home

Obama's VP Dilemma

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:10:15 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

One of Barack Obama's biggest assets in the upcoming campaign is his relationship with the Media. In short, he is their Darling. They have tossed over their long love John McCain for him. This is worth a ton.

The Media has told Barack Obama that he can not pick Hillary Clinton as his running mate. To use the parlance, they have "jammed" him regarding his VP decision. Of course, since the Media is doing the jamming, they will never write that Obama's not choosing Hillary Clinton BECAUSE the Media jammed him is a sign of weakness.

On the other hand, I believe most honest observers know that if Barack Obama picks Hillary Clinton, the November election will be a lock. Of course, Barack Obama can win without Clinton. But with her, he WILL win. More . . .

George Will writes today:

That this idea [of an Obama-Clinton ticket] survived her off-putting speech Tuesday night, after Obama won the right to choose a running mate, is evidence that many Democrats do not fathom the gratitude that less-blinkered Americans feel for Obama because he has closed the Clinton parenthesis in our presidential history.

(Emphasis supplied.) It is funny to hear a bow-tie wearing, fuddy duddy elitest lecture on what "less-blinkered" Americans want. The only people George Will talks to live in Georgetown. What George Will is saying is that his Washington cocktail party friends are grateful. Uh George, we knew that already. Here's the problem for you - most of the American People have disagreed with the Beltway Media about the Clintons for almost two decades. It was these same "less-blnkered" Beltway bloviators who were thankful George W. Bush beat the "blowhard" Al Gore in 2000. 8 years later, the blinkers are off. Some of the less astute people in the world are in George Will's circle. Maybe he needs to go to an Applebee's once in a while.

But there is Obama's dilemma. Some day in July, Barack Obama will announce his Vice Presidential choice. And the story will be Hillary Clinton. Whether she is chosen or not. If she is not, Obama will be showered with "gratitude . . . because he has closed the Clinton parenthesis in our presidential history." And for a week, there will be stories dancing on the graves on Bill and Hillary Clinton. Obama will be answering questions about Hillary Clinton, NOT Kathleen Sebelius or Jim Webb or whomever. And he will anger a good deal of the Democratic Party - what I call the Clinton Democrats. And then there will be a week of questions about THAT.

If he chooses Clinton, the Media will be enraged. But here's the real question - will they be able to run stories about how weak about Obama is because he did not listen to them or will he be hailed as showing maturity and being the "unifier" he claims to be?

It will be interesting to see the run up to the choice to see how the Obama campaign positions itself in the following weeks on this. So far, they have played it well. Obama has "taken control of the process" without disrespecting Senator Clinton. But there are weeks to go.

And at the end of these weeks, the dilemma will remain.

See also Anglachel.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

Comments closed

< Spanish Newspapers: Edwards Say No To VP | Friday Morning Open Thread >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Obama's VP Dilemma | 238 comments (238 topical)
    After what the DNC did to her (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by dotcommodity on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:18:06 AM EST
    she really has to stay away from this.

    I agree (none / 0) (#230)
    by laurie on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:59:35 AM EST
    Hillary should take the moral high road.
    I have a feeling that Obama was specifically chosen by his backers to dethrone the Clintons. This because they were the two politicians who were most capable of pushing thru Universal Health Care. (I would dearly like to know who his real backers are.)
    However this strategy will eventually fail, simply because of the genuine affection felt in the country for the Clintons. (A working-class hero is something to be...)

    Talking about other VPs I saw this in New Reason:
    "Who should Obama choose as a running mate? Obviously, Colin Powell. He fixes Obama's national security deficit, strengthens the Republican/independent appeal, and completes Obama's narrative about post-partisanship." (the rest of the article made me mad.)
    http://reason.com/blog/show/126834.html

    Parent

    I have been with Hillary from the Very First (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by DCDemocrat on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:18:21 AM EST
    I signed on to this project in January 2007 when I was very lonely indeed.  I have signed on to be the man of the Party that I am, and I am with Obama from now through the election.  

    Let me explain that I think Obama has a chance to establish his leadership ability by assembling a 21st century team of rivals, much as Lincoln did and Doris Kearns Goodwin has documented.  I believe Barack Obama feels the weight of history, and if he behaves that way and proves himself a man of supreme leadership, he can make Hillary his vice presidential nominee and cope with the situation in a way that will benefit the nation, the party, and himself.  

    I hope he chooses Hillary.  I think it would say something about his mettle.  But if he chooses someone else, it is not a deal breaker.  I stand with my party now because I choose to be a voice in the party in the years to come.

    Well (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:23:32 AM EST
    if he has shown any leadership in his career so far I haven't seen it.

    Parent
    There have been several (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by DCDemocrat on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:26:41 AM EST
    small events the last couple of days that indicate to me he is testing the waters.  I agree that we can't conclude anything based on that evidence, but we have the situation we have.  We can be members of our party, voices inside the party, or we can take our marbles and go home, that is, voices outside the party.

    I choose to stay.

    Parent

    I'm not convinced (5.00 / 12) (#31)
    by dk on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:38:38 AM EST
    that voting for Obama is really putting the long term interests of the party at heart.

    I personally don't believe BTD went far enough with his point about Obama and the media.  BTD calls Obama's media darling status his biggest asset.  I think it is the only reason for his success within the democratic party.  Letting the media choose our candidate is both undemocratic and un-Democratic.

    I think it's a reasonable question as Democrats whether it is better for the party and the country to vote for Obama now, or to push for a more substantive candidate in 2012.  I personally haven't completely made up my mind yet (there is a lot of time between now and November) but I think it is a perfectly reasonable choice to make.

    Parent

    I agree with you and I'm glad you said it first. (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:40:43 AM EST
    ..you expressed yourself more reasonably than I would have so now I can pull an Obama and say I agree with dk!

    Parent
    Whether or not (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by DCDemocrat on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:41:53 AM EST
    voting for Obama is in the long-term interest of the Party, voting for Obama is in the long-term interest of Clinton supporters.  To maintain our credentials in the Party, we have to be women and men of the party, people who stick with the party when we win and people who stick with the party when we lose.

    Imagine the other situation.  Imagine if Hillary had won the nomination.  Imagine the hurt and anger among the Obama supporters in such a situation.  What would our reaction be?  It would be, "Buckle up.  Swallow you medicine.  Be a good sport."  How can we be less than our own advice?

    Parent

    That's well and good for Clinton supporters... (5.00 / 6) (#49)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:44:32 AM EST
    ....who want to stay in the party. Some of us have changed or are considering changing our affiliation to Independent. I don't think that by bowing to the iron will of the party I am keeping myself viable within the party.

    Parent
    As I have said, (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by DCDemocrat on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:07:43 AM EST
    there are only two institutions in the United States with the organizational structure to influence the politics of American life, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party.  

    Indeed, who do independents vote for?  For a Republican or for a Democrat.  Independents do not have the organizational ability to put up a viable alternative candidate.  

    You can be inside, or you can be outside.  That is your right.  

    But if you choose to be outside, you hardly can expect to be a voice with influence about what should be going on inside, and you are doomed forever to choose between two candidates you have had no voice in selecting.

    Parent

    That's exactly right.... (5.00 / 10) (#149)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:20:40 AM EST
    ...I don't expect to be a voice because I already know they don't listen to me. So no more money, no more generic phone banking. I am an Independent voter now, and ironically as such I probably matter more to the party than I did when I was just an appalachian puerto rican old lady.

    Parent
    And that is your right. (none / 0) (#169)
    by DCDemocrat on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:30:06 AM EST
    I always will defend your right to sit on the outside and talk about the bad people in the inside.  

    It's as American as mom and apple pie!

    Parent

    I don't agree (5.00 / 2) (#202)
    by Manuel on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:40:14 AM EST
    The national parties don't lead, they follow.  You can have a lot of influence by working directly on the issues you care about and supporting the candidates that best represent those issues.

    Parent
    I agree (5.00 / 5) (#215)
    by cal1942 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:45:48 AM EST
    that there are only two private institution that are able to move the nation.  That's why I've always been a strident partisan.

    But I have to ask what good did a Paul McClosky do by remaining in the Republican Party for so long after it was captured by its extreme right-wing. If people like McClosky had bailed as soon as the Reagan crowd got control of the party would that not have been more effective than hanging around for more than 25 years, in effect giving his tacit approval to the degeneracy of the Republican Party?  

    McClosky changed his registration to Democratic only within the last year and still many other old liberal lights of that party remain silent as good party men only stepping forward occasionally to endorse a Democrat.

    When your party makes a wrong turn the only message that's clearly understood is rejection.

    Yellow Dog doesn't mean what you SEEM think it means.

    Parent

    Well, if Hillary had won, (5.00 / 11) (#59)
    by dk on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:48:34 AM EST
    I would not have used the loyalty argument to browbeat Obama supporters.

    I would have followed Hillary's lead, and tried to win them over with arguments about the merits of Hillary's policy positions, and trusted, as a result of her obvious intellect and toughness, in her ability to push through those policies.

    Parent

    If Hillary had won, (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by DCDemocrat on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:35:21 AM EST
    I would have used loyalty to brow beat Obama supporters, because it's like Thomas More says in A Man for All Season to his daughter:

    "When a man takes an oath, Meg, he's holding his own self in his own hands. Like water. (He cups his hands) And if he opens his fingers then--he needn't hope to find himself again."

    Me, personally, I pledged to abide by the results.  If the results had gone my way, I would have been delighted, but I am not going to pick up my marbles and go home because they didn't go my way.  And I am sure as hell not going vote for McCain or throw my vote away on a third party.  But that's just me.  Everyone needs to hold their own selves in their hands.  Like water.

    Parent

    huh? (5.00 / 7) (#210)
    by jjsmoof on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:43:27 AM EST
    "I pledged to abide by the results."
    even if they were tainted?  The DNC willfully disenfrachised half the party and were to just fall in line.  no thanks.  

    Parent
    It would not be (5.00 / 8) (#64)
    by suisser on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:50:17 AM EST
    in my nature to tell someone to "be a good sport" if the evidence showed that the rules were bent/broken, that the ref wasn't honest and if the game was tied but the sports reporters were bored and wanted to beat the traffic and to get home to bed, so the game was called prematurely.  Personally, I might just keep my big mouth shut.

    Parent
    My advice, (5.00 / 10) (#67)
    by kenoshaMarge on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:50:32 AM EST
    and I would wait until it was asked, would be to vote your conscience, as I will vote mine. I would never be so tacky as to say: Buckle up.  Swallow you medicine.  Be a good sport." And saying things like: "taking your marbles and going home" is insulting and condescending.

    You have a perfect right to do as you see fit. Please have the decency to see that others have the same right. Even when you don't agree.

    Parent

    have (5.00 / 9) (#84)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:56:30 AM EST
    you thought about the fact that Dean/Brazille/Obama and their supporters have treated us like garbage and voting for Obama would be rewarding said behavior? How many times do you have to be abused and taken for granted before you say enough? That's where many voters are coming from.

    Parent
    Not from me (5.00 / 8) (#104)
    by Valhalla on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:04:55 AM EST
    I would never tell Obama's supporters to buckle up or whatever, because I'm distinctly aware, as so many of his supporters are not, how counterproductive that is.  That wouldn't be my advice so I can hardly be 'less' than it.

    Were I an Obama supporter, I'd be giving out a little less advice on how to act and doing a whole lot listening to Clinton's supporters.  You know, asking questions and stuff like that.  To find out what they need or want to bring them back to the party.

    Maintaining party credentials -- that's a joke, yes?  The Dems just threw their base under the bus specifically for being loyal supporters.  Why on earth would they respect me more for my capitulation?  Do bullies generally respect their victims more when they give in?


    Parent

    For the first three decades (5.00 / 5) (#139)
    by alsace on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:16:37 AM EST
    of my voting life, in this state where one does not register by party, I called myself an "Independent who usually votes Democratic."   I remained so even through Reagan.  It wasn't until Gingrich and his slash and burn tactics so repulsed me that I became a self-described Democrat.  Now that I'm again repulsed, this time by the Dean-Brazile-Pelosi crowd, I'm just "Independent."  I have no "loyalty" to today's Democratic Party.  At least I'll save a few bucks by not making any more political contributions this cycle. (Well, maybe to PUMA and some other 527s...)

    Parent
    "media darling" (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by talex on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:58:23 AM EST
    Let me add to that. I think Armando is way off base here. Certainly the media picked Obama to be our nominee with the likes of David Brooks singing his praises. When someone like Brooks is touting a Democrat you know something is not right and the fix is in.

    Plainly speaking the media wants and always wants a tax friendly - non-regulating - no ownership limiting Republican in office every time. So therefore in order to win they push the weakest Dem to run against so their Republican candidate will win. This has happened cycle after cycle and I don't understand Armando not understanding this. I have seen  no evidence of the MSM throwing McCain under the bus. All that is happening at this point is that the MSM is sticking the final dagger into Clinton - they don't want here and her anti-big oil mouth around.

    Meanwhile Obama has said he will disassemble the corporate chock hold on media ownership by breaking them up and giving the remnants to racial minority owners. Anyone who thinks the the MSM is going to back that candidate needs to reexamine how this country has been run.

    There is NO WAY that the MSM will continue to support Obama. Their support of him was more anti-Clinton than pro-Obama and that fact is very clear. their support of him was choosing the weakest candidate. Their support of him was choosing the easiest to carve up in the months to come.

    Parent

    Havng been (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by Claw on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:18:24 AM EST
    Part of the media, you couldn't be more wrong.  The only agenda (save FOX and MSNBC) they have is to find a story.  Honestly, they are trying to sell papers/airtime.  They really couldn't give a crap about who gets elected.

    Parent
    I have seen what they have done to Democrats (5.00 / 2) (#153)
    by talex on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:22:58 AM EST
    election cycle after election cycle so there is no convincing me of anything other that what any person can already see.

    That you were part of the media doesn't count for much unless you were in the boardrooms where the decisions are made and I highly doubt that.

    It's easy even for the novice political observer to see what the MSM has been up to - all you have to do is listen.

    Parent

    Boardrooms? (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by Claw on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:28:46 AM EST
    What on earth are you talking about?  THEY WANT MONEY!!!  And while I was never in one of these non-existent boardrooms, I do have a very close friend who produces for CNN.  Another is an anchor.  Maybe I'll ask them where the boardrooms are....

    Parent
    Whatever Dude (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by talex on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:39:50 AM EST
    They make money though programming advertising  which has nothing to do with their news divisions. Their news divisions are their 'Power' to drive the political agenda and their political agenda has never been Democrat friendly. Look how they pushed the Iraq War to drive profits for GE and their other Military Industrial Complex friends.

    You seem more interested in name dropping than reality. Big deal - a producer and an anchor. Anchors read text and a producer of what? Neither are directly involved in the big money political aspect of the MSM. Don't be naive.

    Parent

    You asked Me (5.00 / 1) (#216)
    by Claw on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:46:27 AM EST
    And which names did I drop.  {Crickets}  And don't call me dude, dude.  Read your Chomsky and get back to me.

    Parent
    having been witness to the media. (5.00 / 1) (#243)
    by kimsaw on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:24:04 AM EST
    Defending that they're in it to find the story makes me laugh out loud. They don't find stories, they make them up as they go along and add the commentary. Think Iraq, did they find the story before the war? War makes news, war is good for  the media's pocketbook and defense contractors too. Did the Fourth Estate do it's job?  Ah...that would be a resounding NO! Did they even want to? A war gives them something to explore and talk about.

    Why do you think MSNBC allowed their boys' sexist rants, double standard and innuendo? The media doesn't want to tell a story it wants to be part of the news story. Think Olbermann. Journalist and commentators are now the equivalent of the front pagers on the National Enquirer.  They can influence the news its bigger news to anoint an African American to the presidency over a woman, especially if that woman is Hillary Clinton. They give a crap who gets elected, it drives money into their pockets. They may turn on Obama who knows, but this is history and news brokers like sports teams, need to break into the record books one way or another. It's the medias new scam and its their biggest shame.

    Parent

    Giving too much credit to the media (none / 0) (#219)
    by 1jane on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:48:21 AM EST
    Thanks Claw! Great comment.

    Parent
    The Obama base is a more desirable demographic (5.00 / 4) (#154)
    by dotcommodity on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:23:23 AM EST
    for tv unlike us old, disabled, discriminated against, 2 job FDR ClintonDems.

    Plus their corp ownership is afraid of Clinton's more progressive domestic policy. In either McCain or Obama we have a Republican agenda, and one guy is the cool guy you want a latte with.

    So I think the media will not turn on him. The ongoing voters revolt will continue regardless. And in 2012 I hope Clinton runs again, and restores The Fairness Doctrine (and much else).

    Parent

    They will turn on him (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by talex on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:33:28 AM EST
    David Brooks has already started to and he is always a bellwether of what the Republican press is up to.

    Remember Obama has already said he will break up the media monopolies. that is the kiss of death for him in the same way Dean saying that was the kiss of death for him.

    What means more to them - their monopoly or the younger market that they already have via youth programming? That is an easy call.

    Parent

    Your post makes NO sense (5.00 / 1) (#224)
    by Rashomon66 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:52:13 AM EST
    Seriously. Do you even know what you are saying? You are saying the MSM pushed Obama into the limelight so we 'dumb' voters would choose him so that then the MSM could offer his head on a platter and make us vote for McCain.
    Ask yourself just who these gullible voters are. You are taking about 36 million voters who for the most part hate Bush and want change.
    Will the MSM make Obama supporters suddenly see the light and turn to McCain? Will the Hillary supporters turn away from their core beliefs and vote for McCain? It is possible - but not because the MSM controls us and our voting.

    Parent
    Can you/someone please tell... (5.00 / 8) (#118)
    by Shainzona on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:10:16 AM EST
    me "WHY should this country want to close the Clinton era"?

    I am really lost.  What in the world did Bill Clinton "do" that makes the world want to close his era.  My God, some of us voters actually remember the '90's with fondness - no, not everything was perfect, but compared to Reagan and Bush we were dancing in the streets.

    That was bad?  Wrong?  Must be closed and put away like bad memories?

    A serious question.  Please help.

    Parent

    We are at war with Eurasia (5.00 / 3) (#158)
    by dotcommodity on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:25:57 AM EST
    We have always been at war with Eurasia

    Parent
    No offense (5.00 / 10) (#37)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:40:44 AM EST
    But THE PARTY is an abstraction and need not dictate to individual voters on their voices or what to do. Creepy language, as in 1984-Orwell-creepy. Not the supporting THE PARTY is not equivalent to taking marbles and going home.

    Parent
    All things are abstractions. (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by DCDemocrat on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:44:02 AM EST
    We never touch reality.  All representations of reality are the firing of neural circuits in the brain.  The party is as real to us as the keyboard on my desk: Neurons firing in my brain.  If we are not good soldiers now, we do not have the credentials to call on others to be good soldiers when our position is in the hegemony.

    Parent
    Um, yeah, whatever (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:45:14 AM EST
    Go be a good soldier for THE PARTY then.

    Parent
    I agree (5.00 / 6) (#103)
    by befuddledvoter on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:04:54 AM EST
    What is this the Communist Party?  This sounds very dangerous to me. Calling it the "Democratic Pary" is meaningless to me now.  It is not.  It is the Dean/Brazile/Kennedy/Obama Party.  I will not be a member.  They do not represent my best interests.

    Parent
    What if the shoe were on the other foot, (none / 0) (#75)
    by DCDemocrat on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:53:28 AM EST
    what if the Obama supporters had lost and were behaving badly, would you advise them to act like grownups?  Maybe not.  At least that is the consistent position.

    Parent
    Personally (5.00 / 4) (#122)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:10:38 AM EST
    I advise everyone to vote their conscience, but mostly I don't advise anyone what to do with their vote at all.

    Parent
    Ultimately, (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by DCDemocrat on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:15:08 AM EST
    that is the advice that I give, too.  Because the fact of the matter is that people are going to do what they are going to do.  What I have told my disgruntled fellow Clintonistas is that

    1.  they should abstain if that is what they believe they should do,

    2.  they should vote third party if that is what they believe they should do,

    3.  they should vote for McCain if that is what they believe they should do, or

    4.  they should vote for Obama if that is what they believe they should do.  

    Those are the four choices on the table.  Unfortunately, Hillary Clinton as the presidential nominee of the Democratic Party is not one of those choices this year.  But if this Democrat who is staying in the Party has anything to say about it, one day it will be one of the four choices.

    Parent
    matter of opinion (5.00 / 7) (#134)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:13:54 AM EST
    Voters who don't share your opinion are not "behaving badly".

    People and the media are certainly free to dis Clinton's behavior this week.  But, they can NEVER 'dis' the behavior of voters.

    Personally I think the pundits and the super dels caused the problem Tuesday night.  On Sun and Mon the pundits were all reporting that the super dels would give Clinton thre respect she deserved and WAIT until Wed to put Obama over the top.  That was Clinton could have Tuesday night to thank her supporters.  Obama's night could have been Wed or Thursday.  It would have gotten as much, if not MORE media attention that way.

    Parent

    We are acting like grownups (5.00 / 6) (#227)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:56:45 AM EST
    Grownups understand that you don't get what you want by submitting like a whipping boy.

    It isn't hurt feelings, it isn't being immature, it's understanding that this party is no longer for us, no longer supports us, so we're moving along.

    The reality, is that our perspective IS maturity.

    Parent

    Leaving a party that no longer represents you (5.00 / 5) (#234)
    by Calvados on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:04:38 AM EST
    is not "behaving badly".  Sometimes "it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the [body politic], the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them."

    There are actions and outcomes so egregious that apparently some people need to separate themselves from the party.  If Obama supporters felt the same way, I would respect them and consider whether anything I did to repel them can be remedied.

    To answer your question, though, I have suggested to Obama supporters who have behaved badly, particularly by bullying in caucuses and making sexist remarks, that they act like adults.  It did not help much in that instance, but I persevere.

    Parent

    I am not going to call on anybody to ever... (5.00 / 10) (#54)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:46:04 AM EST
    ...be a good soldier again. A lifetime of being a woman in the Democratic party has taught me that lesson.

    Parent
    Neurons firing in your brain (5.00 / 2) (#226)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:54:18 AM EST
    and your desk are real.

    You're right, the party is an abstraction.  However, we'll find ourselves another abstraction.

    We're too learned in our ways to think that if we submit, it's going to get us anywhere at all.  All it's going to get us is more of the same in the future.

    Parent

    He takes for granted, imo, that (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by zfran on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:18:03 AM EST
    the Clinton's are not very smart. He thinks he's smarter and that is his substitute for leadership. George Will also said the womens wing of the party will come back in Nov. as soon as they "cool down" That may be true of some, but others will not. BTD, who really makes us think, says all these negative things about all these negative people's remarks, yet he stays steadfast in his Obama support. I wonder where his breaking point is??  

    Parent
    Slightly off topic but (5.00 / 4) (#195)
    by abfabdem on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:38:04 AM EST
    I still can't get around the fact that she is the more formidable candidate so talk of her being VP still rankles.  In fact in today's NY Times an article by Neil dGrasse Tyson, an astrophysicist, cranked the numbers and shows she would beat McCain but Obama would not.  Check it out (article called Vote by Numbers).

    Parent
    The lobbyist (5.00 / 5) (#205)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:41:52 AM EST
    thing is a joke. Obama has been taking in lobbyist money he just has it funneled through their wives or others. He has lobbyists on his campaign.

    You call those leadership? Naw, he has shown zero leadership though his term in the senate and the il legislature imo. That's what I'm basing my opinion on.

    I have given Obama a chance. Did the primary not go on for months? I didn't start out feeling this way. Obama is the one who ran me off no one else. He's run a lot of voters away with his race baiting and blatant sexism. Besides, he is unqualified. He reminds me too much of W.

    Parent

    I dumnno if I originated this thread's theory (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Salo on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:30:21 AM EST
    but the time stamp is on my comments.

    The media have presented Obama with a dilemma.

    keep us (and have a shot at winning and governing) or keep Clinton (and win the map).

    Parent

    Explain this a little more. (none / 0) (#32)
    by DCDemocrat on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:39:10 AM EST
    I don't know that I understand.  Are you saying, "keep us," meaning, "the original Obama supporters," and have a chance to win, or choose Clinton, and have a guarantee?

    Parent
    Keep us=media (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by masslib on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:45:06 AM EST


    Parent
    Hey, I didn't get a chance (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by Dave B on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:11:40 AM EST
    to respond to your comment yesterday...

    No, I don't think SD will swing, but I love your state.  Beacon of hope in a sea of Obama caucus states.  Great finish to the primary season.  Great for the women of SD. I heard 3 of 4 pro-choice SD women won their primaries.  I like to think Hill helped make that happen.  Great send off anyway.

    One of those pro-choice women that won her primary in South Dakota is my sister-in-law, Pam Merchant.  She won her primary and will run against the Republican Orv Schmidt for SD State Senate in District 7.

    I'm glad she didn't lose by one vote.  I'm registered independent, and didn't get my registration switched to Democrat in time to vote in the primary.  I didn't have the heart to tell her...

    Parent

    Dave, I am sorry about your registration, (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by masslib on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:13:34 AM EST
    but excellent news about your sis-in-law.

    Parent
    The press (us) or the people (Clinton voters). (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by Salo on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:47:16 AM EST
    It causes Obam trouble either way...

    Unify the party and you lose the press.

    Parent

    He'll be hailed. (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by masslib on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:19:35 AM EST
    Hillary Clinton Democrats will take it as the clearest signal of respect he could offer.  He ought to pick her.  He needs to sistah souljah the media and put them in their place anyway.  

    I agree totally. (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:24:03 AM EST
    ...I think that just like the fact that this is not the year to be a Republican, it is also not the year to be the media's darling. The media may have forgotten their role in helping select GWB and cheerleading us into war, but the public hasn't.

    Parent
    The media (5.00 / 6) (#4)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:19:40 AM EST
    is destroying all chances Obama has in Nov. Their disdain for the average voter and their propping up of Obama will do nothing but make it more and more palpable to vote either against Obama or for McCain. If they couldn't get dem primary voters to accept Obama then they aren't going to have a whole lot of influence when the election moves to Obama/McCain.

    Will's column pretty much proves what I have been thinking anyway: Obama is really nothing more than a tool to get rid of the Clintons. Once that is done then they can move on to eliminating Obama's chances in the fall. Will will support McCain in Nov. There should be no doubt about that.

    George Will (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by airwon on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:46:23 AM EST
    Yeah, I saw Will on Charlie Rose and he was saying that the Clintons are done and that Obama's liberal agenda is not what the country wants or needs.  Will just seems so out of touch on so many levels.  

    And yes, he said that he will listen to McCain's mom and vote for McCain.  

    Parent

    Every time George Will (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by pie on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:06:15 AM EST
    stupidly pontificates about the state of American politics and criticizes dems, I remember with satisfaction the story about his first wife throwing his belongings on the front lawn of the home they shared when she found out he was cheating on her.

    :)

    People who live in glass bubbles, georgie...

    Parent

    Also interesting is that Kos prides himself (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by nulee on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:22:27 AM EST
    on having renegade viewpoints that are the voice of those outside the beltway but this is belied by his flaming hatred of Clintons, which, as you point out effectively, is a point of view that comes straight from the Georgetown cocktail party effetes.

    A majority of voters just love the Clintons, I daresay, including many in the AA community.  Many voters would like to have them back as the competent stewards of this country that they were for 8 years.  Hell, if things were run as well as they were under Bill Clinton, we could all go back to living our lives rather than having to be in constant political crisis mode since the stolen election of 2000.

    Or, (5.00 / 0) (#9)
    by suisser on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:24:49 AM EST
    let's say he offers and she accepts.
    Perhaps some percentage of his supporters get their fur up - "that old, dishonest elbowing blah blah... and they walk because they are political virgins and were only in it for the rush anyway
    And a contingent of core Clinton supporters (I'm in this group) just can't bring themselves to watch her take the back seat to him and check out from the process in 08
    And the dems for a day, who were unreliable to begin with now head for the door because they were only playing dems on TV so they ditch for Mcain
    Meanwhile the press has turned on Obama, while maintaining their current attitude on Clinton ?
    Maybe I need more coffee, but I'm not sure about the "will win" part.
    the soap opera... (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by p lukasiak on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:34:01 AM EST
    I've always opposed an Obama/Clinton tichet (even back when I was willing to vote for Obama) because the media will turn the whole thing into a soap opera.... and a very ugly one at that.

    It will be all about the humiation of Clinton and/or the weakness of Obama.  The media always tries to create some kind of conflict between a candidate and the VP choice, but that gets ignored because nobody cares about the VP.  But the media won't be able to resist making the relationship between Obama and Clinton (and Hillary and Michelle, and Bill and Barack...) a constant topic of speculation.

    Parent

    Obama sets "tone" with press corps! (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by wurman on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:28:45 AM EST
    CBS News online (link) lays out the bait & switch for "secret" meeting between Senators Clinton & Obama.
    From CBS News' Maria Gavrilovic

    CHICAGO -- Barack Obama took the meaning of "secret meeting" to a different level last night, after he slipped away from the traveling press in order to meet with Hillary Clinton. While it is not uncommon for a presidential candidate and for the president to have private meetings, it is uncommon for those meetings to be as secretive and misleading as this one turned out to be.


    [snip]
    With the doors locked on the plane, the press safely inside, they took off for Chicago while Sen. Obama met with Sen. Clinton.

    It would appear that the journalists now very clearly understand their on-going relationship with the nominee-in-waiting.
    [snip]
    As the plane rolled down the tarmac, the press quickly realized that Obama had never boarded the flight and we had all been duped.

    Now, if the Obama campaign would invite all the chattering class of the punditocracy to a mansion in Georgetown, lock the doors, and go take care of some Democratic Party business, perhaps, then, Mr. Will & his self-congratulatory pals could bore each other into oblivion with their foolish, lame stream, asinine opinions.
    "speaking only for myself"

    LOL, but he locked them up on an airplane... (5.00 / 5) (#57)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:47:50 AM EST
    ...snakes on a plane. Actually, IMHO, that's the best thing Obama has done in weeks.

    Parent
    I agree (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by befuddledvoter on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:54:06 AM EST
    This was Obama's finest moment. LOL  I say lock up the press and throw away the key.

    Parent
    Snakes on a plane! (none / 0) (#185)
    by Valhalla on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:35:23 AM EST
    LOL.  Brilliant!


    Parent
    Yes, Sen. Obama's die is cast with (none / 0) (#166)
    by wurman on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:29:55 AM EST
    the media.  It would appear that his campaign can foresee the impending lame stream media pivot to Sen. McCain as their darling.  Locking those folks on an airplane & flying them to Chicago ensures "bad press" from here on.

    It may take time for the anger to filter upward from the journos assigned to the Obama campaign into the newsrooms & editorial offices, but it's for sure that Sen. Obama (Axelrod) threw the press corps under an airplane, rather than a bus.

    The honeymoon is sooooo over.

    Parent

    If Clinton is not selected as VP, (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by Esme on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:30:10 AM EST
    the Media will say that it is all Clinton's fault. They've already began to spin that narrative: The RFK comment, the supposedly horrific speech, Bill Clinton, she hasn't been vetted enough, etc. The Media doesn't care that not picking her would anger Clinton Democrats. They've been angering us for decades. They think Clinton Democrats are racist, low information voters, anyway. And the party doesn't care either-they've said that loud and clear.

    Hillary Clinton Democrats don't (5.00 / 7) (#18)
    by masslib on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:31:08 AM EST
    give a rat's ass about the media.  So it really doesn't matter what they say.

    Parent
    18 million Dems gave a big FU to the media (5.00 / 2) (#168)
    by dotcommodity on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:29:58 AM EST
    what a huge success that was. There is the beginning of a revolt, there.

    Parent
    Does not matter what the Media says (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:33:46 AM EST
    on that point.

    What the VOTERS say is Obama's problem there.

    He will get GREAT press personally if he does NOT choose her. But the Clinton voter will not be happy.

    Hence, the dilemma.


    Parent

    Then there is no dilemma. (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by masslib on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:36:29 AM EST
    He ought to pick her.  His base isn't going anywhere if he picks her, and her base doesn't listen to the talking heads.

    Parent
    you haven't checked dailykos in the last 4 months? (none / 0) (#186)
    by dotcommodity on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:35:29 AM EST
    his base was easily lead to stoning That Woman in the stadiums...

    Surely they'd wake up from the hypnotic trance if he turns them around and says I choose her as vp?

    Parent

    Temporary (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by talex on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:02:51 AM EST
    great press! They will turn on him in due time as ai said upthread. You are way off base thinking that the Corporate MSM wants Obama as president. they want him because he is the easiest of the two to defeat.

    Parent
    Charlie Rose (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:21:17 AM EST
    Had a show on about the news media a few months ago with 4 or 5 media experts. They admitted that today's media is conflict driven. If there isn't any. They'll create it. At that time they were upset because Dem primary was too civil. I have no doubts they will do the same with the GE. And they have invested years in promoting the mystique of McCain. I don't see them turning on him now. Obama will lose his main asset, the media.

    Parent
    But do you think that Hillary (none / 0) (#35)
    by Esme on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:40:29 AM EST
    is the solution?

    I think that he thinks he wwould be better served if he picks a high profile Clinton supporter who is more media friendly. That way, he'll see himself as appeasing both the Media and the Clinton Dems.

    And on a completely different note, I sort of wonder if Caroline Kennedy's placement on the VP search committee will result in her as VP.

    Parent

    Caroline Kennedy is Ted's proxy (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by ineedalife on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:56:37 AM EST
    I think Obama sold his soul to the Kennedy's early on. Ted probably has the right to pick the VP. As long as she/he isn't to out there for Obama. Look for a Kennedy heir. This is Ted's last chance to pass the torch.

    Parent
    I don't want him to pick a Clinton supporter... (none / 0) (#40)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:42:37 AM EST
    ...that would really piss me off because the media would spin it into a rebuke of Clinton. They'd say that he know has all her supporters except for the stupid old diehards like us. He should pick one of his early endorsers. Richardson or Daschle come to mind.

    Parent
    My motivations, since you wondered... (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:50:43 AM EST
    ...are pure snark.

    Parent
    Caroline KennedY?!! (none / 0) (#66)
    by pie on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:50:26 AM EST
    She's deliberately stayed out of the public eye for years.  You think she wants to jump back in now as a vice-presidential candidate?!!  What governing experience does she bring?  What qualifications does she have?

    A heartbeat away from the presidency...

    I don't think so.

    Parent

    Will the great press (none / 0) (#228)
    by ruffian on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:57:47 AM EST
    bring in enough Independents and Republicans, or further energize Obama's base, to make up for the po'd Clinton supporters.  That seems to be the question.

    As time goes by I think the answer will be yes. Even I, not even having sipped the Kool-aid yet, am starting to see the advantages of a fresh start.  

    Maybe it is the Clinton-hate-fatigue.  I'm just not sure I can listen to it anymore. A week ago I was solidly behind the Unity Ticket.  Now, not so much.


    Parent

    I disagree with you, BTD (5.00 / 4) (#20)
    by ccpup on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:32:24 AM EST
    I don't think the Media has switched their love from McCain to Obama.  It was more like a quick fling and now that they've vanquished their "enemy" Hillary Clinton -- or so they think --, they'll start to phase out their Obama-Love and get back to the one who truly has their heart:  McCain.

    You won't see it in full-blown reality until AFTER Barack is the official Nominee, but expect to be buried under footage that reminds you McCain is a war hero and a straight-shooting Moderate while Barack is a Chicago politician who gamed the system and has a history with dubious characters who "hate America".

    Like 2000 and 2004, I fully expect the Media to give the Republican Nominee a free and total pass on everything while sucker punching the Dem left and right.  

    I agree with YOU (none / 0) (#72)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:51:58 AM EST
    (thanks for the shout about my handle the other day, I missed it till the thread was closed)


    Parent
    didn't i used to see you comment over at (none / 0) (#94)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:00:47 AM EST
    AmericaBlog?

    Parent
    indeed (none / 0) (#105)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:05:19 AM EST
    back before he lost his mind.

    Parent
    i think it was (none / 0) (#190)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:35:59 AM EST
    a short trip for him.   LOL

    Parent
    Yin and Yang (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by fctchekr on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:33:17 AM EST
    I guess the real question is can Obama control the media? It would seem he has done that already.

    There is no question that the media and Obama supporters don't want her in.

    Certainly if he picks her and the media scoffs and decides to favor McCain, one would have to question who's control is driving this very disparate group in one direction?

    It's a catch 22 for him, because one way or another he's going to get flak, from his core or the press. Lose with or without her? both would place blame at her feet.

    The press is both obsessed and annoyed by the Clintons, much the way they were/are about the Kennedys. Certainly that family tree has its share of scandals and subsequent bad press. If Carolyn Kennedy is honest, she'd be the first on his VEEP team to recognize this.

    So, I don't buy the negative association as a detriment to winning; it's just a reuse. She has a loyal core and a growing base who know and don't care. Just like Obama supporters know and seemingly don't care about his skeletons.

    If he's smart he'll pick her; it's a yin and yang thing.

    No he hasn't (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Salo on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:37:07 AM EST
    The press are acting in concert as an independent power in this election.

    They do want to exclude Clinton and pick his running mate by exclusion.

    Parent

    Obama ticket is a looser (5.00 / 0) (#79)
    by clinton dem on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:54:37 AM EST
    Please let's not insult the intellegence of millions of voters who voted for Hillary against all odds and full 24 hour pro-Obama anti-Hillary propaganda by Obamamedia! People don't like what they see and more and more voters are becoming aware that media and DNC elites basically selected incompetent Obama over competent experienced Hillary. besides, I don't thing it is a good idea for Hillary to be vp. Because she will be doig what Obama has to do and has not done it so far, work and earn his candidacy rather than just give it to him. This ticket is a looser and I don't think Hillary should be part of it.

    Parent
    George Will (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Lahdee on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:44:27 AM EST
    and his ilk will always get it wrong. They'll always do a quick mea culpa (most often in latinesque terms so no one quite can pin them to it) and then move on to the next delusion.

    Anglachel (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:49:32 AM EST
    had a good post about this yesterday:

    The Trap of the Media Darling

    Obama owes almost the entirety of his good press to the fact that the MSM hates the Clintons, Hillary even more than Bill, and he has deliberately and aggressively courted that same press with the story that he is the anti-Clinton candidate. Given that his public record is thin, he hasn't had a lot else to run on.

    What happens to his media darling status if he allies himself with the object of their irrational fury?

    Link

    Good post (none / 0) (#81)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:55:16 AM EST
    I added a link in my post.

    Parent
    The path that the Party took this year (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by DCDemocrat on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:49:48 AM EST
    is not set in stone for all time to come; like all new things, it is fragile. There are two parties in the United States that have a snowball's chance in hell of affecting meaningful change in the life of the nation. One is the Republican Party, and one is the Democratic Party. I surefire am not a Republican, so by default, I am a Democrat. If I want to be part of the process, the only viable alternative for me is the Democratic Party. Riverdaughter's idea of the PUMA party is cute, but it is not a force in American life. If all my like-minded Democrats all jump ship this year, we're abandoning our Party to the hands of people who do not think the way we do, the way Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, and Humphrey did: the way Hillary and Bill do.

    I do not like what happened this year. I wanted Hillary to be our nominee, and I did everything I could to make it so. A number of events and processes, many of them phenomenally unfair, even illegal, coalesced to prevent that result, but the Party will not be reformed if there is no one left to reform it. If we leave the Party in a snit, we no longer are insiders; we will have become outsiders. Affecting the changes the Party needs demands the presence of insiders; outsiders have no voice. At the moment, we stand perilously close to becoming outsiders. If there were no hope of ever moving the Party back to its roots, I would encourage you all to do the very thing that many of you now are contemplating. But we must allow ourselves to heal and get on with it.

    I disagree (5.00 / 3) (#116)
    by befuddledvoter on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:09:33 AM EST
    The greatest message Democrats who disagree with the illegal nomination can send is to leave the party and not support such conduct.  To now go along and support the party, no matter what, will not effectuate change at all.  If you now go along with the party you become part of the problem.

    Parent
    What's the difference (5.00 / 5) (#124)
    by Mari on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:10:46 AM EST
    between a disenfranchising Republican party and a disenfranchising Democratic party. They are both corrupt and venal. I'm just as powerless in the Democratic party.

    I can no longer pretend that the basic tenets of fairness, supporting the working class, opposition to misogny and racism have been not been abandoned by my party. To support it would be to give the Democratic powerbrokers my acceptance and approval of their corruption.

    This primary election was the last straw after years of supporting the lesser evil and look where we are now. Frankly, both parties will now have to court my vote by promoting the values I believe in. Perhaps this will break open the stranglehold the 2 party system of tweedeldee-and tweedeldum. The same old strategy doesn't work anymore.

    Parent

    Evidently, the new party (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by Valhalla on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:15:52 AM EST
    values independents waaaaay more than they value actual Democrats.  Have you not been paying attention?  The new coalition doesn't want the base anymore, they going to put their resources toward creating a new base from independents and moderate Republicans.  So as an independent, people evidently have more power over the DNC agenda than the yellow dogs.

    If you are trying to make an argument that working to change a bad leadership from within is better than trying to change it from the outside, then please make that argument, don't talk in creepy tones about blind loyalty.

    Parent

    What insiders? (5.00 / 7) (#177)
    by waldenpond on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:33:07 AM EST
    The DNC is about the DNC not voters.  Voters constantly fight to get representation it isn't given to them.  

    The R&B wasn't the only debacle.  The SDs declaring in secret to push Obama over some 'number' was appalling. The declared in private?  WTF?  The DNC and the media enabled it.  You can't vote against your Rep if you don't know how they voted.  

    BTW:  Mauro on teebee saying we are waiting for Clinton to give us our marching orders.  Ha!  goes perfect with your request that people be good little soldiers.  Priceless....  Ha!

    Parent

    I'm already an outsider, (5.00 / 1) (#235)
    by Nadai on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:05:24 AM EST
    I'm not in a snit, and I have no intention of "healing".

    Political parties rise and fall, splinter and reconfigure.  The Democratic Party will be no different.  If this is a year of reformation for them, well, so be it.  It's been a long time coming.

    Parent

    If you are what you say you are (none / 0) (#131)
    by RalphB on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:13:23 AM EST
    which I doubt very much, then you're no insider now.  By the way, you can shove the DC Democrats, they do not represent a large portion of their party.  The old northeastern liberal elite have grabbed control again with their toxic identity politics.  If you support that, you deserve to be the loser for another generation.


    Parent
    my humble opinion is (5.00 / 0) (#68)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:50:41 AM EST
    that we would all be FAR better served if Obama and Clinton BOTH come out ant tell the media where they can put there "rumors" and/or unsubstanciated pronouncements from unnamed sources.

    Clinton's team did that yesterday when Wolfson came out and said "no one speaks for Hillary but Hillary".  Meaning, to the media, if you didn't get it straight from HER, don't count on it being accurate.  The media has gotten everything exactly WRONG about Clinton since Monday.  Maybe they should stop listening to "unnamed sources".

    Obama should do something similar and make a statement along the lines of "The VP candidate will be of MY choosing and the choice doesn't belong to anyone else INCLUDING my supporters, Clinton's supporters, the media or the political pundits."

    He did it (none / 0) (#91)
    by Oceandweller on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:58:20 AM EST
    on the plane interview

    Parent
    VP (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Gambit on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:53:49 AM EST
    I can respect the decision to stay home in nov. but i can't respect voting for mccain. that is a betrayal to everything clinton believes in, not to mention the young generation of which i am a part of that is dying in iraq. clinton is obviously the strongest choice for vp!

    Despite your screen name (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by Klio on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:55:34 AM EST
    you're no Clinton Dem.  Quit this nonsense.  His name is Obama, not Osama.  Don't do that again here please.  It's just not right.

    And if you can't even spell the names of the associates you're trying to tar him with, you should probably rethink that approach from the bottom up.

    Cheers,

    You bet she will be our Veep (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by Oceandweller on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:56:31 AM EST
    I am an Obama voter from Iowa, I have supported financially his campaign, cringed at Rezko and Wright but been aware there is a world between their bitterness and his look for our future. He is well aware of all our pasts, but while they and the Weathermen relish on their grievance , he has been able to turn the page.
    I have been asked to participate ;ore to his campaign, I shall do so when and if and only when and if he has at his sides HRC.
    I would have voted for her but for him and with their united ticket I get the best of both worlds.
    We need both and I was proud of their speech because they both reached the fisnished line in a rather dignified manner. Was hard, was tough was well earned, well deserved for both.
    In heaven sake, how can anyone thinnk this race was about one and only one winner.
    This year is the year of history , so this year we the Dems, were given an AA and a woman to be side by side making history.They both won.
    Those who wanted only one lost clearly, our party is so great we are able to offer ex aequo winners. OK BHO will be on top of ticket, this is not really the point for me.
    I look forward a new leadership. After centuries where veeps were ghosts, and the actual one where the veep can be a creep , we are going to see a team of equals, this time the pres will not be alone in his council , it will be unity.
    I admit we have been so mute in voicing this opinion, but it was not easy, many people still hold grudge again the Clintons and our goal was to sit two people not one, yes MSNBC is shameless and shameful, but please do not think us robots, we held our ground till he won, till she won
    our purpose is not in humiliating our champion by humiliating your champion.
    So dont loose time on those sore losers, because they are, they miss the point of the BHO campaign.
    United we stand and we are together in that new world, we need you  just like you need us.
    We together can build  abetter world for the next generation, without you, without me we fail. As simple, I am better on some parts, you are better than me on other issues. Together we win, and I really dont care if it is BHO/HRC or HRC/BHO as long as we win together. Dont lose the large picture for the petty details.
    We have come  a long way baby a very long way.

    HRC showed and shows again and again she knows the duties and the lonely choices a POTUS must take. The Media clearly does not. But the Media was not the chosen ones. Our champions are , together.

    BO is the media darling for today, (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by vicsan on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:05:34 AM EST
    but after he's the "official" nominee he won't be. I've said this before and I'll say it again: The MSM are owned by CORPORATIONS. The CORPORATIONS do not want Democrats in power. Where would all their tax breaks go? Where would they make their billions of dollars? How could they possibly spend all that money to regulate their POLLUTION? How are earth would the oil companies be able to compete with the NEW alternative energy companies that will surely take off with Democrats in power? You get the picture. Democrats are NOT embraced by Corporations.

    No, the MSM are schmoozing BO today. Tomorrow (after August) the McCain Straight Talk Express will be their new love. BO is only there until they accomplish their goal of getting him nominated with or without Hillary....that will make no difference, IMCPO.

    I've reached ambivalence (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:13:33 AM EST
    He can choose Clinton and I could still not vote for him.

    He could choose someone else, and I COULD vote for him.

    I've realized his VP choice, one way or the other, isn't going to change my opinion.

    It's how he dealt with blaming Democrats for the war, and how he continues to deal with that issue.  Inclusive of saying Democrats are equally responsible for the all the problems facing Americans.  

    It's also how the Trinity Church business plays out.  So far, I still don't think he's ever crossed a threshold with that business.  Distancing.  Resigning.  Denouncing.  Repudiating.  All of these things are politically contrived acts.  And it's apparent to me the Trinity people are aware of those statements being politically contrived acts and still think of Obama as one of them.  

    Question (none / 0) (#140)
    by bdub78 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:16:51 AM EST
    How are the Democrats not responsible for the war?  I am not trying to be trite.  I am trying to understand how one does not blame them as enablers, at best.  (I hope this is not too off topic).

    Parent
    But the problem with (5.00 / 3) (#150)
    by dk on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:20:45 AM EST
    this is that Obama has been voting to fund the war ever since he entered the senate.  

    Look, the reality is that regardless of what the congress did, we went to war because George Bush wanted to.  If you want to blame the Democrats in congress, that's fine, but then you have to include Obama in that blame.  

    Either way, and particularly considering that Obama is walking back his talk on a quick withdrawal, this issue really doesn't have much relevance in whether to pick McCain or Obama.

    Parent

    This does not matter when the MCM wants to support (none / 0) (#220)
    by jawbone on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:48:40 AM EST
    someone--all that pol does is good, except for some minor blemishes which can be discussed to show they are "fair and balanced." If it's substantive, it is not mentioned or it is spun wildly to then benefit their favored pol.

    Our MCM is depressing--and that's one of their main goals, to depress enthusiasm for their disfavored pols. Even if what they say is later shown to be false, the damage is done when it's needed: at a crucial vote or primary. Job accomplished.

    Parent

    Which Democrat (none / 0) (#148)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:20:33 AM EST
    Do you think would have started the war?

    Parent
    The question is why didnt they even try to stop it (none / 0) (#161)
    by bdub78 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:27:03 AM EST
    Some people voted against it.  Those that voted for it and refused to admit it was a mistake are wrong, and to be quite honest, that is what cost Hillary the candidacy.  If she would have stated early on that it was a mistake, Obama never would have had a chance, IMHO.

    Parent
    Cut to the chase (none / 0) (#172)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:30:36 AM EST
    Rove believes Dems are responsible for the war.  That's all you ever need to know about it.

    I've had this discussion too many times and frankly, at this point, it's up to Obama now to show that he can see my point of view at this point, not yours.


    Parent

    He can win without Clinton... (5.00 / 3) (#141)
    by dianem on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:17:13 AM EST
    ...but can he win without her voters? The attitude right now seems to be that Obama is at a low in terms of poll numbers, and they will go up as soon as holdout Clinton supporter's decide to get back on the bandwagon. Obama's fans are reminding each other that they need to be nice to these fragile people for the good of the party.

    What if they don't? What if a certain number of Clinton supporter's simply won't vote for Obama without Clinton on the ticket? Let's say ... 10%. That would be half of the number who currently say that they would vote Obama/Clinton but not Obama/anybody else. (Clinton has roughly 25% of electorate, so the 5% bump represents 20% of her voters - all numbers very, very approximate). If that 10% decides to say home, or worse, vote McCain... the Dem Party is not going to win.

    Next question: Do the media care if Dems win? Of course not. They want a story, and they hate Clinton. They would rather discuss McCain/Obama's race and talk about the negative effect Clinton had on the campaign (which is what they've been saying) than talk about how how hard she is working to make sure Dems win. Not hating Clinton is not a good story. Conflict is a good story, but Clinton never did provide them with much conflict herself - most of it came from Obama, and they know this even if they blamed Clinton.

    If he can get away with "resigning" (5.00 / 5) (#145)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:19:25 AM EST
    from his church after saying it was like his grandmother, he can choose Hillary as his VP. The press will still adore him for it.

    Simply not comparable (none / 0) (#152)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:22:39 AM EST
    A good deal of the Obama love in the Media is BECAUSE of its Hillary Hate.

    This would be a "betrayal" of the Media by Obama.

    they could not care less about Trinity Church.

    Parent

    I still think they'll put away (none / 0) (#156)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:24:44 AM EST
    their huffing and puffing. It's a bit of a risk, but the benefits outweigh those risks. Essentially, I don't think he can win Ohio without her.

    Parent
    I think it is a no brainer (none / 0) (#159)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:26:11 AM EST
    Because winning cures everything.

    Parent
    One Of Sorkin's better lines (none / 0) (#175)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:31:33 AM EST
    There's a lot of reasons why they hate us. You know when they're gonna like us? When we win.

    They already like him though. He'll get past the media bitterness as soon as his poll numbers tick up because of the choice.

    Parent

    If the Media (5.00 / 3) (#171)
    by ccpup on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:30:33 AM EST
    is Obama's "biggest asset", then he has major problems going into the General Election.

    Because as we've seen in this Election Cycle the Voters don't pay that much attention to what the Pundits tell them.  If they did, Clinton would have dropped out after Iowa or Super Tuesday or Ohio or Pennsylvania and she certainly wouldn't have won as many States and Voters as she did (more than Obama) because, according to the "Media", she was "over" and "had no chance" since at least January.

    So, if they do continue their love affair with Barack -- which I highly doubt will happen --, many voters who don't connect with him even after all this time won't do so even if the Media trumpets him as being the best thing since sliced bread.

    And for those who supported or who were impressed by Clinton, he'll always be a second-string, less qualified imitation who was "given" the Nod.  I don't believe the Media can fix that, especially if Barack opens his mouth during the debates and a string of "uh"s and "um"s tumbles out.

    Webb? (5.00 / 7) (#208)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:42:44 AM EST
    If he picks Webb that will be the all sexism, all the time ticket.

    This is one of the reasons that many of the Obama bloggers love the choice of Webb.

    The other reason?  Like most of them, Webb's a former Republican.

    Webb's a nonstarter.

    I don't think Webb is a good choice. (none / 0) (#222)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:51:13 AM EST
    He's going to be difficult to control and I'm not keen on handing back a very hard won Senate seat.

    Parent
    WNYC summarizing Clinton campaign--MCM had no (5.00 / 3) (#211)
    by jawbone on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:44:09 AM EST
    role in her loss. No mention of the role of the MCM. But not suprising since I think these NYC public radio news people have a strong relationship with the regular MCMers, and there a raft of them in NYC.

    It was depressing to listen to. Guess what was a turning point against her in their analysis? The NYS driver's license issue answer at the end of Oct debate. Played clip of Obama saying she'd flip-flopped, no mention that the following week Obama gave her answer in reply to the same question, and zero mention of the role of MCM "moderators."

    The Village of the Damned Idiots, even the smart ones.

    Sam Nunn (5.00 / 2) (#236)
    by JDM in NYC on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:08:42 AM EST
    is my prediction. When I first heard that he was advising Obama, I thought he'd be the VP pick. He adds all the "gravitas" and "elder non-beltway" stuff that the party bosses think will be appealing to voters. It'll be sort of like Dukakis picking Bentsen, and to the same effect.

    Sam Nunn (5.00 / 2) (#238)
    by Gambit on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:13:13 AM EST
    Nunn is 69 yrs old! Plus jimmy carter (who i love as a man, but not as a leader) pegged him as a option, so that disqualifes him.

    Senate Majority Leader (5.00 / 1) (#242)
    by DancingOpossum on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:22:08 AM EST
    That'd be a great role for her. Get rid of Reid, Pelosi, and the whole gutless crew.

    If Obama is the new Media Darling... (5.00 / 1) (#250)
    by pmj6 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 01:46:24 PM EST
    ...then why is the Media actively preventing him from picking the one VP candidate that would guarantee his victory? Seems to me the Darling status is very conditional on his hostility to Sen. Clinton.

    This leaving completely aside the fact that BTD doesn't seem bothered that the MSM is de-facto picking Democratic Party nominees.

    Not only the press (2.33 / 3) (#41)
    by lgm on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:42:51 AM EST
    Lots of people on the Obama side feel about Clinton the way some of her people (on this site, for example) feel about him.  They're also hoping he'll pick someone else.  

    The other issue is that Bill Clinton refuses (according to rumors) to be vetted.  He seems to have done some shady deals since leaving office, accepting money from bad people.  I personally think Bill Clinton has improved on the standard set by Carter on how a former President can help the world.  But the books do need to be checked.

    if picking Clinton would rile up some of (5.00 / 3) (#89)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:57:32 AM EST
    Obama's supporters, that is EXACTLY why Obama should do it.  It would send a good message to Obama's supporters that they are not in charge.  It would send a message to Clinton supporters as well thta Obama does NOT condone the rabid Hillary hate that SOME of his supporters have engaged in during this primary.  It would be good in both directions.  

    The poll taken after Tuesday said 59% of dems was the "dream" ticket.  And, that included 50% of Obama's supporters.

    The question of what to do with "Bill"?  I read a pundit somewhere that suggested giving Bill a job.  Have the Gov of NY appoint Bill to the rest of Hillary's senate term for NY to keep him out of trouble.

    So far Cindy McCain, the wife of the repug candidate (not the VP's spouse), won't release her tax info.  So, why should Bill be held to a HIGHER standard than the spouse of a presidential candidate?

    Parent

    Bill issue (none / 0) (#128)
    by Oceandweller on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:12:20 AM EST
    Well, Bill is a husband and  Democrat and a former POTUS and a rather good ratings Fornmer POTUS who happened to have had Bimbo explosions that rabid republicans described as...well we know. The media jumped on him because it is easier to rake the holier than thou attitude. Shame on the cheating husband and they would have loved seeing him by a black eye. Nothing better than live humilation for the Press, HRC deprived the media of their pound of flesh. HENCE the media hates the Clintons.
    Bill during the campaign, was cast ina bad role, he is our -all of us president and he had this times to take sides. I understand why he had to, but still it was not an easy one. and just like any parent fails miserably when asked to cvhoose between their own children, well he failed. sobe it, story closed. we all knew it was not easy and we turn the page. Now he can be cast again in what he is really good at, the good sense bonding president we loved and still love. And by the way standing by his gal, did him worlds of good. I was mad at him after Monica, well his support his undefecting support of Hillary has redeemed himself to an inimaginable number of people.
    Stupid people think what to dio with Bill, well Bill has proven that their is a redemption. Ted Kennedy had also his very rough weather, isnt it and isnt he now a father respected figure. WJC stood by his gal and will stand by the Unity ticket of our and his dream. You bet we are going to see him a lot, it was tough on him to fight one agaionst the other, but now he can bite on their behalf, no more soft gloves .No more pussyfooting, that is great. We are witnessing great doings.

    Parent
    Because on of the things Obama is (none / 0) (#188)
    by Rigelian on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:35:41 AM EST
    pushing in his campaign is higher standards and transparency.  It will be difficult to make that a theme of your campaign if Bill Clinton refuses to open up his foundation transactions to scrutiny.  The GOP will exploit this.  

    Parent
    The GOP will exploit this? (5.00 / 2) (#201)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:40:07 AM EST
    try the DNC.  although they are starting to be indistinguishable.


    Parent
    isn't the issue here (none / 0) (#199)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:39:48 AM EST
    that the foundation was cretaed on the theory that the donors would have anonimity?

    Parent
    Sounds like standard baloney (5.00 / 1) (#237)
    by Valhalla on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:12:19 AM EST
    I keep seeing that floated -- Bill refusing vetting -- and it's way too good to be true for MSM and Obama supporters.

    C'mon, Bill Clinton, in advance of even being asked, while his wife is playing her cards super close, has refused to be vetted?  Who did he refuse?  Obama just got his group of 3 together yesterday.  Did he call up Caroline Kennedy and say "Hey Car, don't bother looking at Hil, bc I refuse to be vetted?"

    Too good to be true for Obama, since that would totally get him off the hook -- oh, I would have picked Clinton but Bill won't be vetted -- it's not my indecision or lack of judgement or weakness -- oh, oh, and did you see how Bill is screwing this up?!? I told you all he'd be impossible to keep out of the White House!.

    I mean, how many more pro-Obama tpm can you squeeze into a rumor?

    Parent

    If the Clintons will not submit to vetting, (none / 0) (#212)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:44:23 AM EST
    she will not and cannot be the VP nominee.

    Parent
    I, for one, am sick of the VEEPstakes talk. (1.00 / 1) (#221)
    by northeast73 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:48:51 AM EST
    Because it will really make me sad if she joins him on the ticket.

    He is NOT WORTHY of having her help (read: win for him) in the election.

    After his supporters reaction to her speech on Tuesday night, I have had it.  They are using that like they used the RFK thing...."has shee blown her vp chances with that".

    Let the Media vote for him.  I will not.  For the first time in my life, I am pulling the lever for a Republcian candidate.  The down-ticket dems will get my vote, however, since none of them were loud-mouth Obama surrogates.

    No, McCain is not perfect.  But Obama, in my opinion, DOES NOT deserve the presidency after the campaign he has run.  And my vote is AGAINST HIM.  AND THE MEDIA.  AND FLUFFBO.  AND KOS.  AND HOWIE DEAN.  AND DONNA B.  

    It is a tough call, (none / 0) (#8)
    by chrisblask on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:24:09 AM EST
    The temptation is to say "Sure, the easy thing is to relent and give Sen. Clinton the position".  But the easy thing is not always the right thing...  It may not be right for him, it may not be right for her, and more importantly it may not be right for the country.

    No political position is a gift - not in a country worth living in. It is a responsibility to the person who takes the job, and a burden for those who appoint the job.  The citizens best interest is the only factor that has any moral bearing.  Rather than "who will I make happy and benefit myself"?, the question must be "what is best for the country"?  I have lived in a country that gives political positions as gifts, Patronage Appointments for political gain with no consideration of public good.  It is an ugly and sordid affair.

    If she is the best person for the job, he should. If she is not,  he should not.

    No offense Chris, but.... (5.00 / 5) (#11)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:27:00 AM EST
    ...she is clearly the best person for the job. Heck, half the Democrats think she is the best person for the job that Obama is himself seeking. I think that BTD's post has more to do with whether she is a good political choice for winning the election. But questioning her credentials for the job is insulting.

    Parent
    Hi Maria (none / 0) (#130)
    by chrisblask on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:12:59 AM EST
    I am not questioning her credentials, just raising the bar above the expedient political view.  Maybe the way to frame it would be to say that if we tried to forget there had been a primary just the other day, who would be on the list and who would you pick?  Dead-flat pragmatism: not what I want to see based on my mental momentum, but what is the best choice?  In no way saying it should not be Sen. Clinton.

    Gore and (god help us) Cheney changed the VP job from the invisible impotence that it was before, so maybe it is a positive job for her. Maybe there is a better job for her.  After Cheney I'd almost like to see the VP role go back into powerless obscurity...

    Parent

    In that case I nominate Ariana Huffington. (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:28:27 AM EST


    Parent
    the VPs power (5.00 / 2) (#191)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:36:05 AM EST
    is entirely dependent on the president.  they have as much or as little and the president wants to give them.
    both Clinton and Bush wanted powerful VP.
    I strongly suspect Obama would not.  so you are likely to get your wish.

    Parent
    I do think Hillary is the best (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by befuddledvoter on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:50:21 AM EST
    choice for VP, if you are using the best interests of the country as the sole selection criteria.  The VP is essentially the President in waiting, and not just an adjunct.  If anyone reason arrises in which the Pres. can no longer serve, the VP is the Pres.

    However, if you are using what is in the best interest of Obama, then other factors come into play.  Clinton outshines Obama up with a clear command of every issue.  It is not that what she says is divisive at all.  It is that she clearly is better at grasping the problems we face and presenting solutions. The contrast can make Obama look bad, even if he is not so bad.

    Parent

    BTD... the 'timing' question... (none / 0) (#12)
    by p lukasiak on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:27:19 AM EST
    how does Obama handle the 'timing' issue.

    I personally think he needs to make a choice quickly -- at minimum, Clinton and Obama have to take the same position on the VP nomination very publicly, and very soon.  Either she's it, or both of them say she's not it....

    I disagree (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:31:04 AM EST
    In fact, I think he puts some real time between now and the day he announces.

    To me, mid-July makes sense.

    Parent

    For better or worse, Obama campaign (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by Exeter on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:52:14 AM EST
    is a reactive campaign, imo.  I think he waits to see who McCain picks. Also, I wouldn't be suprised if Obama picks a female wallflower with not alot of background -- he doesn't want anyone upstaging him. Somebody like Patty Murray or Amy Klobucher. (horrible picks, but don't be suprised)

    Parent
    if he picks any woman (5.00 / 6) (#80)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:54:56 AM EST
    besides Hillary hide the children cause it will get ugly.

    Parent
    Yep (5.00 / 2) (#231)
    by chrisvee on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:01:11 AM EST
    I don't see women being too fond of Webb as an option, either.

    Parent
    He's screwed then (5.00 / 3) (#108)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:06:07 AM EST
    McCain can and WILL wait him out. Dems go first with their Convention.

    Parent
    He can't wait too long (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by pie on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:12:56 AM EST
    because the anger out there is growing and many Hillary supporters are digging in.  Websites that slam him already exist and more are springing up.  And no, I'm not talking about those run by the right-wing.

    I'm not at all convinced he can win without her.  I can't think of a strong candidate who is as well-known to the voters, won over 18,000,000 of the in the primary, and can deliver the votes in November.

    Parent

    Actually, what would be smart is if Obama (none / 0) (#180)
    by Exeter on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:34:02 AM EST
    let the convention decide, like they to do it in the old days. Then, Hillary gets picked and he has no ownership of it.

    Parent
    You're right. (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:42:26 AM EST
    Especially if he's going to pick Clinton, he needs to wait so it doesn't appear as if he was pressured into it by the Clinton campaign.  He has "taken control of the process" as you say and he'll let it play out.

    I think Edwards' comments about the VP spot increase the odds of a Unity ticket, as do Hillary's recent comments about it being exclusively Obama's decision.

    And he has stated his admiration for Lincoln's inclusion of political rivals in his inner circle.

    Still, I think it's a long shot.  

    Parent

    Mid August more likely. (none / 0) (#183)
    by jimotto on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:35:01 AM EST
    There's really no reason announce a choice before a few weeks out from the convention.

    Parent
    Agree. (none / 0) (#14)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:29:49 AM EST


    Parent
    there is no such thing as a lock (none / 0) (#19)
    by Jlvngstn on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:32:00 AM EST
    and obama can win it without her. This constant drivel about "lock" as opposed to who brings the most to the ticket from a performance capacity only pushes people away from the idea. Obama will beat McCain because Mac has zero economic plan, crappy iraq solution, a h/c plan that excludes and promises hire prices, tax cuts for the rich, and hawkish foreign policy. I cannot wait until the election is over so I can peel from the archives the horrible predictions of loss. Of course, most of you save for BTD will run and hide from your comments or blame the media, but stand up and be counted. Go on the record as I did nearly 2 years ago. Which reminds me PPJ you gave me 4-1 odds on a $25 bet that Hillary would be the nominee. Being that i was correct and she is not, your donation to TL is due.

    Now I get to brag (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:35:36 AM EST
    I always said that Clinton was at best a slight favorite for the nomination.

    That Iowa changes everything.

    Hold your applause.

    Parent

    yes (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Jlvngstn on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:43:17 AM EST
    props as i do recall you were never on the "she's the favorite" bandwagon... Not that I disagree with Clinton helping, I just think the argument should be based on who brings more to the ticket than just votes. As I said months ago, my insecurities would not allow me to pick Hillary because I would not want Bill around second guessing me, but insecurities have no place in the WH, you need the strongest and best available. If Obama wants to have an aggressive/progressive agenda, he needs someone with extraordinary political capital and no one has more than HRC. I don't think he is going that route and that saddens me.

    Parent
    I often wonder (none / 0) (#44)
    by Salo on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:43:20 AM EST
    why her teanm didn't fix the results in favour of Edwards there. She knew she was gling to lose Iowa. So why not lose to the guy tethered to public spending limits.

    I'd have instructed the Captains to switch large number of votes to Edwards and reduce ad spending levels in that state to Mccain like levels.

    Then Obama would have had to campaisgn against Edwards and Clinton would have won in Ne Hampshire anyway.

    Seems underhanded, but IS suspect thats how the GOP dumped Romney and his advantages.

    Parent

    that's what McCain did to Romney in Iowa (none / 0) (#95)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:01:53 AM EST


    Parent
    I disagree about what the GE... (none / 0) (#182)
    by NotThatStupid on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:34:34 AM EST
    ... is going to be about:

    Obama will beat McCain because Mac has zero economic plan, crappy iraq solution, a h/c plan that excludes and promises hire (sic) prices, tax cuts for the rich, and hawkish foreign policy.

    As with many campaigns in the past, character will trump policy as the main focus of the GE, in my opinion.

    Senator Obama has more serious character issues than any Democratic nominee I have seen in my lifetime, or read about in history. The Republican scriptwriters can take the GE off this time because Senator Obama has done their job for them.

    Not only will his character flaws -- and his dissembling, expedient reactions when they are exposed -- make significant amounts of voters doubt the sincerity of his policy statements, but he is competing against a man who is a hero, by any definition of the word.

    This should have been a Democratic year. It won't be.

    Parent

    I disagree -- the media would love it if... (none / 0) (#24)
    by Exeter on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:34:38 AM EST
    Obama picked Hillary. The comparison to JFK picking Lyndon Johosn, Bill back in action, the political odd couple stories, it would be the gift that keeps giving for the media.  

    Right wing talk radio (none / 0) (#30)
    by cannondaddy on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:37:21 AM EST
    would definately love it.

    Parent
    At this point (5.00 / 7) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:43:51 AM EST
    I think it is time to realize that anyone listening to RW talk radio is not going to vote for Obama.  

    Parent
    But... (none / 0) (#99)
    by bdub78 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:03:05 AM EST
    Its not just people that listen to RW radio that don't like Hillary.  Haven't her unfavorables always been very high?

    Parent
    O (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:06:48 AM EST
    are now has high or higher in some polls.

    Parent
    Oh, I agree (none / 0) (#162)
    by cannondaddy on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:28:05 AM EST
    I'm just saying they already have the scripts ready, just merge their notes on Obama and Clinton.  No new homework.

    Parent
    you need to add a variant to this theory (none / 0) (#25)
    by Salo on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:35:05 AM EST
    If McCain picks a Lieberman as VP, McCain captures the Broderatti media pack right from under Obama's nose.

    Only if (none / 0) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:36:11 AM EST
    Obama picks Clinton.

    Parent
    So who does the media want Obama to pick? (none / 0) (#33)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:39:17 AM EST
    I don't pay attention to them anymore. Do you sense that they have telegraphed their preference or is it just anybody but Clinton?

    Parent
    ABC (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:42:20 AM EST


    Parent
    or Gore. (none / 0) (#50)
    by Salo on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:45:00 AM EST


    Parent
    Well if he picks (none / 0) (#77)
    by lilburro on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:54:01 AM EST
    THE Lieberman I would hope the media would run stories on how ridiculous it is that the former DEM nominee for VP is now the Republican one.  Really offputting to me.

    Parent
    which is one of the reasons (none / 0) (#85)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:56:30 AM EST
    he will not pick LIEberman.
    plus the fact that he is the most hated person in politics to most democrats who McCain want to attract.

    Parent
    Lookoverthere - your donation (none / 0) (#34)
    by Jlvngstn on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:39:25 AM EST
    I'll give you 4:1 odds (none / 0) (#185) by lookoverthere on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:45:31 PM EST $25 from you if you lose. $100 from me if I do. Electronic shake and we're set.

    I think VP choices (none / 0) (#42)
    by cannondaddy on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:43:05 AM EST
    are going to matter more this year than most.  McCain has a bigger dilema than Obama. I think he'll go with Huckabee.  

    i saw online (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Jlvngstn on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:49:06 AM EST
    that the governor of alaska Sara Palin may be his frontrunner....

    Parent
    No (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:50:04 AM EST
    McCain's choice will entirely be determined by what Obama does. If he does not pick Clinton, McCain will pick the VP who best helps him with Clinton Dems.

    If he does pick Clinton, then he will pick some solid moderate Republican and they will scorch the Earth.

    Parent

    Two women (5.00 / 2) (#155)
    by waldenpond on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:23:40 AM EST
    How about Obama picks Clinton and McCain picks Palin.....  I know it won't happen, but it would be interesting.

    Parent
    I think you are spot on with Palin (5.00 / 2) (#194)
    by jimotto on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:37:28 AM EST
    About the only pick he can make that gives him a chance at picking off some of Obama's support without completely pissing off his base.

    Parent
    I expect the earth to be scorched (none / 0) (#74)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:52:57 AM EST
    in any case

    Parent
    There is scorching the earth (none / 0) (#83)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:56:21 AM EST
    and then there is scorching the earth.

    Parent
    I trust the GOP to treat us like Carthage, no (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by tigercourse on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:03:18 AM EST
    matter who their VP is.

    Parent
    Dresden (none / 0) (#120)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:10:34 AM EST


    Parent
    um, yeah (none / 0) (#90)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:57:38 AM EST


    Parent
    My two cents (none / 0) (#70)
    by ineedalife on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:51:06 AM EST
    I think Obama may have cut a deal long ago with Ted Kennedy that gave Ted the right to pick the VP. Ted was out-front savagely trying to kill the Clinton-for-VP wave. He smeared her for lacking noblility. Maybe that wasn't a metaphor but a job qualification. He gave the Kennedy family brand to Obama to be exploited. Obama never would have released the faux-outrage rampage over RFK without Ted's greenlight. Since that was after the nomination was supposedly a done deal the only reason was to try disqualify Clinton's VP creds.

    Caroline Kennedy is Ted's proxy on the VP committee. The other two memebers aren't even a step outside Obama's comfort zone. There is no expertise on that committee on foreign policy, military, politics and governing,  health care, education, etc. etc. All that stuff is left to Kennedy. So we are left with Kennedy and two vetters.

    Remember this is the cycle the Dem elite thought they could elect a ham sandwich president. A VP pick with a little personal bagae will not bother them.

    So which Kennedy will get the VP pick? Patrick? What do you think?

    If a Kennedy is chosen as VP, (5.00 / 2) (#196)
    by samanthasmom on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:38:25 AM EST
    what happens to all the people who were against "political dynasties"? I mean talking about dynasties. . .

    Parent
    Personal baggage, not "bagae" (none / 0) (#71)
    by ineedalife on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:51:52 AM EST
    I can't type. Or edit.

    Parent
    I think I disagree (none / 0) (#88)
    by bdub78 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:57:24 AM EST
    It seems to me that if you run with the assumption that most Hillary supporters will migrate to the Obama camp, which I think is very reasonable, there seems little reason to have Hillary as the VP. There is strong anti-Hillary sentiment out there, unwarranted granted, but it shows up in her unfavorables.  Why would Obama want that anchor?

    Also, if Hillary comes out and says, "I don't want to be VP" will that eliminate the hostility Hillary supporters would feel if Obama chose another running mate?

    The last "unfavorable" poll (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by vicsan on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:08:40 AM EST
    I saw for BO was 53%! Let me remind you, there's also 18 million people out here who aren't fond of BO (more like a visceral hatred) either and they will let that fact be known, one way or another and it won't be by voting for him.

    Parent
    18 million? Hardly. (none / 0) (#218)
    by jimotto on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:47:43 AM EST
    What percentage of Clinton voters have visceral hatred for Obama?  

    I'll go out on a limb and guestimate that 85% of Dems vote for Obama this year.  That suggests that 70-80% of Clintons voters will come over.  Seeing as 5-10% of her voters said they would not vote for Clinton in the general, thats not too bad.

    Parent

    Speaking as a Hillary supporter (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by stillife on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:10:20 AM EST
    it's my impression that most of us do not want her as Obama's running mate.  So - I don't think there would be any anger from Hillary supporters if he picks someone else.  We're angry enough already.  

    I disagree with your hypothesis that Hillary supporters will fall in line for Obama.  Some will, some won't.  My personal guesstimation is that 20-30% of Clinton supporters will not be voting for him in the GE.

    Parent

    I said "most" (none / 0) (#136)
    by bdub78 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:15:11 AM EST
    To me the simple question is, how many Hillary supporters does Obama lose by not picking her as his veep versus the number of voters he voters he loses because there is a significant block of straight-up anti-Hillary voters out there?  I think it winds up being a wash at best (for the pro-Hillary crowd) and therefore, he should pick someone else.

    Parent
    How many anti-Hillary voters (5.00 / 2) (#157)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:25:10 AM EST
    do you foresee voting for Obama?

    They only have one vote you know.


    Parent

    Independants (none / 0) (#165)
    by bdub78 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:29:07 AM EST
    I think there are more than a few independants and Republicans that will go for Obama that would not have gone for Hillary.  I admit that I have no specific polling to back that up, just anecdotal evidence.  But seems to me that when polls show that Obama puts many states into play that Hillary does not, this supports my thesis.

    Parent
    Anecdoatlly, I know several (5.00 / 3) (#173)
    by masslib on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:31:04 AM EST
    hardcore conservative women who want Hill.

    Parent
    what poll shows (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:31:33 AM EST
    that he puts many states in play that Hillary does not?
    link?


    Parent
    Obama (5.00 / 5) (#178)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:33:11 AM EST
    has been hemorraghing independents. I think you are deceiving yourself in the fact that you are in a Februrary state of mind  ie. pre Wright/Pflger/Michelle/Ayers.

    Obama does not put more states in play, Hillary does. Of course, this is really a moot point since the Dem establishment has decided that Obama will be the nominee. Even the super D's went public to people like Ambinder about concerns regarding Obama's electability.

    Parent

    I think he may have a point (none / 0) (#170)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:30:19 AM EST
    many of Os supporters are young first timers who may not be as committed to the process and therefore more willing to simply stay home than your average Hillary supporter.  most of whom are agonizing right now about staying home or not.
    and honestly I think there are a fair number of Hillary supporters who will  not vote for him even if she is on the ticket.

    Parent
    Have (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:16:17 AM EST
    you looked at Obama's unfavorables lately? They are higher than Hillary's.

    Parent
    I could be deceiving myself... (none / 0) (#146)
    by bdub78 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:20:15 AM EST
    ...but I put little faith in one or two unfavorable polls.  they move all over the place, but seems to me that there is about 40-45% of the country that will never vote for Hillary.  Those numbers have been there for like a decade.  

    Again, I will gladly admit that maybe I am over-estimating the amount of Hillary-phobia out there, but anecdotally, here in St. Louis, I have not met a single person who has not voiced hatred of her, Republican or Democrat.  

    You might not believe it, but I spent most of the primary season, as an Obama supporter defending Hillary.

    Parent

    Do you (5.00 / 3) (#167)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:29:55 AM EST
    realize that there are as many people who now hate Obama even before he's had the GOP go after him? He can't break 45% in any poll post wright/pfleger. Hillary's negatives haven't moved but Obama's have consistently gone higher and higher. They'll probably be 60% or above by the time Sept rolls around.

    Parent
    Most (none / 0) (#96)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:02:17 AM EST
    is a flexible word.

    Parent
    Sure. (none / 0) (#102)
    by bdub78 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:04:16 AM EST
    And being an Obama guy as opposed to Hillary guy, maybe I am just out of touch with how much the Hillary crowd hates Obama.

    Parent
    Two things (5.00 / 3) (#123)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:10:39 AM EST
    they are committed to Hillary and they distrust Obama

    Parent
    Make it a quarter (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:11:32 AM EST
    4.5 million votes.

    Do you know what the margins are in close elections?

    Parent

    correction (none / 0) (#110)
    by bdub78 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:06:40 AM EST
    should have said "dislikes" not "hates"

    Parent
    Some do hate him (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by Gambit on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:10:35 AM EST
    I think ole harriet "christian" would disagree with you. I liked both candidates but there were supporters on both sides that have been disgusting.

    Parent
    ol' harriet (5.00 / 1) (#213)
    by sarahfdavis on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:44:37 AM EST
    thanks for dissin' the old broad. she did't put what she meant very well but it wasn't at all a  disgusting thought. she was making 2 points:
    1. Obama wasn't qualified and,
    2. He was where he was because of his skin color. Even Obama has stated that.

    -- ol' sarah

    Parent
    I think poor Harriet (5.00 / 1) (#217)
    by samanthasmom on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:46:50 AM EST
    might have been seeing the nasty side of politics close up for the first time. If you can get to be her age without being disillusioned, the fall is fast and hard. I wouldn't assume that you were seeing the side of Harriet that votes.  The teacher who had the ugly bruises from being manhandled was frustrated at how she was treated, but seemed more circumspect that the Democrats would be engaged in dirty politics. Her rage was more than she had been personally injured for exercising her right to disagree.  I doubt either of those women had ever participate in any kind of protest up close and personal before. Those of us who have "womanned" the lines before did not see anything shocking - disgusting but not shocking.

    Parent
    I know a good number of Clinton supporters. (none / 0) (#204)
    by jimotto on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:41:19 AM EST
    None of them resemble Harriet.  

    Parent
    Veep (none / 0) (#98)
    by Gambit on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:02:56 AM EST
    what do you guys think of the running idea that picking hillary will undercut obama's message of "change"? i really despise this idea, because hillary's candidacy has been groundbreaking in itself, but there is some merit to the theory.

    Parent
    No merit. her plans are more (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by masslib on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:07:54 AM EST
    change oriented than his.  

    Parent
    Which change are you talking about? (5.00 / 7) (#125)
    by dk on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:11:19 AM EST
    The change that Obama thinks it's ok to gay-bait in order win primaries?  The change that Obama thinks many pro-choice activists fail to see the "morality" in the choice to terminate a pregnancy?  Or the change that Obama thinks that universal healthcare is socialism?

    Parent
    Question. (none / 0) (#107)
    by bdub78 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:05:46 AM EST
    I was afraid that if Obama picks Hillary, the media will call him weak.  They are already running with the "she is trying to jam" him talking point and talking about "immasculation."  It just seems like a can of worms that might best be left unopened.

    Parent
    "had done its job vetting" (5.00 / 2) (#160)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:26:45 AM EST
    oh man.
    if only they had been vetted before they got started vetting.

    Parent
    Really? They're talking (5.00 / 8) (#189)
    by Lena on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:35:59 AM EST
    about Obama being emasculated by Hillary?

    You know, if the Dem party had ever come out against this sort of sexism, they'd be able to deal with this slur like a well-oiled machine, and blow the press away. But since the party has chosen to look the other way while HRC, and by extension, all Democratic women, have been treated like dirt for an entire campaign season, even allowing Obama's campaign to capitalize on the sexism of MSNBC and other Obama-supporters, they'll surely just let that go.

    This is why I'm no longer a Democrat. Turned out that the party can stand up against racism, but the sexism is too hard for them to see.

    Parent

    That is actually a good point... (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by bdub78 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:41:06 AM EST
    and I have no retort.  Plus, I am embarrassed that I spelled emasculated wrong.  I would still hope that you vote for Obama, if for no other reason that any SC Justices appointed by McCain will be of the Scalia mold.

    Parent
    Exactly (5.00 / 3) (#223)
    by sarahfdavis on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:52:03 AM EST
    They don't seem to get this at all. We're supposed to stop pouting and get in line? The bile spewed at Hillary by PROGRESSIVES! not to mention the media and the silent democrats became absolutely personal to me. I never knew I had this sleeping feminist inside of me. I AM FURIOUS and cannot be a codependent member in an abusive relationship with the democratic party. good bye and good riddance.

    Parent
    Female Veep (none / 0) (#174)
    by Gambit on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:31:08 AM EST
    Well since yall don't seem too keen on clinton/obama what about kathleen sebilius? I like her. And this idea that picking a woman is an insult is ironically appalling. As if no other woman is capable of running the country. Sebilius is competent and strong on the issues I care about. She's no hillary clinton, but just who the hell is?

    She has all the charisma of a wet napkin (5.00 / 7) (#181)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:34:11 AM EST
    If you choose her, you might as well have chosen Tom Daschle or Evan Bayh.

    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#198)
    by stillife on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:39:29 AM EST
    I remember her response to Bush's SOTU.  I haven't had such a good night's sleep in months.  I know Obama needs someone who won't outshine him, but he should stop short of selecting a running mate who has such large quantities of anti-charisma.

    Parent
    Sebelius (5.00 / 5) (#187)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:35:33 AM EST
    is a bad choice. She adds nothing.

    Parent
    Out of the frying pan (none / 0) (#193)
    by 2minutenews on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:36:19 AM EST
    Into the fire. Obama has to pick someone that reminds voters of Hillary Clinton. I favor Janet Napolitano over Sebelius though. Wesley Clark and Richardson would do wonders for the ticket as well.

    Janet (none / 0) (#214)
    by Gambit on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:45:06 AM EST
    I like janet. she's cool too but i heard somewhere that she's single and that would open up whispers about her sexuality (which is sad). Richardson is hispanic and rendell is a jew. obama's got problems yall! lol

    Parent
    Obama should have no pressure (none / 0) (#197)
    by Rashomon66 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:39:08 AM EST
    If Obama caves in to the pressure to accept Hillary as VP I think it shows a weakness. It show that he caves to polling and caves into political pressure.
    He needs to make the decision without the Obama-media, the Hillary-media or any media for that matter telling him what he should do.
    But more importantly is, how do we know Hillary even wants the VP spot? I mean, it seems like if she says NO to the VP spot then you can't blame Obama for not taking her, right?

    I wouldn't blame him (5.00 / 2) (#206)
    by stillife on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:42:00 AM EST
    and I'm a Clinton supporter.  I think this whole Clinton as VP issue is a media fabrication who want to keep the drama (a/k/a Clinton-bashing) going.  

    The "dream ticket" is a nightmare ticket IMO.

    Parent

    Comment from North of the Border (none / 0) (#225)
    by EMC2002 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:52:19 AM EST
    Obama/Clinton ticket would be your check and balance. Some think Obamas too far left and some think Clinton is too powerfull.With the two of them one would check the other.You can't leave a party to repair it ,you must work within it to do that.Then you could get some real changes done.Seat back and think for a momment.Just think what these two super people could do for your country together.

    What should hillary do now (none / 0) (#229)
    by Gambit on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:58:49 AM EST
    if not VP? what cause and under what form should she champion democratic issues and ideals?

    ok, for those of you (none / 0) (#232)
    by cpinva on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:01:40 AM EST
    BTD, are you listening?) who still don't get it:

    obama will not continue to be the "media darling", now that he's the presumptive dem. nominee. those of you who think that he will should immediately seek professional help. i'm not sure which profession exactly, but you clearly need help. see: gore, al and kerry, john, 2000 & 2004 respectively.

    as well, the repub 527's have yet to chime in. obama ignores them at his peril. of course, when you have so many legitimate skeletons in your closet, paying attention won't do all that much good anyway.

    obama will get the AA vote, not much question about that. you know why they're called a "minority"? because they are. at 12.4% of the total population, and concentrated in the hard-core republican south, they will be window dressing only, leading to no electoral votes.

    obama may well get the "youth" vote, assuming they bother to actually vote. recent history says otherwise, so he'll get no electoral votes there either.

    ah yes, the "elitest, intellectual" vote. what to make of them, he asks? well, between them and the AA community, obama will get DC's electoral votes, all what, 2 of them? he only needs 268 more!

    since obama has managed to diligently alienate the core democrats he needs to win in nov. (and i just don't see him making that up), i fear no matter who he gets as vp, it will be a mccain romp in the GE.

    i believe mccain actually stands a good chance of getting a majority of those "bitter, gun and bible toting" white, blue-collar males, that obama is so disparaging of. way to go barack!

    frankly, as long as the down ticket goes dem, i'm not convinced that would be a bad thing.

    Nunn's age (none / 0) (#239)
    by JDM in NYC on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:18:40 AM EST
    will offset Obama's youth. In the minds of the party bosses, that is.

    I'm hearing alot... (none / 0) (#240)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:20:32 AM EST
    ...of people pushing for Montana governor Brian Schweitzer out here is the Wild West.  

    He would certainly off-set BO's perceived problems with rural and pro-gun voters to some degree.  

    Response to Darthnole (none / 0) (#244)
    by DancingOpossum on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:24:51 AM EST
    Virginia will NEVER be in play. Why some Obama followers insist on believing it will, I will never understand.

    Webb won his seat by a very slight margin and after his opponent had an infamous "macaca" meltdown. The counties that gave Webb his win will go Republican in the GE.


    Nunn (none / 0) (#245)
    by Gambit on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:26:15 AM EST
    But JDM i understand your point and normally i'd agree with your assessment, but part of the media conversation has been about McCain's age. Kinda hypocritical it would seem right?

    Response to DancingOpossum (none / 0) (#246)
    by Gambit on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:31:54 AM EST
    Obama crushed clinton there because of the average-sized AA vote and the increased white collar class. The Virginia of today aint the Virginia of 50 years ago, or even 20.

    Nunn's age won't matter (none / 0) (#247)
    by JDM in NYC on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:02:12 AM EST
    if he's the VP candidate (to the MSM), especially if he does a Cheney and says he doesn't want to be President (riiiiiiiight). The MSM will love it.
    And it would have the added attraction of getting Washington back to the wonderful days, before Clinton came in and trashed the place, when it wasn't his place. (SNARK)
    That's what this whole primary has been about, anyway.

    I see steady uptick of support here for (none / 0) (#249)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 01:04:02 PM EST
    an Obama/Clinton ticket.

    Hillary's Future (none / 0) (#251)
    by JayHub on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:34:19 PM EST
    I think Hillary would be wasted as VP. Remember, unless you're pulling the strings from behind the throne like Cheney, it's a powerless and low profile job that would do little to use Hillary's many talents.

    Personally, I'd like to see her in the Cabinet as Health Secretary until a SUPREME COURT slot opens and then I'd like to see her appointed there. She could do a lot for the country as a Supreme Court Justice over the next 20 years.

    LOVE IT (none / 0) (#252)
    by Rob in Texas on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:41:27 PM EST
    I back all of you libs,, Thats why you should vote for McCain

    Obama's VP Dilemma | 238 comments (238 topical)