issued a 4 page memo on how racist Bill Clinton was in SC, they saw the poll numbers go up.

The fact that you call the Clintons--two of the largest advocates for AA rights in the 90's "anti-Black" is deeply insulting and plain wrong. Instead, you have bought into the narrative without looking at how much the Obama campaign has played race, over and over and over again--with just a few examples above.

As far as I'm concerned, if you want to start railing on the Clintons about race, you might ought to look at your own canidiate about sexism. His comments about "likeable enough", or how about "Well, periodically, when she's feeling down...likes to launch attacks", and "claws come out" are language only used towards women, and the "periodically" comment is particularly demeaning because we all know what he was referring to in that comment. Of course, you can rail on about how the Clintons are racist, which is untrue, but when the Michelle Obama starts bashing Hillary over her husband's infidelity and saying publicily that that's not a reason to vote for her, she and the campaign get a free pass.

Please stop the double standards immediatley. Just so you know, The only way I vote Obama is if he nominates Hillary at this point as his VP and apologizes for trying to brand the Clintons as racist AND apologizes for his sexist behavior and his wife's classless and rude remarks. You want to know what's funny? NOT EVEN CINDY MCCAIN has said that about Hillary. I hope that Obama cheats on Michelle while he's in power at any level, just so she can feel the humiliation that Hillary felt. There's no way she'd respond to it close to as well as HRC did. Her comments proved that she is a mean spirited hypocrite and a bigoted Clinton hater. And those type of people always get what is coming to them.

by zcflint05 2008-04-07 01:14PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
the arrogance of HRC supporters

How is it not projecting a sense of entitlement to talk about HRC (and her supporters) offering Obama the #2 spot when he's close to claiming the nomination (if the trends detected in the polling of Pennsylvania are accurate)?

Also, the HRC campaign pushing the Obama as VP scenario undermines the attacks on Obama.

If Rev. Jeremiah Wright proves Obama is unfit to by POTUS, why is it so good for Obama to be HRC's VP?

by Carl Nyberg 2008-04-07 07:54AM | 0 recs
Lin alone
Re: Drive Launched To Form Unity Ticket

I think it is the only way the Dems win in November, but how it could be accomplished eludes me. I also think more than Obama, Hillarycamp has eye on big prize. And I think we all know that without each other's supporters, it ain't gonna happen. Maybe Obama supporters will support her, polls seem to show this. But not the other way around. And I think Obama campaign needs to look to themselves for the reason for that.

by linfar 2008-04-07 07:54AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Drive Launched To Form Unity Ticket

Just look to the smearing of Wright by Hil's supporters and her failure to step in and stop it.

For many that is unforgivable.

I find it unforgivable, but I'd still vote for her but I care more about the courts and the DOJ than most.

by wrb 2008-04-07 08:32AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Drive Launched To Form Unity Ticket

Not only did she not step in and stop it (the way McCain and Huckabee attempted to), she actually fanned the flames.

by Mostly 2008-04-07 08:35AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
To be fair

She only started fanning the flames after she had her own major scandal to cover up.

by Dracomicron 2008-04-07 08:55AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Drive Launched To Form Unity Ticket

We have.  We'll support Hillary Clinton as the nominee because we're highly disciplined.

by Mostly 2008-04-07 08:34AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Drive Launched To Form Unity Ticket

Considering that HRC is not going to win the nomination, this just tells me that her supporters that won't support Obama aren't real democrats.

And this is a message to them: Just remember these conversations when your kids get stuck in Iraq and all the women who live in the deep south have to go across two states to get an abortion.

Remember these conversations when the foreclosure rates go through the roof and President McCain starts talking about 'Personal Responsibility' to homeowners.

Or  when he talks about 'shouldering the burden' when it comes to Healthcare for children , much less adults.

Remember these conversations when Justices Stevens and Ginsburg are replaced by Alito/Roberts clones who are 50 years old!

I know people like to talk in the heat of the moment. But if the "McClintons" really think they are going to blackmail the Democratic Party into gives Hillary a piece of the pie that  she did not earn.......

by xodus1914 2008-04-07 08:50AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Unity, Bitches

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaL1df9_O cQ

by johnnyappleseed 2008-04-07 07:57AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Drive Launched To Form Unity Ticket
Obama/Webb
Anyone who saw Webb smack down Lindsey G on Sunday
should see Webb would add a military presence(not to mention VA)to the ticket.
Do the Republicans really want to trash someone who served under Reagan and has a son who has served multiple tours in Iraq?
In any VP debate Webb would crush McCain's choice..(could be Joey L)
I also believe a Webb VP would mollify some of the die hard Clinton supporters.
It will still be about Iraq/economy
by nogo war 2008-04-07 08:01AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Drive Launched To Form Unity Ticket

Obama/Webb is my dream ticket.  Nothing else comes close.

by Mostly 2008-04-07 08:36AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
It's a solid ticket

Webb definitely has a lot of credibility.

Might be a little 'boys club' for some folks, though.

by Dracomicron 2008-04-07 08:57AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Drive Launched To Form Unity Ticket

Dude, I'm sorry, I just don't see this being a viable ticket.  Then again it could be my personal bias against Webb.  He's said some things that I don't agree with...  though I was extremely happy he got elected over Macaca.

--sam

by samizdat 2008-04-08 04:01AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Unity Ticket

Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama is the only way the Democrats can win.  The Democrats are going to have to stop being scaredy cats when it comes to the Clintons.  Seeing both Bill and Hillary speak without notes shows their command of policy.  The Democratic establishment and Obama will be super stupid to deny Hillary the VP spot.

by lyn5 2008-04-07 08:36AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Unity Ticket

I don't agree.  I think the Democrats will win with no matter who they put on the ticket.  If they can't beat a Republican who called his wife a cunt (in public, no less) than we should not be a political party.  If we have middle-age women who would rather have a 7-2 conservative Supreme Court than swallow their pride and vote D in the most important election in a long time, we don't deserve to be a party.  

by itsobamastupid 2008-04-07 09:26AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Drive Launched To Form Unity Ticket

I believe a unity ticket is the best ticket for the democrats this fall. A unity ticket would be the best way to heal the wounds between the two factions of the party.

My sense is that Clinton and her supporters are quite enthusiastic for a unity ticket. However, Obama and his supporters are against such a ticket. When listening to Obama supporters speak, they often say that having an African-American and a woman on the same ticket would just be too much change for the American people. It appears that Obama is looking for someone like a Jim Webb, Evan Bayh or Wesley Clark as VP.

In an interesting note, I've heard from conservative circles that Condoleeza Rice has emerged as the frontrunner for the GOP VP spot. Without a unity ticket, I think McCain-Rice would be almost unbeatable in the fall. But with a unity ticket, McCain-Rice would be a losing ticket.

by Zzyzzy 2008-04-07 08:52AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
On the contrary

McCain-Rice hews way too close to being Bush III.  I know we see McCain as a continuation, but he's trying to distance himself from the administration while getting support from it.  

Having Condi on the ticket just blows that out of the water.  She has too much blood on her hands to get out of that one unscathed.

by Dracomicron 2008-04-07 09:00AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Kay Bailey Hutchinson

If I had to make a bet, I'd bet that McCain chooses Kay Bailey Hutchinson for VP. McCain probably has already determined that Obama is going to win the nomination. Having an experienced woman from a large state would be a big draw for white women who supported Clinton. I think a McCain-Hutchinson ticket would be a very strong ticket.

I hope that McCain is too much of a conventional thinker to pick Hutchinson. I hope he goes with someone like Mark Sanford of South Carolina.

by Zzyzzy 2008-04-07 09:07AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Drive Launched To Form Unity Ticket

I hope Obama picks anybody but Hillary.  She is so negative she would bring him down.  Obama needs to pick somebody with strong military credentials or foreign diplomatic experience.  I think Richardson, or Biden, or Webb, or Dodd would be a great pick.  

by Spanky 2008-04-07 09:03AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Drive Launched To Form Unity Ticket

Obama doesn't need her. He has any number of good candidates that he can choose.

She, on the other hand, doesn't have a chance in hell without him.

Of course, the absolute entitlement and arrogance in doing a site with CLINTON/Obama, is the main reason Obama should NEVER pick her.

by rikyrah 2008-04-07 09:08AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Drive Launched To Form Unity Ticket

Please let it be Rice....
This will be about Iraq..This is Bush's War.
The public no longer supports Bush's War.

Yep Wes Clark would be fine...no way Evan Bayh..
His military expertise is?
His diplomacy experience is?
(Bill Richardson will make a fine Sec of State)

by nogo war 2008-04-07 09:08AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Please stop

trying to convince the Hillary-only voters to support Obama.  They are hopeless.  Most will return to the fold on their own because they're true progressives, but f*ck those who don't.  In terms of trying to convince them, it's a waste of time.  They don't care about the Supreme Ct, the Iraq War, the economy, or a whole host of issues that will be negatively impacted by a President McCain.  They only care about voting for Hillary.  They're hopeless.

by bigdcdem 2008-04-07 09:11AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Insane Hillaryists

If they wanted even a shred of credibility they'd call for a point Obama-Clinton ticket as well... considering Obama is far ahead by every metric.  

This is pure Hillary shill and the kind of bullshit that belongs in an echo-box blog on the Hillary campaign website, not on a supposedly Dem party blog.

by beermeister 2008-04-07 09:33AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
This effort is quite humorous.

I predict it will meet with the same acceptance and success of the petition effort to bring back the "Tony Danza Show."

by Bob Johnson 2008-04-07 09:34AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Drive Launched To Form Unity Ticket

In order to keep the Democratic Party united, either Obama or Hillary  will have to offer the other the VP position.  Either one would accept.  It's going to be an Obama/Clinton or  Clinton/Obama ticket for the general election, so get used to it.  Hillary's not going anywhere and neither is Obama.  Right now it's looking like Obama will probably get the nomination, so sometime this summer Hillary will accept his vp invitation and thus end a battle at the convention.

by karajan72 2008-04-07 09:52AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Drive Launched To Form Unity Ticket

And please tell me again, what does Hillary Clinton add to an Obama ticket? Real foreign policy ? No. Military experience? No. Opposition against Iraq? No. Any new states, except for Arkansas? No.
Any new demographics that would normaly vote for Johnny Mac? No.

On the flip side, she will chase away all of the indy  and moderate Republicans that Obama has a shot at.  

by xodus1914 2008-04-07 10:05AM | 0 recs
Mars_attacks
Re: Drive Launched To Form Unity Ticket

How about Obama/Biden?

Biden's got the foreign policy cred, and he seems to rather relish the attack dog role.

Thoughts?

by fogiv 2008-04-07 10:28AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Drive Launched To Form Unity Ticket

Obama/Clinton is a non-starter.  She's too old.  Will "retire" to the Senate if she loses the nomination -- with a possible second try in 2012 if/when Obama gets shredded by the Republican attack machine.  The only relevant issue is whether either can win alone (given the mutual assured destruction scenario that is currently being played out).

by dwmorris 2008-04-07 12:57PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Drive Launched To Form Unity Ticket

"Obama/Clinton is a non-starter.  She's too old."

She's younger than Cheney was at the beginning of his current term. And if she's too old for the VP position, why isn't she too old for the Presidency?

The Presidency has more responsibilities than the VP, so if anything it should be the other way around.

And if she's too old now, how come she won't be too old in 2012?

Too proud perhaps for the VP position, not too old.

by Aris Katsaris 2008-04-07 01:33PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Drive Launched To Form Unity Ticket

She's too old to seriously contemplate another run for the Presidency in 2016 (when she will be 68).  If Obama get's the nomination and loses the general election, she's probably good to go in 2012, but who knows?  The age of Cheney is irrelevant.  Your little cheap shot about her being too proud isn't appreciated.

by dwmorris 2008-04-07 05:33PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Drive Launched To Form Unity Ticket

"She's too old to seriously contemplate another run for the Presidency in 2016 (when she will be 68)."

You said she's too old for an Obama/Clinton ticket. You weren't commenting on 2016 at the time.

That comment made no sense except in the context you're presenting it now -- namely of seeing the VP position as nothing but a stepping stone to the presidency.

It wasn't a "cheap shot", and it's not there for your appreciation or lack thereof. It's my understanding of the only possible meaning you could have been hiding in that small bunch of near non-sequiturs. Namely that "Hillary's too proud to serve in a VP position that won't lead her to the presidency (because she'll be too old in 2016)".

by Aris Katsaris 2008-04-07 10:54PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Drive Launched To Form Unity Ticket

"Obama/Clinton is a non-starter.  She's too old."

She's younger than Cheney was at the beginning of his current term. And if she's too old for the VP position, why isn't she too old for the Presidency?

The Presidency has more responsibilities than the VP, so if anything it should be the other way around.

And if she's too old now, how come she won't be too old in 2012?

Too proud perhaps for the VP position, not too old.

by Aris Katsaris 2008-04-07 01:32PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------