Unity Reconsidered

The latest reporting from Patrick Healy and Jeff Zeleny on talk of Hillary Clinton as vice presidential nominee helps me clarify my thinking on this topic. Consider two different scenarios. In one scenario, Clinton herself would strongly prefer being a candidate for the vice presidency than being a United States Senator with a clear shot at 2012 if Obama loses to McCain. In another scenario. Clinton herself isn't necessarily sold on the idea of being #2 but could be open to persuasion.

My assumption throughout these discussions has been that we're in scenario number two. Under those circumstances, I don't think there's a good case for Obama trying to persuade her. As unity proponent Ed Kilgore recognizes there are all kinds of "threshold problems" with the idea, and I think the upside to picking Clinton over a Janet Napolitano or a Kathleen Sebelius is hard to see. But if we're in the scenario number one, it's a different matter entirely -- you don't need Clinton on the ticket to unify the party unless Clinton wants to make it the case that you need Clinton on the ticket to unify the party but if she does want to do that, I think she probably has it in her power. If that's her attitude, that'd be a kind of crappy attitude to have, but it wouldn't shock me and much as Paris is worth a Mass, the White House would be worth tapping Clinton as a running mate.

But I remain skeptical that Clinton actually does want to be Vice President. My take is that a substantial swathe of her staff wants her to be Vice President because they think a "unity ticket" is now their best realistic shot at getting jobs in the executive branch. As I've observed before, Bill and Hillary have great fallback jobs -- as a multimillionaires, and the head of an important foundation and a U.S. Senator respectively -- but that's not at all true of lots of their campaign staffers.

Comments

The great unanswered question is, "To what extent can the Clintons blow up the party?" Assume Sen. Clinton really wants to be VP. What can she do if Obama goes with Sebelius? Won't other party leaders get out there to defend against her attacks? And won't they (or maybe bloggers) list and track HRC staffers who allowed the candidate to try and blow up the party for more or less the rest their careers? Surely there will be punishment if Clinton goes that route.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | May 23, 2008 9:48 AM

I don't want her on the ticket at all. In the second slot, she brings all the same baggage and problems she would as the nominee. The Republicans would attack the ticket with all their crap without having to worry about appearing racist.

Just. Go. Away.

Posted by Jim | May 23, 2008 9:48 AM

Are you so completely blind to psychology?

If it was about 'fallback positions' and grace etc the like - Hillary would have bowed out a long time.

It boils down to a few options, depending on how (un)charitable your feelings to HC are:

1) It's a historic moment being the first female presidential nominee, so it would be wrong to quit until it's over.

2) Waiting for face saving gesture of some sort, be it symbolic or...

3) Waiting for finance saving gesture. The Clintons may now be rich, but I'm guessing they are still cheap.

4) mild blackmail to get SCOTUS or VP promise from Obama - which may be connected in sorts to

5) Looking to cause such havoc at the convention and onwards that Obama doesn't get elected, and she can then have 'blacks don't count' as the 2012 election slogan.

6) she's fucking crazy and can't see she's lost.

Posted by James | May 23, 2008 9:49 AM

Thanks but no thanks.

Posted by riffle | May 23, 2008 9:50 AM

I think she does want the job. The question is, should Obama acquiesce, and make it look like he wants her, or should he fight against it?

If the latter, he may have problems with Florida and Michigan, as well as with some of her diehard supporters. Also, note that Hillary is polling better in certain swing states.

In my mind, the only thing that matters is electability. If having her as VP is problematic after the election, we can worry about it later.

Posted by Jim W | May 23, 2008 9:53 AM

I am more convinced than ever before that Hillary is actively working to sabotage Obama's chances. Whether she's on the ticket or not. If he picks her he likely loses and she probably knows that, and she's free to run again in 2012. If he doesn't pick her he "offends her supporters" in spite of their having run such a close second to him, and divides the party and he still loses. I think she thinks she's got him by the balls, and it's exactly why she's staying in. I can't think of a more plausible explanation.

Posted by Bill | May 23, 2008 9:55 AM

That being said I think her more desired outcome is for him to "snub" her so she can make (disingenuously indirect) political hay out of that.

Posted by Bill | May 23, 2008 10:00 AM

Hmmm, I do not think Hillary is as powerful as she thinks. If Obama can just wait a couple of weeks until Hillary has officially and irrevocably LOST the primary, I think that a Hillary-supporting movement that looks at least somewhat dynamic and cohesive right this second will drift apart very quickly. Hillary will be just another politician who lost.

She'll probably have some loyalist staffers who won't be interested in making life easy for the Obama administration, but the fact that a good chunk of prominent people in Washington and elsewhere have hewed closely to her during the last eight years and particularly this election is based very largely on the expectation that there would be another Clinton presidency in the future. Now there won't be, and a lot of people will re-adjust their careerist calculation accordingly.

Posted by Marshall | May 23, 2008 10:03 AM

In other words, she knows he won't pick her but she wants to make it look as though he might, and as though she might want it and accept it.

Posted by Bill | May 23, 2008 10:03 AM

What's this talk about Napolitano (not Andy) and Sibelius (Not Jean)? Isn't is clear to all of us that Obama has to pick an uneducated white man from Appalachia?

Posted by wren | May 23, 2008 10:04 AM

James, unfortunately the charitable options there don't explain her vile behavior over the last couple of days, painting any Obama nomination as illegitimate (Florida 2000, Jim Crow, Zimbabwe). She can keep running without sabotaging the likely nominee.

Posted by KCinDC | May 23, 2008 10:04 AM

painting any Obama nomination as illegitimate (Florida 2000, Jim Crow, Zimbabwe).

I wonder what would happen if Obama called her on it directly?

Posted by Bill | May 23, 2008 10:07 AM

The anger an resentment among many of HRC's is palpable. At the moment a lot of this anger and resentment arises from the disappointment of seeing an historic candidacy coming to its close. HRC has said that she will work hard for whomever is the Democratic candidate in the Fall; I see no reason to do anything but take her at her word. She's already done something useful by demonstrating the need for Obama and his surrogates to work very hard in Appalachia. Most Democrats will come back together; Bush is that bad and McCain that awful. I'd rather see BHO offer HRC a position on the Court, but she has the makings of a decent senator. While I don't particularly think she'd be a good VP candidate, I think, Jim, you've overstated matters, if for no other reason than HRC is not going away.

Posted by djeri | May 23, 2008 10:07 AM

Why Hillary should not be VP:

From "Head of State"

http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/05/head-of-state-reasons-that-hillary.html

Friday, May 23, 2008

Head of State: The Reasons That Hillary Should Not Be Vice President

Regarding Hillary Clinton as Barack Obama's running mate:

Originally, this seemed to be a potentially plausible choice--and if presented in the following way, could turn her divisive campaign into a potential coup as a VP candidate. The thinking was the following:

Hillary has run a divisive campaign. Now, just as the nation should mend its divisions in favor a greater unity that would serve the greater needs of our country, so now they would explicitly put these divisions behind them, in the interests of the unity that this nation, after a bitter and divisive Administration, is so in need of. This would serve as a powerful and vibrant example of the very ability to unify that Obama both offers and represents.

However, this would require a candidate that was willing to take such a position of relative shared selflessness in the interests of a greater good--while the Vice Presidency certainly offers its honors (now far beyond the "warm pitcher" of John Vance Garner's famous phrase) and positioning for later Presidential aspirations, such a plan would require the ability to think in terms of a shared effort based on the betterment of the nation, rather than in more grasping, combative and singular terms.

The Clinton camp's behavior over this past week has made such a positive scenario clearly untenable, showcasing the same characteristics that have signified her campaign throughout its long, chaotic, march--its contradictions of previous statements when such changes have a slight possibility of adding a week or two of vitality, its sudden and implausible use of populists guises and specious historical parallels for transparently opportunistic purposes, its near-hallucinogenic transmogrifications of personality and central bases for further continuation,
and the central campaign tendency to place personal attainment over virtually all values that lay in its path.

These characteristics--self over nation, positioning over a consistent presentation of position, values and even self, the willingness to put personal viability over the need to transcend and transform the vast wreckage of state and international relations that remain at this critical time--are as present now, at a moment when wisdom rather than a remorseless, obdurate desperation could fill this gap, as they have been throughout much of the campaign. They would continue to make themselves present during a campaign for vice president, complicating, diminishing and often distracting, in trivial internecine battles, the message of unity and change.

Perhaps Clinton could adopt a more unifying and integrated and less grasping position on the VP subject. However, thus far, the actions of the Clinton camp have made it clear: It's time to clean the slate. Hillary Clinton should not be the Vice Presidential candidate.

Cite:

Head of State

http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/05/head-of-state-reasons-that-hillary.html

Posted by Robert Hewson | May 23, 2008 10:08 AM

KCinDC,

Oh, I'm leaning towards the last few options, but figured would try to cover all the possibilities.

Wren

You could take 'uneducated white' out of that sentence and it would be the same.

Posted by James | May 23, 2008 10:09 AM

Yeah, I'm no expert, but I understand that it's not unusual for the eunuchs to hold a remarkable amount of power in the imperial court. I don't think Clinton's retinue is unique in this regard.

You're in an around this poisonous system, Matt -- going to pressers held by nobles, listening to lectures by eunuchs of various types. Frankly, I don't think anything significant will change until functionaries at this level (and that might include you) genuinely believe that fundamental change is the only way to prevent the peasants from burning the whole Forbidden City to the ground, and chasing the survivors into the swamps with pitchforks.

Posted by Pesto | May 23, 2008 10:12 AM

I don't think picking a non-Hillary woman makes any sense. I can't make up my mind about whether Hillary would be a good pick. The idea of a "unity ticket", given the closeness of the race, is a strong argument in favor.

The other potential VP that would make sense is Jim Webb. He's from Virginia, opposed the Iraq war, has gravitas and good credentials.

Another possibility is Bob Graham, who opposed the war and is from Florida.

Posted by Jim W | May 23, 2008 10:13 AM

Consequences. Without a doubt, Hillary has damaged Barack Obama's general election chances by engaging in tactics most democrats think John McCain not capable of. And all this after there was no longer a mathematical path to the nomination for her. She should not be rewarded for this. PACs should be forming now to see that she can't win the nomination in 2012.

Posted by Eliot | May 23, 2008 10:15 AM

Consequences. Without a doubt, Hillary has damaged Barack Obama's general election chances by engaging in tactics most democrats think John McCain not capable of. And all this after there was no longer a mathematical path to the nomination for her. She should not be rewarded for this. PACs should be forming now to see that she can't win the nomination in 2012.

Posted by Eliot | May 23, 2008 10:18 AM

All I can say about Clinton joining the Obama ticket is...

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Hillary thought Obama needed toughening up for the general election? Wait until she sees what they have in store for her. They'll mention everything Obama couldn't, or wouldn't. We'll hear all about Bill's (and her own) shady business deals. We'll hear all about Bill's sex life post-White House. All the bickering, all the drama, and oh the ludicrous, shameless things she says.

If Clinton joins the ticket, she remains the story every day from now until the election. She and Bill will suck up all the oxygen.

Don't do it, Barack. You'll regret it.

Posted by SDinIA | May 23, 2008 10:18 AM

I think it's pretty simple.

Hillary Clinton is incredibly popular right now. She's killing John McCain in the head-to-head polls, and her electoral strength is concentrated in key swing states - OH and FL. If she wants the VP, there's no better candidate, electorally. (Maybe Sherrod Brown.)

For this comment section, which has turned pretty inexplicably into a Hillary hatred zone - partly that's Petey's fault, but he was already playing the crowd with that shtick - it's hard to see the facts on the ground.

I would compare the situation to those Republicans in 1996 wondering, then shouting, "where's the outrage!?" as Bill Clinton wiped the floor with them. Americans love Hillary Clinton, and particularly Americans in key swing states. Face reality. She's the VP if she wants it, not because she'll connive to destroy the party, but because it'll take the election for Obama, and because Hillary and Obama agree on practically every substantive issue.

Posted by DivGuy | May 23, 2008 10:19 AM

Yesterday Al Giordano reported this:
The Field can now confirm, based on multiple sources, something that both campaigns publicly deny: that Senator Clinton has directly told Senator Obama that she wants to be his vice presidential nominee, and that Senator Obama politely but straightforwardly and irrevocably said “no.” Obama is going to pick his own running mate based on his own criteria and vetting process.

This helps explain why Hillary got nasty again in FL the other day, and why she whipped out the Zimbabwe card.

Posted by tinisoli | May 23, 2008 10:20 AM

No. No. No. No. No. And so on, in a similar vein.

Governing alongside President Clinton and Vice President Clinton would be a nightmare.

One bright side, I suppose, would be a mini-boom in op-ed column appearances by historians of Ancient Rome, who could write about co-consulship, and probably also students of the Federalist Papers, who would call attention to their warnings against a co-presidency.

Other than that, not much upside.

Posted by TedL | May 23, 2008 10:21 AM

I wonder what would happen if Obama called her on it directly?

He'd be denounced by her supporters as a sexist pig trying to push the woman out of the race. There's not much any non-Clinton-supporting people can do at this stage, since anything they say will be written off or even inflame the situation further. Feinstein needs to give her another talking-to.

It's possible that Al Gore could push back against her attempts to use the Florida recount, but there's been no sign he's willing to stand up.

One Clinton superdelegate is speaking sanity, but I expect he'll be called a Judas for it, especially since he's black.

Posted by KCinDC | May 23, 2008 10:23 AM

And now the Clinton campaign is putting it out there that she and Obama are negotiating a truce, possibly involving her being VP.

I guess that's one way of doing it: create the expectation so that Obama is forced to fulfill it.

Posted by tinisoli | May 23, 2008 10:28 AM

Americans love Hillary Clinton, and particularly Americans in key swing states.

Um, no. A sizable portion of Democrats love Hillary Clinton. (Of course, we have to note that an even larger portion love Obama, but I digress.)

But pretty much everyone else in the country hates Hillary Clinton. They're not just indifferent to her. They don't just have a distaste for her. They hate her.

Look at her negatives. Every time she opens her mouth, they only go up.

Posted by SDinIA | May 23, 2008 10:28 AM

Matt, it seems to me that this "there are talks" story is being pushed by the Hillary camp after giordano reported at The Field that she had asked, and he said no.

http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=1248

Posted by taricha | May 23, 2008 10:29 AM

I understand that it's not unusual for the eunuchs to hold a remarkable amount of power in the imperial court

The eunuchs are a perennial presence in government. Obama will have his own eunuchs and the peasants are not going to burn the Topkapi to the ground. The idea is that by introducing some instability to the Courtyard of the Eunuchs, the new incumbents will feel some need to placate the peasants by doing what we want.

(I alter the image to the Ottoman court because I think eunuchs were a bigger part of government there than in China, though I know nothing of imperial China.)

I don't think picking a non-Hillary woman makes any sense.

I agree

Posted by Marshall | May 23, 2008 10:30 AM

I see no reason to do anything but take her at her word.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice...

Americans love Hillary Clinton

No, they don't. Hillary Clinton's unfavorable ratings are still in the 40-45% range, higher than Obama or McCain.

Posted by Scott de B. | May 23, 2008 10:30 AM

Americans love Hillary Clinton, and particularly Americans in key swing states.

Um, no. A sizable portion of Democrats love Hillary Clinton. (Of course, we have to note that an even larger portion love Obama, but I digress.)

But pretty much everyone else in the country hates Hillary Clinton. They're not just indifferent to her. They don't just have a distaste for her. They hate her.

Look at her negatives. Every time she opens her mouth, they only go up.

Posted by SDinIA | May 23, 2008 10:31 AM

Americans love Hillary Clinton, and particularly Americans in key swing states.

Um, no. A sizable portion of Democrats love Hillary Clinton. (Of course, we have to note that an even larger portion love Obama, but I digress.)

But pretty much everyone else in the country hates Hillary Clinton. They're not just indifferent to her. They don't just have a distaste for her. They hate her.

Look at her negatives. Every time she opens her mouth, they only go up.

Posted by SDinIA | May 23, 2008 10:32 AM

"Death before Dishonor"

Posted by Don Williams | May 23, 2008 10:34 AM

HRC does not want to be on Obama's losing ticket.
He'll not be able to enlist anyone stronger than a second rate pol like Richardson or Sibelius.
HRC does want to garner as many votes and delegates as possible going into the convention. I personally hope she mounts as strong a challenge as possible to Hussein both on the floor and off. That is after all the very essence of democratic politics though I am not surprised that Obama and the Fascist Left has a problem with democracy.
Why should HRC not continue to challenge BHO? The outcome of the vote in PR is not going to affect or effect Obama's loss in the GE.
No doubt the Obabots will be blaming her and everyone else in November as they scurry away from the hail of "told you so" and their stupendous failure but nobody is going to listen to the losers. Just ask John Kerry... or better, the BreckBoy has really shown his power now hasn't he? Matt and his BBF Andy can add another laurel to their crowns of "wrong about"...
And with any luck the AA's will riot in the streets over Hussein's loss. With their endemic racism and antiSemitism it is far past time to cut them loose and allow them to seek a home with the Rethugicans... that will be fun to watch!

So given that Obama will lose to McCain why should HRC not seek to maximize her position within the party and solidify her supporters and place in the party? She and Bill will do far more to elect Dems down ticket than Obama can.
The Obabots simply fail to realize just how many of us will not vote for Obama. Period.
Nor do they calculate just how few of us it is going to require to sink their Hussein.
And that will be fitting payback for the racist, homophobic, misogynist, and supremely dishonest campaign that Hussein has run.
Four years of Granpa Munster with a strengthened Dem Congress will be a very very small price to pay.

Posted by JTHB | May 23, 2008 10:36 AM

What's JTHB stand for? Justin Timberlake's Hot Balls? Jesus Totally Hates Blacks?

Thanks for today's missive from the loony bin.

Posted by tinisoli | May 23, 2008 10:44 AM

I think Obama would be a fool to let Hillary aboard his ticket.

The problem isn't so much Hillary, as it is Hillary and Bill combined.

If Hillary's the veep nominee, then we can expect that, at random times during the fall, Bill or Hillary or the interaction between the two will pull the spotlight away from Obama. If it happens more than once or twice, it will start to look to the voters like Obama's not in charge of his own ticket.

And he won't be.

Obama's a very perceptive guy. He surely can see that coming.

So if there's a way to get down a bet against Hillary's being on the ticket, at whatever odds the bookmakers have these days, show me where, so I can put down some money.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | May 23, 2008 10:45 AM

Matt, think of this: Obama wins with a different veep (not Clinton), is reelected, and then the heir apparent does his/her job and secures the 2016 nod. He/she wins; reelected, etc. etc. Granted, this scenario is an unlikely Dem fantasy, but the point is if she doesn't get her spot now, this could very very easily be her last shot. I think that's why Bill is out there pushing a Clinton veep nod almost without regard to whether she *wants* it.

Posted by Mike | May 23, 2008 10:46 AM

JTHB

'racist' - as you refer to him repeatedly as Hussein, is good, but the homophobic slur is the best - has the Huma Abedin story leaked?

I think Obama is the only one with an active gay 'story' against him, ridiculous as it is.

Though if they thought it would be believed, I'm sure HRC would get Bill to say he sucked Obama dry.

Posted by James | May 23, 2008 10:46 AM

But pretty much everyone else in the country hates Hillary Clinton. They're not just indifferent to her. They don't just have a distaste for her. They hate her.

No, they don't. Face reality.

She's killing McCain in Ohio and Florida. Her EC map is excellent.

A lot of rightwingers who would never vote Democratic, and a bunch of blog commenters who have blown minor differences into existential conflicts (on both sides) hate Clinton, but Americans like her.

Posted by DivGuy | May 23, 2008 10:47 AM

"Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say, 'What should be the reward of such sacrifices?'

Bid us and our posterity bow the knee, supplicate the friendship, and plough, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood and hunt us from the face of the earth?

If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, go from us in peace.

We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!"
--Samuel Adams

Posted by Don Williams | May 23, 2008 10:48 AM

"God DAMM it , NO!

I'm TIRED of taking shit from inferior people.

When I got out of the Marine Corps, I SWORE that
I would never again let myself be fucked over by morons."

--- Nick Nolte, "Who'll Stop the Rain"

Posted by Don Williams | May 23, 2008 10:52 AM

If "Bill is out there pushing a Clinton veep nod" the others (Hillary, Ickes, etc) are doing everything they can to undermined his efforts.

Posted by bjd | May 23, 2008 10:53 AM

She doesn't want VP. If Obama loses, she can be blamed for bringing high negatives, and won't be nominated in 2012. If he wins, she can't run in 2012 - either Obama runs, or he's so unpopular it eliminates all hope his VP could win. In 2016 she'll be 69. This was her one and only year to be elected president.

The best bet is to make a deal to support her as senate majority leader. It is a position of real power, unlike VP. She could campaign for Obama without her high negatives being put on the ballot. She has demonstrated great popularity in many states, and influence with large fundraisers/donors, indicating an ability to influence statewide elections which are not just for the electoral college, but also for senators. If there's a disaster, she can run in 2012 unencumbered.

If Obama can get his supporters in the Senate to confide in Hillary that they will support her as majority leader in 2009, she'll go for it.

This deal does not need to be made anytime soon. If Clinton's popularity vanishes after June 3, and Obama polls well among her supporters, she can be ignored.

Posted by Njorl | May 23, 2008 10:54 AM

Why Hillary should not be VP:

From "Head of State"

http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/05/head-of-state-reasons-that-hillary.html

Friday, May 23, 2008

Head of State: The Reasons That Hillary Should Not Be Vice President

Regarding Hillary Clinton as Barack Obama's running mate:

Originally, this seemed to be a potentially plausible choice--and if presented in the following way, could turn her divisive campaign into a potential coup as a VP candidate. The thinking was the following:

Hillary has run a divisive campaign. Now, just as the nation should mend its divisions in favor a greater unity that would serve the greater needs of our country, so now they would explicitly put these divisions behind them, in the interests of the unity that this nation, after a bitter and divisive Administration, is so in need of. This would serve as a powerful and vibrant example of the very ability to unify that Obama both offers and represents.

However, this would require a candidate that was willing to take such a position of relative shared selflessness in the interests of a greater good--while the Vice Presidency certainly offers its honors (now far beyond the "warm pitcher" of John Vance Garner's famous phrase) and positioning for later Presidential aspirations, such a plan would require the ability to think in terms of a shared effort based on the betterment of the nation, rather than in more grasping, combative and singular terms.

The Clinton camp's behavior over this past week has made such a positive scenario clearly untenable, showcasing the same characteristics that have signified her campaign throughout its long, chaotic, march--its contradictions of previous statements when such changes have a slight possibility of adding a week or two of vitality, its sudden and implausible use of populists guises and specious historical parallels for transparently opportunistic purposes, its near-hallucinogenic transmogrifications of personality and central bases for further continuation,
and the central campaign tendency to place personal attainment over virtually all values that lay in its path.

These characteristics--self over nation, positioning over a consistent presentation of position, values and even self, the willingness to put personal viability over the need to transcend and transform the vast wreckage of state and international relations that remain at this critical time--are as present now, at a moment when wisdom rather than a remorseless, obdurate desperation could fill this gap, as they have been throughout much of the campaign. They would continue to make themselves present during a campaign for vice president, complicating, diminishing and often distracting, in trivial internecine battles, the message of unity and change.

Perhaps Clinton could adopt a more unifying and integrated and less grasping position on the VP subject. However, thus far, the actions of the Clinton camp have made it clear: It's time to clean the slate. Hillary Clinton should not be the Vice Presidential candidate.

Cite:

Head of State

http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/05/head-of-state-reasons-that-hillary.html

Posted by Robert Hewson | May 23, 2008 10:55 AM

I want expand on what Divguy said. Could it be that after seeing the EC maps, the Obama campaign realized that HRC neesds to be placed on the ticket?

Posted by Micheline | May 23, 2008 10:55 AM

JHTB has got to be a sock puppet. Nobody would make such an ass out of themselves. (well, over the course of many posts, Petey did, but all at once? Never!)

Posted by mpowell | May 23, 2008 10:56 AM

JTHB:

"That is after all the very essence of democratic politics though I am not surprised that Obama and the Fascist Left has a problem with democracy."

How did you learn that we're Fascist? Was it the super secret code signal / gang sign, dusting off the shoulder?

I think Marshall hit on something:

Hmmm, I do not think Hillary is as powerful as she thinks. If Obama can just wait a couple of weeks until Hillary has officially and irrevocably LOST the primary, I think that a Hillary-supporting movement that looks at least somewhat dynamic and cohesive right this second will drift apart very quickly. Hillary will be just another politician who lost.

Like at the beginning of the primary, Hillary is all bluff. All bark, no bite. (Remember she came in third in Iowa.) Obama is smart and knows this. It is a big deal that a woman came within strking distance of the Presidency and Obama should mention this positively. (But not that big, i.e. Thatcher, Merkel, lady in Argentina, etc.) Turning the page on the Bush years and the Clinton years is one of Obama's themes, so I don't see him picking her.

He should pick Edwards. Or put Edwards in as AG, since he endorsed Obama when he didn't have to.

Posted by Peter K. | May 23, 2008 10:58 AM

Look at where Hillary's won -- it's Appalachia.

Because that isolated area is the only place where news of her treachery and deceit has not reached yet.

The problem there is not racism -- it's cultural.
She's pretended to share their values. If the people there really knew what Hillary was, they would be inclined to string her up from an oak rather than to vote for her. They are merciless when they discover they have been lied to. And the Republicans sure as shit have been lying to them.

I keep telling you -- Jesse Jackson has campaigned in that area as part of his Rainbow Coalition. Obama needs to talk with Jesse. Obama can carry Kentucky and West Virginia --or at least make it a fight -- if he makes an effort.
He may want to use some surrogates -- Jim Webb would be excellent.

Posted by Don Williams | May 23, 2008 11:03 AM

Part of the problem that her supporters (i.e., major donors) don't seem to see is that this nomination was over long ago. By the time of her big loss in Wisconsin it was mathematically impossible for her to win, so she made the case to the donors that she believed she could get the SDs to go her way. Apparently many of them believed her, despite the common sense that tells you SDs are not going to overturn the elected delegates. So they've held on to hope far longer than they should have and are now looking for what they believe is the next best thing.

I do think Clinton wants it; there is no way WJC would be out there talking about it being a good idea if she wasn't behind the idea herself. Obama has to figure out another role for her that she'd like, and then it needs to be leaked that Obama offered her the VP job but Clinton turned it down. Because putting her on the ticket would be a disaster.

Posted by evie | May 23, 2008 11:07 AM

Marshall,

I absolutely agree that Obama has his own eunuchs (well, he seems to have hired on Daschle's head eunuch, but I guess he's Obama's now). I also doubt very, very much that anything will be done to disturb the Court as an institution -- I think there's a very small, but not incalculable chance that Obama's campaign organization could mount that kind of threat once Obama's in office. It's large and organized enough to do it. I'd give that about a 1-in-50 chance of happening.

Posted by Pesto | May 23, 2008 11:08 AM

No, they don't. Face reality.

She's killing McCain in Ohio and Florida. Her EC map is excellent.

Purest bullshit. Her negatives have gone past 50% a couple of times during the primary, and they're always high. Americans love Democrats right now, but some aren't entirely comfortable with an African-American, or want a woman. Obama's not going to turn white if Clinton joins the ticket, and there are, in the Democratic party, a number of strong white female candidates. But the evidence of sustained commitment to HRC, specifically, is non-existent, as far as I can tell.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | May 23, 2008 11:09 AM

Here is an article about Jesse Jackson campaigning in eastern Kentucky in the 1980s.

http://thephoenix.com/article_ektid57637.aspx

Posted by Don Williams | May 23, 2008 11:09 AM

I can't imagine a person with intelligence and AGE wanting the VP position. Cheney is simply being paid by the country to be Cheney: the king's bunghole. The role of the VP hasn't broadened. It's still a do-nothing, no-power position. A president with a different relationship with the VP can still, and probably will, treat the VP like a dog in quarantine.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | May 23, 2008 11:20 AM

Americans love Democrats right now, but some aren't entirely comfortable with an African-American, or want a woman.

I find that really unlikely. The simplest explanation for Clinton's polling success is that people like her.

A solid chunk of Clinton's negatives is composed of people like the commenters here, who would of course vote for an Obama/Clinton ticket. Her negatives (like Obama's) are inflated by the primary.

I don't know if Clinton wants the VP. I find pretty convincing the arguments that it's not the best career choice. But if she wants it, she deserves it, and she'd be the best choice for the party and for Obama. (her or Sherrod Brown.)

Posted by DivGuy | May 23, 2008 11:24 AM

I just don't see it.

I see Jim Webb as being a much stronger VP candidate, and Senate Majority leader as being a job that is much better for Clinton - unlike the VP it has actual power, and she'd be able to influence policy much more.

Why that would be good for either side is beyond me.

Posted by justaguy | May 23, 2008 11:28 AM

People have forgotten how Jesse Jackson scared the shit out of the Democratic leadership -- the DLC was largely formed to "keep the Party safe for white people". The leaders threw their support to Mondale in 1984 and Dukakis in 1988 --and went down to humiliating defeats.

THAT was NOT driven by the white votes of Appalachia. From http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040802/wypijewski/3

"Jackson likes to recount a story from 1989, about a visit to Camp Solidarity in Virginia, where miners were in the midst of the historic Pittston strike. They were, for the most part, large men, white, partial to camouflage, 10,000 strong. Jackson thought they looked pretty fierce. Rich Trumka, then president of the United Mine Workers, told them, "Y'all probably wondering why Jesse Jackson is here. Last year we were told to be scared of him. And this year the folks we gave our money to are nowhere to be seen. So I want you to ask yourselves, Which would you rather have, a black friend or a white enemy?"

It was a question other Southern white trade unionists had raised during the campaigns with their memberships, many of them Reagan Democrats. As elsewhere, the miners listened and responded enthusiastically. Jackson always maintained that a progressive candidate could reach such Democrats with straight talk, empathy, class-angled economics and an appeal to common human values--what veteran activist Anne Braden, who'd organized Rainbow rallies in Appalachia that drew thousands of poor white nonvoters or registered Republicans, called "appealing to the best instincts of Southern whites as opposed to the worst, which is what Bill Clinton played to."

The Pittston story provokes a question now. After all the energy, vision, galvanizing presence and new voters Jackson brought to the scene, can it be said that the party and established progressive institutions answered in the same way as the plain people? Or did they, perhaps, prefer the white enemy to the black friend? "

Posted by Don Williams | May 23, 2008 11:29 AM

I find that really unlikely. The simplest explanation for Clinton's polling success is that people like her.

Why? Because your nipples are twitching? She's not the sort of candidate who inspires deep personal commitment in a broad swath of the population. She's just not that charismatic. We have, however, seen people indicate that they're not comfortable with an African-American, and her supporters have been (quite reasonably) banging the "It's time for a woman" drum loudly and consistently.

A solid chunk of Clinton's negatives is composed of people like the commenters here, who would of course vote for an Obama/Clinton ticket. Her negatives (like Obama's) are inflated by the primary.

Past 50%. I'm sure MY's numbers look good, but I'd be surprised if they comprise 50% of the US population. (If so, he needs a significant raise.) Nor is it clear that a Clinton supporter who would vote for Obama/Clinton wouldn't vote for Obama/Sebelius or Obama/Webb.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | May 23, 2008 11:37 AM

I don't know if Clinton wants the VP. I find pretty convincing the arguments that it's not the best career choice. But if she wants it, she deserves it, and she'd be the best choice for the party and for Obama. (her or Sherrod Brown.)

That's crazy. She's the best choice for the party? You sound like that asshole Petey. She'd inflame and motivate the Republican right-wing who hate her and will always hate her because they believe she's a Communist and because Bill Clinton messed around with an intern which is unforgivable. A lot of democrats like her because the Republican rightwing hates her. The enemy of my enemy.

I see this ending after the last primary. Clinton actively worked to undermine the Democratic nominee and hope a lot of people don't forget that.

Posted by Peter K. | May 23, 2008 11:37 AM

This fight between Obama and Hillary has been going on for a long time -- and Hillary will betray Appalachia just as Bill Clinton did. And like Bill Clinton, she will betray African Americans. That is what we have in common.

From http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040802/wypijewski/5

"In the spring of '89, Al From, intellectual architect of the Democratic Leadership Council, paid a visit to Governor Clinton in Little Rock. Unlike progressive forces, the backlash Democrats recognized the utility of a charismatic candidate, and of starting early. For 1984 they'd won rules changes, introducing the concept of "superdelegates" to shift power from party activists to elected officials. Jackson managed to negotiate limits on those delegates in 1984. The next year the DLC formally constituted itself. For '88 it advocated one big Southern primary, Super Tuesday, to secure the nomination, it expected, for a white conservative. Jackson swept Super Tuesday, besting the DLC's favorite son, Al Gore. When Jackson then took 54 percent of the vote in Michigan, what appeared in tantalizing prospect was a new party paradigm--neither the New Deal alliance of Northern liberals, blue collars and Jim Crow, nor post-McGovern liberalism with its smorgasbord of interests and its white elite firmly in charge of portion-control. Party liberals had a choice; they chose reaction.

As outlined in Kenneth Baer's Reinventing Democrats, From and Co. were straightforward about rolling back the party to its pre-civil rights past, where the issue of "special interests" would be submerged for the goal of winning, and winning would mean reinstituting what Congressman Jackson calls the "Democratic Legacy of the Confederacy." In the run-up to the 1992 race, Clinton's people, as recounted in Marshall Frady's book Jesse, would confer with old Mondale hands asking, "Why did you guys give so much to Jackson? You shouldn't've got pushed around like that." The iconic image of '92 would be Clinton and Senator Sam Nunn posing at Stone Mountain, Georgia, the graven images of the Confederacy's heroes looming in the background, and in the middle distance, a group of black prisoners. "

Posted by Don Williams | May 23, 2008 11:48 AM

She'd inflame and motivate the Republican right-wing who hate her and will always hate her because they believe she's a Communist and because Bill Clinton messed around with an intern which is unforgivable.

This appears to be the evidence-free community. Hillary Clinton has been around for decades. Her polling numbers are very strong. She is what she is, and you're just going to have to face the facts that Americans like her.

You have chosen to dislike her for tribal reasons, and chosen to ignore the vast majority of issues on which she and Obama stand on the same side in order to hate her for process/personality reasons. It's pathetic. This whole commentership has lost its bearings.

By the way, "you sound like that asshole", too, Peter.

Posted by DivGuy | May 23, 2008 11:51 AM

that Americans like her.

Again, based on what? Her negative numbers being pushed past 50% Maybe Obama could ask Bush to be his VP. His negatives are even worse.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | May 23, 2008 11:55 AM

1) The above Nation article sums up what the Clinton Administration brought to grassroots Democrats:

"By a brisk accounting, the black stripe of the Rainbow got the crime bill, women got "welfare reform," labor got NAFTA, gays and lesbians got DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act).

Even with a Democratic Congress in the early years, the peace crowd got no cuts in the military; unions got no help on the right to organize; advocates of DC statehood, which would virtually guarantee more Democrats in Congress, got nothing.

None of them fought together, if they fought at all. On affirmative action, Jackson had to threaten Clinton privately with an independent run in 1996 before the President declared, "Mend it, don't end it."

Marable points out that between Clinton's inaugural and the day he left office, some 650,000 more people were incarcerated; today one in eight black men is barred from voting because of prison, probation or parole. "Talk about amputating your base," he says. Ideologically, however, it was not Clinton's base, the DLC base, that was attacked. It was Jackson's base, the Rainbow base."

2) And Appalachia? Appalachia took a severe economic hit during the Clinton Administration.
And the ONLY Democratic politican who gave a shit was Jesse Jackson:

"The day that Ronald Reagan died, Jackson was preparing for a barnstorm through Appalachia. There was a telling symmetry about it. Twenty years ago, as Reagan lashed out at "welfare queens" and projected a fantasyland America, Jackson was in those same hills and hollows, pressing against the flesh and suffered facts of the real thing. It was the children of Appalachia about whom Reagan had said, Let them eat ketchup! and whom America today has sent to kill and die in Iraq. "Why are we going to Appalachia?" Jackson said. "Because that's where our soul is." Our shame, too; along with the Black Belt South, it is the region with the most unemployment, the poorest people, the sickest people, the most persistent underdevelopment, whichever party holds power and however prosperous the time. Urging "Reinvest in America" and co-sponsored by a host of unions that never put their names to a Rainbow campaign, the tour was Third Force all over again, including the blackout from a press gorging on the myth of Reagan, man of the people. "

Posted by Don Williams | May 23, 2008 11:57 AM

Again, based on what? Her negative numbers being pushed past 50%

And yet she's beating McCain and killing him in the EC. Those negatives are clearly inflated by Obama fans who ain't voting against Obama, regardless of VP.

Posted by DivGuy | May 23, 2008 12:00 PM

No way. She is self-serving and not a team player. And too "old-style" Republican.(Eisenhower was more liberal!)

Put her on the supreme court. For life! Where she will have plenty to fight about. She would be a match for Scalia.

Posted by Lee in Minneapolis | May 23, 2008 12:07 PM

And yet she's beating McCain and killing him in the EC.

Which, as I said, may well indicate that people don't like Republicans, and some of them aren't comfortable with African-Americans or a man. Obama's still going to be a black guy on an Obama/Clinton ticket. Generic Dems are killing generic Republicans, after all, and Dems are winning special elections in red states.

Those negatives are clearly inflated by Obama fans who ain't voting against Obama, regardless of VP.

You seem to be making an argument that she wouldn't harm the ticket. That's different from arguing that she would help the ticket. I'd love to see polling numbers--in a world in which name recognition, etc. didn't matter--comparing an Obama/Clinton ticket to an Obama/Sebelius ticket to an Obama/Webb ticket to an Obama/Gore ticket.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | May 23, 2008 12:14 PM

And yet she's beating McCain and killing him in the EC.

What is your evidence for this? FiveThirtyEight.com currently shows Clinton projecting to narrowly beat McCain in the EC, but also projects Obama to beat McCain in the EC, with a somewhat different combination of states.

Posted by Jestak | May 23, 2008 12:36 PM

SomeCallMeTim:

The reality is whether Clinton is chosen as VP or not some accommodation has to be made. As it stands now Clinton has won the actual votes of a roughly equal number of Democrats as Obama, and may well win the popular vote on every measure after PR votes in June. She will command almost half of the delegates to the convention in Denver (about 47-48%). Ted Kennedy took his candidacy to the convention in 1980 with far fewer votes and far fewer delegates than Clinton has now.

Obama supporters have to wrap their head around the idea that this was basically a 50/50 result, with Obama ultimately winning by the slightest of margins, and that Clinton (and more importantly, her millions of supporters) ARE OWED THIS. There has never been an argument for a unity ticket as strong as this year in the Democratic race.

If Obama and his people are so strongly against choosing her then they better put their thinking caps on and come up with a consolation prize (ie. majority leader, campaign debt gone, top convention speaking slot).

Posted by Tim K | May 23, 2008 12:51 PM

The problem is that if Clinton strong-arms Obama into putting her on the ticket, then the nominee looks week -- and, moreover, he looks week before *Hillary Clinton*, who is despised by large numbers of people. That's a bad, bad way for your first decision as nominee to go.

Another problem is that Clinton has not, in fact, and despite her protests to the contrary, been vetted. Because Clinton-baiting is poisonous in a democratic primary, most of the potential scandals lurking around her have not been thoroughly dealt with (not only stuff from the 90s, but questions about Bill's more recent business connections.) Putting her as VP because she feels she deserves it means bypassing the vetting process. That could hurt the ticket badly in November.

Finally, and for me most importantly, I think that this campaign season has shown very clearly why Clinton would be a horrible president. Her intransigence, her inability to compromise, and her inability to admit error led her to screw up health care in the 90s, and to vote for a disasterous war. I had vaguely hoped that she had learned something from those debacles, but the administrative and strategic mess that is her campaign has made it clear that that is not the case. The thought of her as President terrifies me -- even more than the thought of McCain as President, to tell you the truth. Obama shouldn't put her on the ticket because he might die.

Posted by NoahB | May 23, 2008 1:01 PM

NoahB:

You clearly despise Hillary Clinton, so your views aren't exactly representative of the nearly half of Democrats who wanted to make her president, or the voters in swing states who would choose her over McCain.

Posted by Tim K | May 23, 2008 1:05 PM

Would people think that Obama will pick another naïve and inexperience candidate like himself? Most likely, he will pick a candidate with experience. Experience, by definition, means that this person has had to be part of the Washington’s crowd for some time. So, why is this ok for the party instead of Clinton?
If Obama picks another Washington politician instead of Clinton then it clearly demonstrates that he only wants to surround himself with less qualified people than Clinton; if he has more confidence in himself then he should pick the obvious candidate whom half of the democrats has voted soundly for as the best qualified presidential candidate.
If Obama is as smart as he claims then he should run, not walk, to Clinton and make his offer on his knees. Without Clinton, he has no chance to win.

Posted by vote4thebest | May 23, 2008 1:07 PM

Just to highlight my point -

Gallup's daily tracking poll shows Clinton once again closing the gap with Obama in the preferences of Democratic voters... he (the presumptive nominee for all intents and purposes) only bests her by 7%.

Also, the poll shows Obama tied national with McCain, while Clinton leads by 5%.

Posted by Tim K | May 23, 2008 1:10 PM

Does anyone know why this would be…If you look at Hillary’s contributions by state she received 7,709,576.28 from District of Columbia this month. Going back and checking previous months shows that, by state, DC is always far and away her biggest contributer with millions each month.

At first I thought maybe her campaign headquarters were there, so money without a state listed would be from there but a. there already is a “no state listed” column and b. she moved her campaign headquarters from DC to Arlington, VA last year.

Looking specifically at the Obama donations month by month he never even breaks a million from DC. And, while he consistently gets big money from large states, there’s not one state that’s an outlier each month.

It can’t be her loans, they said the numbers didn’t include her loan and the state figures add up to the $22 mil. So if individual contribution limits are $2,300 and DC’s population is somewhere around 590,000, how can it be that this month, as well as the past 3 she keeps bringing in millions upon millions of contributions from the DC area?

I know this is ripe for snark, but I’m really curious as to how this is. There has to be a reason, these are public numbers so I doubt I unearthed something scandalous. I’m just confused as to how this could be.

Posted by SMS | May 23, 2008 1:14 PM

Does anyone know why this would be…If you look at Hillary’s contributions by state she received 7,709,576.28 from District of Columbia this month. Going back and checking previous months shows that, by state, DC is always far and away her biggest contributer with millions each month.

At first I thought maybe her campaign headquarters were there, so money without a state listed would be from there but a. there already is a “no state listed” column and b. she moved her campaign headquarters from DC to Arlington, VA last year.

Looking specifically at the Obama donations month by month he never even breaks a million from DC. And, while he consistently gets big money from large states, there’s not one state that’s an outlier each month.

It can’t be her loans, they said the numbers didn’t include her loan and the state figures add up to the $22 mil. So if individual contribution limits are $2,300 and DC’s population is somewhere around 590,000, how can it be that this month, as well as the past 3 she keeps bringing in millions upon millions of contributions from the DC area?

I know this is ripe for snark, but I’m really curious as to how this is. There has to be a reason, these are public numbers so I doubt I unearthed something scandalous. I’m just confused as to how this could be.

Posted by SMS | May 23, 2008 1:15 PM

If Obama chooses a VP that the Neocons prefer, he will be assassinated. They have had eight years to corrupt the Secret Service.

Posted by Gary Sugar | May 23, 2008 1:17 PM

Hey Tim. I do dislike Hillary, it's true. Would never vote for her for anything. Voted for her husband once and have regretted it ever since. I think my first two points (Obama's look weak if he chose her at this point, and she's unlikely to survive a thorough vetting process) stand despite that, though.

Also, Obama does fine against McCain in national polling (a SurveyUSA poll just showed him beating McCain handily in Ohio.) And if he wants experience, there are many people he could go to who have more than Clinton (Sebellius, for example, actually has executive experience, which Clinton does not.)

Obviously, lots of people in the Democratic party like Clinton. That doesn't necessarily or automatically make her the best of all possible vps for many reasons (among them being that many, many people outside the Democratic party loathe her.) Obama's already said she's on his short list, and I don't think he dislikes her as much as I do. So, you know, maybe he'll choose her. But he doesn't need her on the ticket -- *unless she decides to put her own ambition above the good of the party.* If she decides to hold the party hostage to her own election as VP...well, I don't think it'll work, but things could get messy. Ultimately, though, I think Obama would still win in the fall.

This isn't much talked about, but one of the ways democracy works is that the loser agrees that he or she has lost. It's one of the most important parts of the system.

Posted by NoahB | May 23, 2008 1:24 PM

I think he has to ask. If he doesn't, he risks alienating her supporters. But if asked, she has to say yes. If she doesn't it signals that she doesn't fully support him. My gut feeling is that he doesn't want her and she doesn't want the job, but it's going to happen anyway.

Posted by dan | May 23, 2008 1:27 PM

Let me preface this by saying that I am a fairly moderate liberal. Also, I don't usually buy into conspiracy theories of any kind. But if Obama chooses HRC as his running mate, the odds of him meeting an early demise drastically increase. I'm not sure if Gary Sugar was joking, because I know a lot of people make light hearted jokes about this, but I sincerely believe it is something to take into account.

Posted by Ted2 | May 23, 2008 1:28 PM

I've seen you, Josh Marshall, I'm not sure who else, argue repeatedly that it doesn't make sense that Hillary would prefer the vice presidency to remaining senator.

To you, maybe--I think you all are thinking like yourselves, and not really putting yourself in Clinton's shoes.

I think we can all agree that Hillary really really wants to be president. But why? This is where things get murky and dangerous, but here goes anyway. Let's say that the commentators assume that people want to be president because it's a powerful position and one can get one's will enacted to a large degree (at least in theory) and it comes with a great deal of prestige etc. I assume this is partly Hillary's reason as well. But here is what I also believe (with no definitive proof). Hillary's quest for the presidency is also a competition. It's a competition with Bill, surely...and by that token it's got to hurt that she won't be able to tie him (I don't know how she can beat him unless they come up with an Empress of the planet position). However, I ALSO believe that it's something of a competition with other women. There have been other female heads of state in other countries--and in the U.S. other women have been senators, held cabinet positions, and now speaker of the house. But no woman in the U.S. has been president OR vice president. Only Ferraro has even been the nominee for vice president. If you are an insanely competitive person (which I believe Hillary is, although she's not the only one at that level of politics), although staying in the senate looks like a good deal on paper, on another level it's abject failure.

Posted by JMS | May 23, 2008 1:29 PM

How many death threats does Obama get in a day--20? 50?

I imagine he'll look for a VP whose ideology is as similar as possible to his own.

Posted by Sean | May 23, 2008 1:59 PM

In fact the Democratic party doesn't work that where, where loses admit they have lost.

The proportional representation delegate allocation rules meant that the clear loser of California, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York (states that have been decisive in virtually all past contests) was still given enough consolation delegates to stay in the race. If the system were either winner-take-all or winner-take-MORE Clinton would have won this race, probably on Super Tuesday, maybe by Texas and Ohio, or by Pennsylvania at the latest.

These are allocation rules that give extra delegates to districts that Democrats win by overwhelming margins. Is that a smart strategy for choosing the most electable nominee?

Posted by Tim K | May 23, 2008 2:36 PM

If Hillary Clinton is widely seen to be demanding the Vice Presidency--a meme that I think has already taken hold thanks to the NYTimes reporting--then I don't see how Obama can give it to her. It weakens him, undercuts his message, and leaves him with all the same vulnerabilities he had before.

Paris is worth a mass, but Britons never ever ever shall be slaves.

Posted by southpaw | May 23, 2008 2:39 PM

southpaw:

I think Obama supporters have to decide what they want more, 1) to kick Hillary Clinton to the curb out of spite, or 2) to win in November.

The action that best ensures winning the general election is selecting Senator Clinton as the party's nominee, but short of that it is choosing her as Vice-Presidential nominee, and short of that bringing her onside in the campaign in the most gracious and respectful way possible.

The Senator said it best during her interview with the Sioux Falls editorial board just now. She can show you the map where she gets past 270 electoral vote... just show us the map where Obama get's to 270 (with evidence from the available data, rather than hope and speculation).

Posted by Tim K | May 23, 2008 2:45 PM

The Senator said it best during her interview with the Sioux Falls editorial board just now. She can show you the map where she gets past 270 electoral vote... just show us the map where Obama get's to 270 (with evidence from the available data, rather than hope and speculation).

No problem. It's right there at the top of the right column.

You forgot to link to your map.

The action that best ensures winning the general election is selecting Senator Clinton as the party's nominee, but short of that it is choosing her as Vice-Presidential nominee, and short of that bringing her onside in the campaign in the most gracious and respectful way possible.

Again, I can appreciate that you feel this way. But we've talked ourselves blue in face explaining why it isn't true (baggage, past vs. future, base activation on the right, lack of balance on the ticket). Obama has work to do in unifying the party, but using the VP slot to do that work is not a good idea. The VP pick should look forward to the general election, not backward to a difficult primary.

Posted by southpaw | May 23, 2008 2:57 PM

southpaw:

I'm not very technical, but the superior Clinton map is right below your map. There is also one at www.electoral-vote.com that shows Obama losing but Clinton winning.

If all the things you say are true then why is Clinton beating McCain in Ohio, Florida, Missouri, West Virginia, Arkansas, and even Nevada in a fresh rasmussen poll, and doing better in Pennsylvania?

It shouldn't concern Democrats if the ticket is "polarizing"... I don't mind polarization along as the country is polarized with 300+ electoral votes for the Democrat.

Pablano's analysis has Obama winning Ohio's 20 electoral votes by 0.1%, which he estimates at a 50.3% chance of Obama winning it. I'm sure similar odds were given to John Kerry by some analysts in 2004. And without Ohio the only way to get Obama to 270 electoral votes is for him to thread the needle in an historical aberrational way by winning Virginia AND Colorado, or by winning back Iowa, New Mexico and Keeping New Hampshire. It's possible, but there would be virtually no margin for error.

Clinton brings over Ohio, and we're already there. Or she brings over Florida, and we're already there. Current polling gives her a comfortable margin in both. Or she wins Arkansas, West Virginia and Missouri... then she wins even if she loses New Hampshire.

Clinton's electoral map is fundamentally more sound than Obama's. It doesn't count on any states the Democrats haven't won recently and doesn't require her to come from behind.

Posted by Tim K | May 23, 2008 3:10 PM

I am with you on this Tim K, though it is right up my alley. I started suggesting a unity ticket right after super Tuesday though at the time it was Clinton/Obama. Her errors from then on made me reverse it in my mind to Obama/Clinton. I've cooled on it a little but there is one point that is very salient.

Clinton has won, whether her haters or the Obama fanatics like it or not, almost half of the party. For the good of the party and his own election prospects Obama has to offer her SOMETHING. Maybe it doesn't have to be the VP nod. But it has to be something significant. I'd think that strong backing for senate Majority leader is plausible. Supreme Court is a bit out there but perhaps? It's dicey. I just would like the Obama supports to stop dodging this point. She did almost win. If that fat weasel Penn hadn't screwed up so bad she would have won easily. (Though it's partly her own fault for not firing him). Obama has run as a big uniter, the man who'll bring people together. Well lets see some uniting or was all that just gaseous platitudes. Maybe he's only going to unite people who get along? /golfclap

Obama is going to have to pony up something more than praise or compliments. Many Clinton supporters supproted her partially because they didn't buy his talk. More talk isn't going to help. He needs to speak loudly with some action.

The corralary of course is that if Obama makes her a decent offer Hillary really SHOULD take it. Ego aside, she did loose. He owes her supporters (not necessarily her) a very strong gesture. The best available gestures are to offer her something and thus demonstrate to her supporters (almost half the party) that he's on their side too. Come on great uniter, UNITE US.

Posted by Minnesota | May 23, 2008 3:19 PM

Tim K,
I'm an Obama supporter and I'll admit that Clinton's electoral map looks a little better right now. But, there are a few key things that we are forgetting here. For starters, Obama has been battling two candidates since the beginning of February. All things considered, I think he's doing fairly well. Also, these current numbers are based on a very angry and embittered Clinton base. I wish we could assume that Hillary was a good Democrat and would enthusiastically support the winner of the nomination. Obviously, this is not an assumption we can make. So then the question becomes whether or not your two options are mutually exclusive. I don't believe they are, and I don't think most people believe they are. You act as though Hillary needs to be the VP for Obama to win in November. This is obviously insane. Also, there are a lot of good reasons to kick Hillary to the curb outside of spite. The very fact that you think that would be Obama's only reason is very telling I believe.

Posted by Stacyq | May 23, 2008 3:28 PM

If Clinton is the VP nominee how would McCain ads featuring Clinton attacking Obama's qualifications while praising McCain look?

Just as a practical matter, how would an Obama/Clinton campaign deal with that?

"Ted Kennedy took his candidacy to the convention in 1980 with far fewer votes and far fewer delegates than Clinton has now."

And how did that work out for Kennedy and Carter?

Posted by justaguy | May 23, 2008 3:28 PM

a substantial swathe of her staff ...think a "unity ticket" is now their best realistic shot at getting jobs in the executive branch

There's also a struggle for control of the party. Even if he remains Senator, Obama's influence and power have increased substantially. As President, he could really make trouble for the Clinton coterie.

And the third party rumors are intriguing, if Marhsall's wrong about the implosion of her support...

Posted by JP | May 23, 2008 3:31 PM

justaguy,
Uh, exactly. That would be the commercial right there. Just show Hillary, the Democratic VP nominee, telling the nation that the opponent has crossed the "CIC threshold," but her very own running mate has not. Its insane. She doesn't deserve shit.

Posted by Stacy | May 23, 2008 3:32 PM

Good point. If Obama can't unite a political party, where people agree on almost every issue like never before, how can you unite a country? And if Obama can't reconcile with and cooperate with Hillary and Bill Clinton, how is he going to work with Republicans like Mitch McConnell?

We (people who want to see a Democrat elected president in 2008) have to be realistic about this and assume a tough electoral map. If this election turns out to be a cake-walk for the Democrats then this discussion is purely academic and it won't matter anyways. But his supporters cannot simply assume Obama is going to skip to 270 without breaking a sweat with improbably victories in Kansas and Nebraska and North Carolina. Wouldn't that be special? Just isn't likely to ever happen.

Choosing Clinton as VP-nominee instantly places three states in play for Obama that aren't currently in play: Arkansas, West Virginia, and Florida. It also greatly enhances his chances one additional very important state: Missouri.

Any of the other VP possibilities I can think of can only put one state in place each... Webb in Virginia, McCaskill in Missori, Brown in Ohio, Nelson or Graham in Florida. But because of her personal following and the Clinton name she does it in all four places.

With Clinton on the ticket the Democrats will enter the general election with a solid chance at 347 electoral votes by my estimation. Without her, Obama look set to win about 240-250, and how is gets to 270 is a gamble.

Posted by Tim K | May 23, 2008 3:36 PM

Here are some useful numbers: 70% of Americans think Obama shares American values. 68% believe that for McCain. Only 52% believe that for Clinton. She is just not well liked. The only people who really like her are uneducated white older women in Appalachia and Taylor Marsh. Both Hillary and now Bill (who has become persona non grata among African-Americans) have negatives higher than their positives. I have yet to hear an actual reason that Sebelius would somehow be an inferior VP candidate than Clinton. She is more likeable, is more Midwestern in temperament than the more New York-ish Clinton (consider how that sunk Giuliani as well), reinforces Obama's message and Midwestern appeal, etc. Meanwhile, the GOP are praying that Clinton is VP so that they have something visceral to rally GOP support for McCain and actually get them to the polls, especially in the face of all the new voters who have registered Democratic. She has net negatives among independents, the very people a VP pick needs to attract. Also consider how many of her supporters in Appalachian primaries said they would vote for McCain over her in November. I grew up in one of the Bluest states in the nation, but I didn't hear a single person say they actually liked HRC until I heard that come out of the mouth of an older, highly-educated feminist prep school teacher around 2001.

In addition, Obama has often been shown to have a better EC map than Clinton. These things swing back and forth with the news cycle. Unless Clinton as VP is a way to control the news cycle and it's not, her map doesn't matter that much right now. Some polls have Obama winning PA and Clinton losing while Clinton wins NC and Obama loses, the very reverse of the primary.

Also, Tim K, considering you are neither an American nor a Democrat, you are owed shit for your support of HRC just because she takes more of a Likudnik line.

Posted by Reality Man | May 23, 2008 3:37 PM

I'll concede that Clinton's map looks broader right now. I think there are lots of transitory reasons for that which won't obtain in November, but that's beside the point.

Like justaguy, I have a political and strategic problems with putting Hillary Clinton on the ticket. I think it hurts Obama's ability to present his message to the voters. I don't think this opinion proceeds from ill-will toward Clinton, though I won't deny that I don't like her much at this point.

“I think that since we now know Sen. (John) McCain will be the nominee for the Republican Party, national security will be front and center in this election. We all know that. And I think it’s imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander-in-chief threshold,” the New York senator told reporters crowded into an infant’s bedroom-sized hotel conference room in Washington.

“I believe that I’ve done that. Certainly, Sen. McCain has done that and you’ll have to ask Sen. Obama with respect to his candidacy,” she said.

Calling McCain, the presumptive GOP nominee a good friend and a “distinguished man with a great history of service to our country,” Clinton said, “Both of us will be on that stage having crossed that threshold. That is a critical criterion for the next Democratic nominee to deal with.”

I just don't see Obama picking her. Instead of a bump, he'd get two months of people calling him a wuss and dredging up all her old attacks.

Posted by southpaw | May 23, 2008 3:42 PM

"Any of the other VP possibilities I can think of can only put one state in place each... Webb in Virginia, McCaskill in Missori, Brown in Ohio, Nelson or Graham in Florida. But because of her personal following and the Clinton name she does it in all four places."

How do you know this to be true? They haven't campaigned nationally, so they haven't been as exposed to the rest of the nation, but that doesn't mean they couldn't easily have wider appeal. After all, Clinton had to buy a house in deep-blue New York State to get into the Senate. If we're going to go by current polling, the most popular combination is actually Obama-Edwards. Her negatives bring too much baggage.

She also has never actually been hit by the right wing in a campaign in a purple state. Obama couldn't attack her from the right without suffering a large backlash among women, but McCain won't be afraid to. Putting her on the ticket will make the media narrative about her, her negatives and whatever fool thing next comes out of Bill's mouth. Having to constantly apologize for things your VP and their spouse say (after all, she has a history of pissing off random people for no reason, such as the "baking cookies" comment) defeats the whole purpose of having them as VP. The VP is supposed to be an attack dog, not a source of controversy in and of themselves.

Posted by Reality Man | May 23, 2008 3:45 PM

There really is something pathological about the Hillary haters on this blog. The ire and demand for 100% agreement reminds of the sort of thing you see at little green footballs or lucianne. Hillary is pure evil and anyone who doesn't agree is a troll or "just like that asshole Petey." Nice, guys.

There are many liberals who hate Hillary so much that they are absolutely certain that their own hate has seeped from their pores in a massive flood and been soaked up by everyone else in the country. Sure 20 to 30 percent of the country hates her, just like 20 to 30 percent hate every single major Democratic politician of the past 50 years or so. But if you care at all about facts, look at the polling. Tim K is making a lot of sense and people who care about reality rather than their own sad prejudices should take what he says seriously.

That said, I think the argument that Hillary's appearance on the ticket will translate into improved electoral performance for Obama is fairly slim. There is little evidence that VP selection has much impact at all on results. People vote the top of the ticket. I'm far from convinced that having HRC on the ticket will do more good than simply having her vigorously campaigning where she's popular.

I also doubt that she actually wants to be VP. I sincerely don't see what's in it for her.

It really would be amazing and sad if the Democrats succeeded, in a year that favored a dramatic political realignment in their favor, to select the one candidate who can't win.

Posted by Rob Mac | May 23, 2008 3:47 PM

southpaw:

You make valid points, and I appreciate you don't come across as a Clinton-hating fanatic like Reality Man and others.

What I find telling is the extent to which Hillary Clinton appears to be largely reconstituting the electoral map that re-elected her husband in 1996. Is that simply the name? people associating Bill and Hillary as one? Or is it the appeal of their similar message and political philosophy to certain groups of Americans? It's unknowable. But it's also undeniable that she looks formidable in Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania, which I still maintain are the three most important states for the Democrats this November. In addition to that she brings along Arkansas, where they got to know her the best and clearly like her a lot.

Posted by Tim K | May 23, 2008 3:50 PM

"Sure 20 to 30 percent of the country hates her, just like 20 to 30 percent hate every single major Democratic politician of the past 50 years or so."

Actually, if you look at the actual that's around 45% of the country that hates her and it often peaks a bit above 50%. That is a huge difference electorally. You have to be pretty unpopular to have only 52% of Americans think you share American values.

Posted by Reality Man | May 23, 2008 3:54 PM

Tim K,
Don't be fooled. Southpaw is just trying to be a uniter. He HATES Hillary Clinton. But I respect what he's going for.

Posted by Stacy | May 23, 2008 3:58 PM

"You make valid points, and I appreciate you don't come across as a Clinton-hating fanatic like Reality Man and others."

Naw, I actually was initially supporting her, so I don't see how I can be a fanatic. The person I hate is you personally because you're an asshole who accuses anyone of disagreeing with you of being an idiot, as other commenters have pointed out about you. After all, when I disagreed with you on what the American policy towards Israel should be, you pretty much accused me of sympathizing with Hezbollah and not caring about dead innocent Israelis. Last time I checked, you aren't Hillary Clinton. A lot of the anger in my comments aren't directed against HRC, but against you, you poseur.

Posted by Reality Man | May 23, 2008 4:00 PM

"Obama supporters have to wrap their head around the idea that this was basically a 50/50 result, with Obama ultimately winning by the slightest of margins, and that Clinton (and more importantly, her millions of supporters) ARE OWED THIS."

Clinton and her supporters aren't owed a damn thing Tim. There is no set consolation prize for coming in second in a Presidential primary contest. If Clinton and/or her supports can’t act like adults and accept that, it says far more about them than Obama and his supporters. There was a race, Clinton had huge advantages and lost, primarily out of her own incompetence. (Not organizing in Caucus states and not paying attention to margins of victory) End of story.

"If Obama and his people are so strongly against choosing her then they better put their thinking caps on and come up with a consolation prize (ie. majority leader, campaign debt gone, top convention speaking slot)."

I've said before that if I had the power and she agreed to call it quits by June 4th, I'd give her all three things, support for her as Majority Leader, her choice of a prime-time speaking spot on either Day 1 or 2 of the convention and as much campaign debt relief as possible.

Posted by Raindog | May 23, 2008 4:01 PM

“Tim K is making a lot of sense and people who care about reality rather than their own sad prejudices should take what he says seriously.”

“That said, I think the argument that Hillary's appearance on the ticket will translate into improved electoral performance for Obama is fairly slim. There is little evidence that VP selection has much impact at all on results. People vote the top of the ticket. I'm far from convinced that having HRC on the ticket will do more good than simply having her vigorously campaigning where she's popular.”

You do understand that these are mutually exclusive statements. I mean, I’ll give Tim credit for not being delusional like some and still insisting that HRC has a chance at the top spot herself. (FL and MI counting fully and a haranguing of the super-delegates until August or some other madness.) But all Tim talks about now is how HRC will help Obama more as a VP in terms of electoral performance than any other possible choice.

Posted by Raindog | May 23, 2008 4:13 PM

Raindog:

Assuming Florida and Michigan are resolved with some mutually agreeable compromise by June 4th then I would support her withdrawal and formal endorsement of Obama. Having said that she has the same right to take her fight to the convention if she wants to, at least as much as Ted Kennedy did in 1980. I'm glad you're open to a prominent role for Clinton in the campaign and beyond, that shows respect for the roughly half of the Democratic party that supports her.

Nobody is really "owed" anything in this race. There's no golden rule that says Hillary Clinton even has to endorse Barack Obama or campaign for him. Of course I think she should work her heart out to get him elected once he becomes the nominee, but nothing is owed. Again, nothing is owed her and her supporters in terms of a VP slot or anything else. But it's just dumb not to show great respect nonetheless, just as Obama supporters would be demanding if the positions were reversed. I imagine we'd be hearing endless arguments about not taking African Americans and young people for granted.

Reality Man:

You're just really hateful ... against Hillary Clinton based on mostly imagined slights. Against me for mostly imagined slights. It's really unhealthy and borders on the absurd.

Posted by Tim K | May 23, 2008 4:22 PM

Southpaw is just trying to be a uniter. He HATES Hillary Clinton. But I respect what he's going for.

For the record, I try not to hate anyone who isn't a dictator or a Celtic. In the fullness of time, I'll come back around to Hillary Clinton, and I certainly hope her supporters can find things to like about Obama.

I'd love to see what Clinton would do as Majority Leader, though I still don't understand what's supposed to happen to Harry Reid in that scenario.

And from where I sit, Jim Webb appears basically inevitable as the VP choice.

Posted by southpaw | May 23, 2008 4:23 PM

If Obama is smart, and for the sake of the country I hope he is, he'll not listen to his most obnoxious supporters who suggest he can simply ignore Hillary Clinton and act like he wrapped up the nomination with a landslide. He didn't. If not for the most ludicrous nomination system in the world (where Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in Nevada but Obama got more delegates) he likely would not have been the nominee at all. Hillary found a way to connect with voters he could not - and these are voters he will need going against McCain. Obama should ignore the far left and obnoxious name callers of his support base - those folks are not only fair-weather supporters who will abandon him as soon as he has to make tough and unpopular decisions (see Andrew Sullivan) but the far left in America is only good at two things - growing pot and losing elections. The American public may dislike Bush but they still detest leftist fruitcakes just a little more.

Posted by Nathan | May 23, 2008 4:25 PM

"You're just really hateful ... against Hillary Clinton based on mostly imagined slights. Against me for mostly imagined slights. It's really unhealthy and borders on the absurd.

Posted by Tim K | May 23, 2008 4:22 PM"

Naw, I don't hate just about anyone else who comments here, just you because of how you treat people. I hate you because you are a hateful person. Read through your own comments ever since you started posting here. See how you sound to someone who isn't you. Did I imagine that you said I don't care about the deaths of innocent Israelis? Nope. You said that. That was just plain classless and underscores how just creepy and disgusting you are as a person. I don't imagine that I'm going to make you agree to re-examine yourself because you lack the self-awareness to do so. It's not my fault you'll die alone and no one loves you. It's not my fault you have a martyr complex that makes you insult people pre-emptively when they disagree with you and then act all innocent when people call you on it. Your bring hatred on yourself because you breed it.

Posted by Reality Man | May 23, 2008 4:30 PM

"Obama should ignore the far left and obnoxious name callers of his support base - those folks are not only fair-weather supporters who will abandon him as soon as he has to make tough and unpopular decisions (see Andrew Sullivan) but the far left in America is only good at two things - growing pot and losing elections. The American public may dislike Bush but they still detest leftist fruitcakes just a little more.

Posted by Nathan | May 23, 2008 4:25 PM"

Polling on people's perceptions of the candidates have shown that outside of the Democratic base, Americans think Clinton is rather far to the left, well to the left of Obama in near-socialist territory. In addition, since when is Andrew Sullivan far left? Obama shouldn't snub her supporters, but nominating Clinton, who is hated among independents and Republicans, isn't the way to make himself more popular with those to the right of his Democratic supporters.

Posted by Reality Man | May 23, 2008 4:35 PM

Hillary found a way to connect with voters he could not

Yeah, by being female and white. Sebelius can do both. Hell, Sebelius is even the same age, and has much more executive experience. Sucks for the Clintonites that the improved fortunes of women politicians are going to sink the Clinton-for-VP effort, but life is full of little ironies. Maybe don't sell your country out when you're the effective leader of the opposition next time.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | May 23, 2008 4:36 PM

"If not for the most ludicrous nomination system in the world (where Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in Nevada but Obama got more delegates) he likely would not have been the nominee at all."

Oh! You mean if the entire process was based off name recognition and low-info voters? Yeah, you're right, she probably would have won. Although I can't imagine a more irrelevant point.

Posted by Stacy | May 23, 2008 4:37 PM

1) I think that having Hillary as VP loses you a lot more votes than it gains you.

2) It also SABOTAGES the primary argument that Democrats have going for them this year: That they are NOT Republicans.

But Hillary is a deeply corrupt Republican in all but name. For every argument you make against John McCain the Republicans say "But What about Hillary"?

3) And that doesn't even address what others have pointed out -- that every negative ad and statement Hillary has made against Obama will be used in Republican ads -- and will gain resonance if Hillary is the Democratic VP.

4) Doesn't anyone remember the hopelessly Tongue-tied John Kerry in 2004? Who could't criticize Bush because Bush kept pointing out that Kerry had voted to support Bush.

5) Plus there are HUGE negetives against the Clintons that have not even come out in this campaign. Obama could have destroyed Hillary in West Virginia and Kentucky if he had had a surrogate tell the people even a fraction of what's she's done.

He didn't do so because (a) He's already won --so he can afford to be merciful and (b) he's trying to unite the party -- and a late date pissing contest hurts more than it helps

6) But make no mistake. Hillary and her primary patrons have lost. And they DESERVED to lose.

They are welcome to leave the Party if they wish. There's not that many of them.

But if they try to sabotage Obama's campaign, things will come out that will ensure Hillary couldn't be elected dog catcher in Little Rock.

Posted by Don Williams | May 23, 2008 4:39 PM

Reality Man,
I think his point was that Andrew Sullivan supports Obama now, but probably won't when BHO actually starts doing his job as President. Maybe a fair point, but I think Andrew Sullivan has been pretty upfront that he disagrees with Obama when it comes to policy quite a bit.

Posted by Stacy | May 23, 2008 4:39 PM

Thanks Stacy. I see that point. However, there is very little value in extrapolating any wide societal trend from Andrew Sullivan (or for that matter from any elite journalist or political commenter), especially considering how unique Sullivan is in our political landscape.

Posted by Reality Man | May 23, 2008 4:56 PM

The American public may dislike Bush but they still detest leftist fruitcakes just a little more.

You sound like someone worth taking seriously!

Posted by southpaw | May 23, 2008 4:58 PM

I believe Clinton won't be the VP for the very simple reason that she and Bill would have to risk foregoing tens of millions in income over the next eight years (in the event the ticket wins). Bill won't be able to hobnob around the world selling access and giving speeches for millions of dollars if he's married to the vice president -- at least I don't think so. Being VP doesn't really get Hillary much of anything. It would only make her marginally stronger as a candidate in 2016, and tens of millions is too high a price to pay for a modest political benefit. And if she and Obama were to somehow lose in November, much of the blame (probably rightly) would be pinned on her. Being Obama's running mate is a high risk high/cost strategy for Hillary Clinton. And here's another thought: Clinton may well want it to look like she's being spurned as a running mate, when all along she actually doesn't want the position. A stoic, stiff-upper lipped, "wronged" Hillary Clinton might be a useful image for her to display to the world if it's accompanied by a lot of pissed-off female Clinton supporters who throw the election to McCain. I have to believe in her heart of hearts the strong possibility exists that Hillary wants Obama to lose this November, but dares not risk openly undermining his chances. Engineering a perceived "rejection" by Obama is one way for Hillary to make a potentially meaningful contribution to a McCain win without appearing to do so.

About the only tangible benefit I can see for Hillary in being Obama's running mate is that it will help prevent the elevation of a rival for the nomination in 2012 or 2016. But again, that's not worth the eighty million bucks the Clintons would be giving up were she and Obama to win.

Posted by Jasper | May 23, 2008 5:00 PM

Hillary appears to be holding out for the "Martin Luther King Scenario". From http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080523/ap_on_el_pr/clinton

"SIOUX FALLS, S.D. - Sen. Hillary Clinton referred Friday to the assassination of Robert Kennedy in 1968 Democratic campaign as a reason she should continue to campaign despite increasingly long odds.

Clinton was responding to a question from the Sioux Falls Argus Leader editorial board about calls for her to drop out of the race.

"My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don't understand it," she said, dismissing the idea of dropping out."
-------------

This may explain Hillary's new found affection for white gun owners in Appalachia.

Posted by Don Williams | May 23, 2008 5:03 PM

This isn't a question of Hillary's supporters being owed something in terms of you owing a person who lent you money something. This is a question of good honest common political sense. Obama won the nomination by taking roughly half the delegates. Hillary fell short with a little less than half the delegates. They're neck in neck in popular vote (ignoring florida and michigan or not). Any politician with any sense would make some moves to reach out to Hillary's supporters. That doesn't mean he has to give her the VP nod but he has to do something (and by something I mean more than merely dealing out heaping helpings of his extensive and adept chatter). He either has offer the candidate something significant or he has to offer a very high profile supporter of the candidate something even bigger. You don't run a race with one leg cut off. He needs his base. And it's awfully ballsy to say they'll just come home. They're mostly to the right of him. They do not have to go anywhere. We're not talking about potential Green party fruitcakes here.

Posted by Minnesota | May 23, 2008 5:11 PM

Once again, Matt is clueless about human behavior, being too young to have experienced much of it.

I'll say it again. Clinton will go all the way to the convention - SHE SAID SO! And then when she is not offered the VP slot or the nomination itself, she will file lawsuits and otherwise "campaign" (as it were, though not actually as a "third party" or "nominee" per se) AGAINST OBAMA IN THE GENERAL ELECTION.

And if she gets the VP slot, it will be for two reasons: 1) to screw up Obama's chances for election, and 2) if he wins anyway, to undermine him for the next four years, so she can claim in 2012 that she would have been better in 2008.

This is how Clinton THINKS, Matt! Get a goddamn clue!

I mean, look at the HINT she gave! Obama could be ASSASSINATED! How much more obvious does it fucking get to you, Matt?

Does anybody think she doesn't know that regardless of whether Obama is "crowned" the nominee in June and then gets killed, that she wouldn't immediately be the nominee at the convention? Who was the nominee after Kennedy was shot? There WAS one, right?

So why even bring that up? Because it was a HINT, guys, that's why.

That is how this BITCH thinks.

Face it, folks. The Dems have lost the election already. Between Bush and his Iran war and Clinton, Obama doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being President.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 23, 2008 5:27 PM

Stacy:

Is the general election more like a primary or more like a caucus. Yes, that was a rhetorical question. If liberal activists and college students won general elections then the Democrats would never lose.

Nathan, Minnesota, and even Southpaw (although we disagree) are approaching this question seriously and realistically.

Reality Man has gone off the reservation.

Posted by Tim K | May 23, 2008 6:06 PM

Gracious RSH. I am going to have to come back here in November when Obama wins because with those kind of predictions you're going to be due for an enormous mountain of crow to eat. Heck, I'll make a point to check in with you after hillary drops out (likely around the convention time if she isn't offered an incentive to leave sooner IMHO).

Posted by Minnesota | May 23, 2008 9:21 PM

First, I think Obama will pick Clinton to be his VP if, but only if, he thinks she would be the best choice on the merits. She does not in fact have the power to force him to do otherwise, and there is no real moral force to the argument that a close second place finish for the Presidential slot means that person should be given the Vice-Presidential slot.

Second, there are broadly speaking two different schools of thought on VP picks. One is the complementary theory, where you try to pick someone who "balances the ticket" by being notably different in one or more ways. Clinton might not be a bad choice on this theory (not necessarily the best choice, but an argument to that effect could be made).

The second is the brand reinforcement theory, where you try to pick someone who reinforces the image and message you are trying to convey. Note that the last four elections were basically won by such tickets (two by Bush/Cheney, and two by Clinton/Gore).

Personally, I strongly suspect Obama is a brand reinforcement person. Hence, I doubt he will pick Clinton. But I guess we shall see.

Posted by DTM | May 23, 2008 10:47 PM

Let me set you straight Matt--A "substitute" woman on the ticket doesn't get us female Clinton Supporters to support Obama..it drives us further away. The male arrogance that one woman is a substitute for another shouldn't be surprising but it still is..and disappointing. As a Clinton supporter in FLA I won't even consider Obama if Clinton isn't on the ticket. If he can win without us, then I guess I will. Seems a big risk to take.

Posted by Julie | May 24, 2008 12:49 PM

Minnesota: "Gracious RSH. I am going to have to come back here in November when Obama wins because with those kind of predictions you're going to be due for an enormous mountain of crow to eat. Heck, I'll make a point to check in with you after hillary drops out (likely around the convention time if she isn't offered an incentive to leave sooner IMHO)."

Feel free.

I'm already on record as saying Bush will start an Iran war by the end of the year - and I have to publicly apologize to Arnold Evans if I'm wrong.

BTW, even if Hillary drops out before the convention, that doesn't mean she still won't be trying to undermine Obama's campaign right up until November. She'll just do it from the sidelines instead of as a candidate.

You people need to realize that there is no downside for her doing this - in her mind, at least. While everyone else will treat her like Ralph Nader in 2012, she thinks she will have a shot based on Obama either losing or screwing up his first term.

And she might even be right - disgusting as it is to contemplate.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 24, 2008 8:17 PM

Richard: It's a deal. For my part I shall endevor to do my utmost to give you credit where it'll be lavishly due if your predictions of Iranian war and Clinton madness come true.

DTM: "She does not in fact have the power to force him to do otherwise, and there is no real moral force to the argument that a close second place finish for the Presidential slot means that person should be given the Vice-Presidential slot."

My dear dear DTM, I don't want to sound condescending but moral force? In politics? My goodness sir or ma'am. I mean seriously now. Here is the only moral force I see in the situation: Obama, like it or not, failed to convince slightly less than half the primary electorate of his merits as candidate. They went with Hillary. Now like it or not the practical considerations of the general dictate that Obama needs to seek to consolidate his base. He can try and do firehosing complimentary rhetoric all over the place about Clinton and her supporters. Since they haven't been swayed by his talk much so far it's a risky plan but costs him nothing. A more practical and I think likely scenario involves him demonstrating his outreach to that half of the base through actions (which speak much louder than words). Now those actions might be offering Hillary the VP slot (costly but just about guaranteed to work) or majority leader or something else. Or it would involve offering something to a high profile supporter of hers, most likely a woman. This is not a moral imperative, this is a practical electoral imperative. Kerry and Gore were quite moral candidates and they both lost miserably. I think Obama and his handlers are more practical than that, regardless of his soaring rhetoric.

Posted by Minnesota | May 25, 2008 2:35 AM