Clinton-Obama Immaturity Can Be Fixed by Joint Ticket

-

obama clinton cnn twn.jpg
Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are escalating an immature tit-for-tat exchange on who their blocks of supporters would go to if not to each of them respectively.
Obama has said “I have no doubt … that I can get her votes; the question is, can she get mine?”
Most don’t doubt Obama’s high-flying vision. Those who doubt him question his political maturity and federal level experience. Some used to doubt his ability to organize a large scale election machine — but on that front, he’s definitively proved himself. Nonetheless, Obama’s glib dismissal of Clinton is pretty much hard core “hubris“.
Clinton has been doing much of the same.
Here are the numbers MSNBC flashed about who voters would go to second if not for their first choice:

43% of Clinton supporters won’t vote for Obama if he’s the nominee.
29% of Obama supporters won’t vote for Clinton if she’s the nominee.

Frankly, Democratic voters if they care about the future of this country will change their minds at the polls and not vote for McCain as their alternative. But this trend runs along the same lines of how many in the non-voting international world think. When I polled folks in Israel, those who wanted Hillary Clinton wanted McCain as the alternative. Those who preferred Obama wanted McCain as second choice as well.
If Obama had really beaten Hillary Clinton by this point and had offered the Clinton clan an olive branch, this fight between Obama and Clinton fanatics would not be raging.
But Obama has failed to beat Clinton — and she has not beaten him either. The politically mature and, in my view, the shrewd thing to do is to begin negotiating a joint ticket, or the Dems will tear themselves apart.
I’m missing Chuck Hagel in this presidential race more and more each day.
— Steve Clemons
Ed. Note: For more on this line of thinking, see Shaun Halper’s piece on an Obama-Clinton ticket.

Comments

63 comments on “Clinton-Obama Immaturity Can Be Fixed by Joint Ticket

  1. CeeHussein says:

    I believe it was David Gergan who said if Obama picked Clinton as VP he would need a food taster.

    Reply

  2. arthurdecco says:

    Mark L said: “We do not want a repeat of George Bush—putting an incompetent but likeable twerp at the helm.”
    Firstly – “likeable twerp”?!?
    Bush is a war criminal – responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people! He’s most likely a sociopath. He is the man who, in concert with a plethora of identically incompetent henchmen, has very nearly destroyed America! To describe this monster as a “likeable twerp” is like describing Pol Pot, Hitler or Genrikh Yagoda of “having issues”.
    Secondly – to compare the privileged Bush, that self-indulgent, pampered brat who has never held a job he couldn’t do badly to Barak Obama, a man who goes from strength to strength in his life, grounded by his intelligence, his focus, his wit and ambition is absurd.
    You may be uncomfortable with Obama’s politics, or his ears, his suits or his racial complexity (who knows!?!) but how does that give you the right to slur the man this way?
    This is a political campaign, fer crissakes! Not a bare knuckles slugfest out behind Bernie’s Bar! Some perspective might be in order.

    Reply

  3. JamesL says:

    Ah, the Lieberman effect. A touch of typhus. You are so right Mr. Murder. The balance that wasn’t.
    And yes, Steve, the Captch is quite flakey. I always must go round the circle again to find a more readable version.

    Reply

  4. Mr.Murder says:

    I didn’t vote for a ticket with Lieberman on it, adding contrapositive “balance” will lose votes.

    Reply

  5. leo says:

    Several pundits this weekend were suggesting joint ticket made up of the ultimate winner (Obama, ignoring a super-fraud by Clinton) plus a loser-surrogate (like Rendell, representing Hillary).
    An interesting idea, I just can’t see welcoming Hillary into an Obama WH frankly.

    Reply

  6. downtown says:

    Those strange characters in the above post are testimony to my difficulty in deciphering the CAPTCHA feature. My I suggest to the webmaster to add a ‘reset CAPTCHA’ button for those times when old eyes just can’t seem to hit the right characters.

    Reply

  7. downtown says:

    I believe there is a tremendous amount of envy at work here, as far as the Clintons are concerned. The excitement and youthful optimism generated by Obama’s campaign, justified or not, was exactly the progressive leadership role they had envisioned for themselves. Looking back at their early years, these were the lofty positions both Hillary and Bill aspired to. ‘Hope’ and ‘Change’ and ‘New Ways of doing things in DC’ all used to be Clinton campaign slogans, explicitly or implicitly. Then came the big letdown, with BC’s most immature behavior enabling the ascendancy of Bush/Cheney. Even his last-minute frantic attempts at brokering some Israeli/Palestinian peace treaty were sabotaged by his reliance on emissaries who were not honest brokers. No wonder he goes on pontificating about the naiveté of young voters. He should know, for if anyone’s betrayed the progressive wing of the party it’s good ol’ Bill himself. And Hillary, as Senator, is pursuing a very similar path, minus the indiscretions. Her subservience to a certain Public Affairs committee promises just more of the same old,e6 same old. I remember Chelsea Clinton’s recent quip in response to an Iraq War resolution question about her mom not being a clairvoyant; I was one of the millions nationwide who were clairvoyant on Feb. 15th 2003, when I saw a sea of people demonstrating against an Iraq invasion on Manhattan’s First Avenue. We were not duped, not for one second. I think that her Senate seat is safe for the time being, but I sure wish the Clintons would choose to disappear from the political stage. zeswt3

    Reply

  8. JamesL says:

    I don’t think Hillary would take second spot to Obama any more than the reverse. However….I find it ironic that both try to say they have the ability to effectively work with all manner of people–friends, enemies, Repubs, Dems–to re-unite a country George the lesser has blasted apart, and put the US back on speaking terms with the rest of the world. So the questions I would like to put to each are: “Is your ego bigger than your desire to serve America?” “Are you big enough, strong enough, determined enough, to take second spot to serve America?” When you think of the thousands of people willing to lay their lives on the line for the country every day, this confrontation of great egos seems more than a little disingenuous. Here’s a scenario that has more balls and makes more sense than McCain: The primaries are essentially over, a chasm of time looms before the convention, and neither Obama or Hillary has “won”. Who will win at the convention may not be the point, if the bloodletting between O and H continues, and McCain continues to get a free ride from the press, or Cheney presses his personal button. With the chasm looming, O&H call a press conference, prime time, step up there with a Susan B Anthony dollar, and flip for Presidency, the loser being VP. Question is whether each of them is big enough to do that. I would like to think both of them would be.

    Reply

  9. Roger says:

    I voted for Bill Clinton twice. And ethical issues aside, he was as good as one could expect. But that in no way implies that Billary
    will be. If she were to be vice president, that pair would be the equivalent of a Cheney to Bush or a G.H.W. Bush to Reagan
    combination. And we all know what disasters they are/were.
    With racism still well and alive in this country, it will be interesting to see if Americans will repeat what they did in 2000/2004,
    where Bush carried some of the poorest counties in America by margins greater than 80%. The question may be, how many
    destitute white Americans will stand for a black savior? Considering Hillary’s high success rate among them, my guess is they
    would rather go the way of Kansas in 2000/2004 and vote themselves four more years of guaranteed suffering under McCain.
    So the real issue is, can Obama energize and keep mobilized a sufficient number of younger Americans until election day?
    Considering his current 50% national poll rating, and the fact that McCain is walking in Bush’s shadow, he just may pull it off.
    And war fatigue, skyrocketing oil prices, foreclosures, real job losses, rising health costs, and a looming recession/depression
    are more real today than in 2000 and 2004. This may help sway more blue collars and rednecks his way than in the past. We’ll
    see.
    But frankly, I cannot understand why anyone in their right mind would even want this thankless job. Almost nothing of what
    Obama and Clinton have been promising over the past fifteen months can be delivered. Realistic solutions that require real
    American sacrifices aren’t even being mentioned. We are decades behind in the development of alternate energy sources. We are
    decades behind in the development of energy-efficient cars and mass transit systems. We are decades from being self-
    subsistent as we used to be and will need to be again after WalMart goes bankrupt. Gas rationing is just over the horizon. Mass
    starvation in big cities is a reality. America’s total debt is $53 Trillion and soaring. Raising taxes on the rich will be like cutting
    holes out of blankets to keep warm. Unlike the ever-expanding universe, our economy is not. Resources are finite and depleting
    fast!
    Neither political party is to blame for our impending plight. We greedy Americans did that to ourselves.

    Reply

  10. just john says:

    If/when Obama gets the nomination, he can win in November by running on this four word slogan: “I BEAT HILLARY CLINTON.”
    The nation will unite in supporting him.

    Reply

  11. jc says:

    What we have here, is the Clintons absolutely murdering the new interest and excitement surrounding the Democratic party. They are, for now, allies with Republicans in attempting to destroy Obama. If Hillary (and her Republican “pals”) succeed, say goodbye to all of the new voters the party has attracted.
    Early in this campaign, before the voting started, it looked like Hillary would walk away with the nomination without breaking a sweat. I could have supported Hillary back then… I’ve always been impressed with her. But the way she has handled her campaign has changed my mind.
    She hasn’t been well organized… at least not compared to Obama. She has at times become desperate, appears almost frantic, and ends up behaving foolishly. The Tuzla lie was the absolute last straw. Her threats that the U.S. can “obliterate” Iran, outrageous. For God’s sake, that is something Bush would say!
    Obama brought an excitement to the Democratic primary that was not there when Hillary looked like the anointed one. Look at the rally he had the other night in Philly… apparently about 35,000 people. It looked like one of the biggest political crowds I’ve ever seen, and was not covered in the msm news as far as I could tell.
    In my family alone, there are two lifelong Republicans and my mom who is an Independent, all supporting Obama. None of them would even consider voting for Hillary. I truly believe that Obama is the more electable of the two. Republicans won’t vote for Hillary (in the general… though they’ll vote against Obama in the primary) and Obama does much better with Independents.
    If Hillary becomes the nominee, the Right will turn its guns to her, and to Bill again, as we all know. This talk of her being more electable, is crap.

    Reply

  12. citizen says:

    tintin,
    to dismissively suggest that clinton played the race card b/c she had to in order to save the country is rational thought…are you david duke?

    Reply

  13. MarkL says:

    Carroll,
    Your analysis is an incisive as ever.
    Hillary has repeatedly pledged to campaign for Obama if he is the nominee. She said Bill Clinton will campaign for him also. Obama has said no such thing. In fact, he has shied away from explicitly saying he would support Hillary, instead saying that we will all need to come together, blah blah.
    The main reason Hillary should not be the VP nominee is that she outshines him too much.
    1/2 of Democrats support Hillary. We do not want a repeat of George Bush—putting an incompetent but likeable twerp at the helm.

    Reply

  14. Carroll says:

    Hillary as a VP under Obama?….what a disaster that would be! Hillary would spend all her time underminding him for the next election.
    The only thing worse than Hillary I can think of is McCain. But then again maybe McCain isn’t worse, just dumber…they actually sound the same to me…Mr.”bomb,bomb,bomb Iran” and Ms.”we will obliterate Iran if they attack Israel”.
    For someone who says he leans toward Hagel’s foreign policy I can’t believe SC likes Hillary as much as he does….there is nothing American or Hagel about Hillary’s foreign policy.

    Reply

  15. Tintin says:

    I sincerely hope the party will unify around whomever the
    candidate is. But Dan’s paragraph here is somewhat strange:
    ” personally think that Clinton would give us a dangerously
    hawkish foreign policy, that she doesn’t have much imagination
    about new directions in the broader world, and that she is
    committed to some destructive inertial trends and outdated
    relationships in US foreign policy. That’s based on my own
    reading of who she is. But it’s not like she’s *running a
    campaign* based on pointing out major foreign policy
    differences with Obama. In fact, her campaign message lately
    seems to be something like, “Hey, I’m just like him, but less
    black, and hence more electable.”
    On the one hand, he says there are hardly any differences
    between the two candidates–certainly not in terms of what they
    say. On the other hand, Dan and others “despise” Hillary and
    have quite strong beliefs (predictions) that he’ll be a much better
    president on XYZ, especially foreign policy. And yet nothing he
    has said really backs that up.
    You think the differences are real, important and deep. Won’t
    others? For those, like you, who vote rationally, your point is
    well taken. You’ll overcome your feelings to vote rationally. But
    how many of “you” do we have in the electorate? Do we think
    that 99% of the black vote is being swayed by a rational
    consideration of Obama’s credentials? Do we think that
    Catholics are voting in droves for Hillary because of their careful
    consideration of her views?
    Read Harold Meyerson in Wapo today…also Broder.
    Here’s the issue: When Hillary’s inevitability was punctured in
    Iowa, she panicked. When folks pooh-poohed her very real
    experience (largely because she overstated it), she panicked.
    And she panicked because what Obama brings to the campaign
    is an intangible quality that can’t really be attacked because it
    doesn’t reside in specific proposals, but in an emotion he
    engenders in large groups of people. She knew it and panicked.
    And that’s how we get to Hillary’s mudslinging and race card.
    What else is left for her to use? To pack her bags and concede
    on the basis of Obama’s charisma?

    Reply

  16. galoob says:

    If Obama had Hillary as VP, he’d have to hire a food taster.

    Reply

  17. ... says:

    i think hillarys approach is to destroy obama and the democrat party with negative republican talking points but go on to pretent to save both by suggesting they be on a ticket together… if obama doesn’t take it, she can let herself off the ‘responsibility for it hook’ of having screwed both obama and the democrat party while expressing her blatant attempt to ensure she gets on the ticket. there is something very whacked out about a women who is always talking about getting the other person on the ticket when she is the one who is behind.. she did this same thing a few months ago – suggest obama could be her vp when she was behind… i think hillarys tactics are deceptively obvious…
    took me 5 times to read the special code numbers right… something is whacked out with that system as well…

    Reply

  18. Dan Kervick says:

    WigWag, the reason I think the Democratic Party will unify fairly effectively this year is that, in the end, these candidates do not represent deeply divergent ideological directions for the party. They are quite similar actually. There is nothing at all like the gap between McGovern and Wallace, Humphrey and McCarthy, or even Carter and Kennedy. In each of those cases, the warring camps represented very major philosophical differences over the direction of the Democratic Party. Not so much this year. The debate this year is mainly about personalities and identity, not ideology.
    I personally think that Clinton would give us a dangerously hawkish foreign policy, that she doesn’t have much imagination about new directions in the broader world, and that she is committed to some destructive inertial trends and outdated relationships in US foreign policy. That’s based on my own reading of who she is. But it’s not like she’s *running a campaign* based on pointing out major foreign policy differences with Obama. In fact, her campaign message lately seems to be something like, “Hey, I’m just like him, but less black, and hence more electable.”
    Given the lack of significant ideological conflict within the party, my sense is that it will be very easy to overcome the sour grapes and wounded pride born of personal loyalty and affection for a particular candidate, rather than deep principles, especially once people are faced with a stark ideological difference between the Democrat and McCain.

    Reply

  19. Dav id T. says:

    Thanks for your thoughts on the “dream ticket.” I confess that I’m with Speaker Pelosi (who must have a good reason to believe its out of the question) on the Clinton and Obama sharing the ticket.
    First off Steve, you don’t make it clear what you mean by that. What is the deal you suggest?
    I believe that the candidate who is ahead and is highly unlikely to lose that lead shouldn’t be pulled through the mud by the other whose chances look no bigger now than they did before the Ohio primary — for the good of the party and the country. If the situations were reversed I would feel the same way (even if my preferred candidate had to bow out).
    If you are saying that she’s such a worthy candidate that Obama should offer her the #2 on the ticket I think that’s a reasonable stance though I would be happier if you were more explicit about proposing that solution. As for the majority leadership position I think that’s an interesting approach though for those Senators who supported Obama its hard to see how they wouldn’t have trouble with that prospect.
    However if you are suggesting that he should accept her entreaty of a vice presidential slot I am flummoxed. Why should he do that? Its true that if they don’t end their nastiness towards one another the Democrats may have trouble in November. However if he’s leading and not by an insignificant margin isn’t the responsibility on her shoulders to do something about that? If she were ahead at the moment by the margin he is do you think she would consider accepting the #2 spot on the ticket? If you’re answer is yes, I don’t know how to respond.
    Furthermore I think this prospect is unlikely because a central theme of the Obama campaign is to end the divisive politics that was not only practiced by George Bush (and to a much greater degree I might add) but also by Bill Clinton. Whether you believe its fair to suggest that Bill Clinton’s political ways were divisive, criticism of those ways are clearly an important component of the Obama message.
    Thanks again for your thoughts.

    Reply

  20. David says:

    My vote is with Dan Kervick on this one. And if either of them fails to do exactly that, he/she sould be summarily executed, or be condemned to spend the rest of his/her life listening to Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman, the other two people hell bent on destroying progressive politics, Zell pathologically and Joe ideologically.

    Reply

  21. WigWag says:

    Dan Kervick, Steve’s suggestion that the winner offer the loser the VP slot is imperfect. No one knows if either candidate is interested in the number 2 spot and you’re right to point out that even if they were, their supporters might not be placated. But Steve’s bigger point is clearly true. We haven’t seen anything like this fight since John Kenndedy fought for the nomination in a very divided Democratic Party in 1960. What did Kennedy do? He offered the Vice Presidency to Lyndon Johnson whom he and Bobby Kennedy despised. And Johnson despised them. Clinton and Obama don’t like each other. Right now, many supporters of each candidate don’t like each other. But do the candidates or their supporters dislike each other more than Kenndy/Johnson? I doubt it.
    If things take the most probable course and Obama is nominated, close to half the democratic party is going to be unhappy; many will be very unhappy. You said in an earlier post that Clinton and Obama are both good Democrats who will enthusiastically support whoever wins. This isn’t necessarily true. When Ted Kennedy ran against Jimmy Carter he refused to embrace Carter’s victory and he wouldn’t even shake his hand on the podium at the convention. Surely Ted Kennedy is a good Democrat. What makes you so sure that either Obama or Clinton will act differently than Kennedy did two decades ago? When Kennedy demurred, Carter’s hopes against Reagan evaporated right than and there.
    If Obama wins he will be desperate for Clinton’s enthusiastic support. Without it, he probably can’t win. So maybe the Vice Presidency won’t do it. My guess is that it will take alot more than that. If he’s nominated, Clinton will, in all liklihood, hold Obama’s presidential aspirations in her hands. She’s a smart and tough lady, that’s why she would make a great president. My guess is that she will make Obama grovel.
    Obama will grovel, but it’s anyone’s guess about whether she can actually get her supporters to vote for him.
    In my opinion, you’re right about the problems in the Republican Party. Right now, that’s about the only hopeful sign for Democrats.

    Reply

  22. TonyForesta says:

    I meant to say: “What happens to all Bush government cronies peopled through out the many newly concocted post 9/11 (OHS) offices, directorates, or organizations?” (Office of Homeland Security)

    Reply

  23. TonyForesta says:

    “But Obama has failed to beat Clinton — and she has not beaten him either. The politically mature and, in my view, the shrewd thing to do is to begin negotiating a joint ticket, or the Dems will tear themselves apart.”
    True that Mr. Clemmons. The gop has nothing to run on. Seven years of costly, bloody, noendinsight war, torture, financial malfeasance, a brutal widening divide between thehaves and the havenots, economic crisis, the rank perversion and betrayal of the Constitution, the rule of law, and every principle that formally defined America, have soured many Americans. The cry for change is in air.
    McCain is a vote for the fascists and the unabated perpetuation of the exact same predations, warmaking, financial malfeasance, system deception, tyranny, and wanton profiteering of the fascists in the Bush government.
    More alarming, the incoming leadership will be the first post 9/11 transition government. The transition of government, and more murky and creepy, “Continuity of Government” processes, systems, and mechanisms are exceedingly more complex in the post 9/11 era. There are many thousands of executive appointments that must be necessarily vetted, and many will be seeking security clearances, and some of them very high clearances that will require timely procedures, and preparedness.
    Now riddle me this realists? Do any of you believe the fascists in the Bush government will be cooperative or forthcoming with all the information, data, keys, codes, names, and numbers necessary for the transition of the next government, (particularly if that transition involves the democratic leadership)?
    What happens to all Bush government cronies peopled through out the many newly concocted post 9/11 OHC offices, directorates, or organizations? Do you expect this American to believe they will simply hand over their secret and plans to the next government?
    What about the billions of the people’s dollars funneled into the PMC and PIC industrial complexes? Will there be full disclosure on the thousands of contracts and the contractors?
    The point is; Democrats must begin to redress this frightening issue, and now. It is critical that the democrats unite behind a team, articulate a platform, and begin the daunting and arduous process of dethroning and defanging the fascists, and the fascist shadow government a McCain government will perpetuate and obediently cloak.

    Reply

  24. Dan Kervick says:

    “Steve Clemons is right. He proposes one potential solution. Unless Steve’s solution or some other solution is implemented, Democrats can kiss their prospects goodbye.”
    Here’s the solution: Hillary Clinton gets up on the stage in Denver, following a week of the usual convention pep rally filled with tear-jerking and gut-tugging films and speeches, all designed to show America that Barack Obama is better than Jesus. Clinton speaks, and whips her supporters into a frenzy. She lays out the litany of satanic Republican evil. The crowd boos and hisses at every mention of John McCain’s very name. She then says “That’s why I’m supporting the next President of the United States, Barack Obama!” The crowd goes wild. Obama comes up on stage and kisses Hillary on the cheek. Supporters on both sides weep; they swoon. The producers drop the balloons. They play “Happy days are here again” Michelle dances with Bill; Obama dances with Chelsea. It’s a love fest!
    And then later that week, Obama receives the nomination with his running mate Tim Kaine, or Jim Webb or Kathleen Sibelius.
    If Clinton mounts a miracle comeback, then Obama puts on the same show in reverse.
    That’s the way it always works.

    Reply

  25. Dan Kervick says:

    “He thinks at the end of the day, most Democrats will come home and vote for the party’s nominee whether it was their original choice or not. Undoubtedly most Democrats will come home just like Dan Kervick says. But if even 3 or 4 percent sit this one out, the Democratic candidate (whomever it is) is sunk.”
    Not at all. There is always a small percentage who don’t come home, and either don’t vote at all or vote for the other party. The same is true of the Republicans. A few disaffected Democrats might vote for McCain; likewise, there are substantial numbers of disaffected Republicans who are going to vote for the Democrat this time.
    The Republicans appear to be in very big trouble. They already have a nominee who is running in the open field with no Republican opposition and no effective Democratic opposition, and yet even though the Democrats have two candidates dividing the loyalties of Democratic voters, and preventing each other from running a coherent campaign against the Republicans, polls show both of them are roughly tied with McCain. It’s extraordinary. Once the Democrats have a nominee, I expect to see that candidate pick up 5% to 10% in the polls almost immediately, and shoot ahead.
    If somebody dislikes Obama so much that they are actually willing to vote for John McCain, I fail to see how they are going to be mollified by a VP consolation prize for Hillary, which lets her preside over Senate sessions, cut ribbons and go on trade missions to Turkmenistan while she pines away waiting for Obama to drop dead. The same is true of Obama supporters who dislike Clinton so much that they are actually willing to vote for McCain. What are they going to say? “Oh, I was going to vote for the guy who wants to leave health care to the private sector, keep taxes low for high income earners, do nothing of significance regarding the environment, keep us in Iraq forever, start some more wars while he’s at it, and make abortion illegal. But now I changed my mind because Barack gets to be VP!?

    Reply

  26. WigWag says:

    Carsick, point well taken. But I think most people would agree that in the last several presidential elections, the states that have decided the election are Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio. In two of those three particular states (Ohio and Pennsylvania)it is pretty well established that Roman Catholic voters have decided the outcome. Now, things could be different this time. Perhaps those states will assume less importance in this election. Personally, I doubt it. It is also possible that the candidate who wins the Roman Catholic vote in those states might still lose the overall vote in those states, but as far as I know, that would be unprecedented.
    But still, I agree with you, this can be diced up in many different iterations. A variety of demographic groups matter, not just one.

    Reply

  27. carsick says:

    wigwag
    (stepping in here on a remark to Spunk…) Many groups beyond the Roman Catholics could claim to be the ultimate swing vote group that matters (many union members went to Reagan, remember “soccer moms,” and the Hispanic vote can be decisive in some states…for instance). Also, the Supreme Court nominations and appointments reach well beyond the abortion issue. Some groups (who may claim to be the swing group you claim for RC’s) care very dearly about gun rights or freedom of speech or Habeas Corpus. Sure, they may be small to you but they can end up being decisive in 51 to 49% vote splits.

    Reply

  28. PissedOffAmerican says:

    I don’t get it. Its like you all have lost your effin’ minds.
    Have you not been paying attention? Has this Tahoe Editor clown just missed the myriad of lies Hillary has fed us?
    Why in God’s name would I vote for someone I know is liar before they’re even in the gate?
    Hasn’t eight years of nothin’ but bullshit taught us ANYTHING? We wanna elect ANOTHER pathological liar?
    Then theres Obama, who would have us believe he sat catatonic in the same church pew for 20 years, never hearing Wright’s message. THEN the pile of shit, after twenty years of worship, after baptisms, weddings, and counsel, throws Wright under the bus. I might have a little respect for him if he would have voraciously defended his pastor, because there is a lot of truth to Wright’s sermons. But instead, he folded, and sold out.
    Then, his rhetoric about Israel and Iran is straight outta the “Head Up AIPAC’s Ass” playbook. It was only a few short months ago that he actually got raked over the coals for showing some balls and recognizing the plight of the Palestinans. Didn’t take long to snip those suckers off, did it?
    Bottom line? We’re screwed. If this monster Cheney doesn’t feed us the event I suspect he will, just prior to the election, we will have a Hillary or a McCain presidency, because Obama is just too swiftboatable with his past connections.
    And that just spells more war, more money being shoveled out to Israel so they can murder Palestinians and expand geographically, further disregard for the checks and balances, more corruption, and more outsourcing of jobs and technology.
    Oh, and if you live in the western United states, you might as well learn spanish, because you’re going to need to speak it if you want to function.

    Reply

  29. WigWag says:

    Spunkmeyer, you make a really interesting point. I think the campaign and all the animosity between Clinton and Obama supporters is symptomatic of a larger schism in the Democratic Party that was already present under the surface. Time will tell whether it will lead to a viable third party (I doubt it) but, over time, it will probably lead to a weaker Democratic Party.
    Democratic voters who care about passionately about abortion rights or the Supreme Court will vote for either Clinton or Obama (even if they have to hold their nose to do it.) But many Democratic voters don’t view the world the way the typical Washingtonnote reader does. Potential supreme Court nominees don’t motivate them. Remember, since the election of Eisenhower, Roman Catholic voters have been the swing voters that most decide the election. While most Catholic voters are actually pro choice, on average they probably don’t vote on the basis of abortion and the supreme court. So far, Hillary Clinton has won the Catholic vote hands down, especially in places like Ohio and Pennsylvania. I’m afraid that the “painful alternative” you refer to in your post is looking increasingly likely.

    Reply

  30. Spunkmeyer says:

    Chuck Dodd… Chris Dodd… whatever. 😉

    Reply

  31. William Jensen says:

    Steve, what planet are you from? Why would the guy in the lead who has very little chance of losing play second fiddle? Your proposition raises concerns that your analysis on other issues may be ill-founded.

    Reply

  32. carsick says:

    wigwag
    If Gore had won Tennessee it wouldn’t have come down to Florida. Florida may well be lost (I refuse to think that the majority of the primary angst will last through November with Iraq, the Supreme Court, the economy, and healthcare at stake) but Obama and/or Clinton may not specifically need it in the electoral college. The case against McCain hasn’t even begun yet. Sure, the press wants to give him donuts but things will change in the general.
    On a side note, my experience in Florida (like Ohio) includes some Dixie racism from the older folks and some young, the difference here in Ohio though is we have a lot of union folks. I don’t think you do.
    On a completely personal note, my mother is a 75 year old, Ohio resident, weekly churchgoer, white, upper middle class, registered republican and she has not been dissuaded from her support for Obama. She, in fact, got me off the fence. Though, I’ll vote for any D in November.

    Reply

  33. plainbrown1 says:

    And so… if you get into a dispute with your neighbor, the thing to
    do is marry his daughter?

    Reply

  34. Spunkmeyer says:

    Steve, thanks for the reply and I know you’re not a partisan on
    this… I’m not even sure we’re agreeing to disagree. The one thing
    I wonder is why the assumption is that Clinton, if the “loser” of
    this nominee battle, should be offered anything in consolation. I
    don’t recall Kerry receiving any such treatment after 2004, and
    I’m not sure I would’ve expected it.
    I would much rather see someone like Chuck Dodd be Majority
    Leader (if he would accept it) because he has taken such a
    principled position in issues like FISA than either current
    candidate has. THAT is the kind of leadership I would rather see
    in Washington.

    Reply

  35. Spunkmeyer says:

    WigWag, thanks for the response. I have hope that Democrats
    will rally around whoever the nominee is in November… the
    alternative is too painful for many (especially regarding the
    Supreme Court) to fathom. And 1-on-1 debates between the
    parties will likely reinforce that. And the lessons of 2000/2004
    will be fresh for many.
    The larger question, in my mind, is if the 2008 election will
    signal a schism within the Democratic party for election cycles
    to come. Seems to me the climate is ripe for a third-party to
    rise. It may go the way of the Perot movement post 1992, but
    seems to me, at least in my neck of the woods, that there’s a
    DLC/DFA civil war about to happen regardless of the nominee
    choice.
    Either way, I feel sorry for whoever inherits our “National Mess.”
    Seems to me, at worst you’ll be remembered as Herbert Hoover
    and at best you’ll be remembered as Jimmy Carter.

    Reply

  36. WigWag says:

    Carsick, you live in Ohio so you have a much better intuitive sense of the electorate there than I do. Most of the polls I’ve seen show Clinton beating McCain in Ohio and Obama losing to McCain in Ohio. But of course, polls can change. I would be interested in your opinion about which Democrat has a better chance of carrying Ohio against McCain. Your thoughts would be appreciated. I live in Florida, I can tell you that if Clinton wins the nomination she has a real chance here. If Obama is nominated, his chance of winning Florida is very small.
    As usual, Dan Kervick’s comments are well thought out and wrong. He thinks at the end of the day, most Democrats will come home and vote for the party’s nominee whether it was their original choice or not. Undoubtedly most Democrats will come home just like Dan Kervick says. But if even 3 or 4 percent sit this one out, the Democratic candidate (whomever it is) is sunk. The convention is in late August, the election is in early November. Is that really enough time for all the bad feelings to dissipate? Neither candidate has any margin of error in what will be a very close election. Democrats can pretend there’s no problem. But there is a problem.
    Steve Clemons is right. He proposes one potential solution. Unless Steve’s solution or some other solution is implemented, Democrats can kiss their prospects goodbye.

    Reply

  37. Dan Kervick says:

    Oh, not again with this! Wasn’t it just about a month or two ago that a bunch of right-wing Republicans blowhards were writhing on the vomit-stained carpets of their radio studios in apoplexy over John McCain, and claiming that they would vote for Clinton or Obama before they would ever vote for McCain? Whatever happened to that epochal rebellion? Gone with the wind in the space of a few weeks.
    The Vice Presidency is a relatively unimportant position in American politics, except in the highly unusual circumstances in which an utter incompetent like Bush is forced to hand over a lot of power to his Number Two. Being a US Senator is a much more important position. If someone really loves Barack Obama, and Obama can’t be president, they should want him to be a Senator. And if someone loves Hillary Clinton, and Clinton can’t be president, they should want her to be senator. It’s hard for me to imagine the mindset of a Democrat whose decision on whether to vote for a right wing Republican or a rival Democrat would be made up by whether their own favorite Democratic candidate was offered the meaningless VP consolation prize. It makes no sense. This is especially the case given the fact that in the domestic policy area, there are hardly any significant differences between Clinton and Obama.
    These polls are taking place during the peak of the contest, and at a high tide of intra-party partisan fervor. People are very emotionally invested in their candidates right now. If you ask a lot of Clinton supporters, “If the election were held today between Obama and Pat Robertson, for whom would you vote”, some would probably say “Robertson! I hate that uppity, smarty-pants, latte-sipping, San Francisco-visiting, darling of the limousine liberals!”
    And if you ask a lot of Obama supporters, “If the election were held today between Clinton and William Kristol, for whom would you vote”, some would probably say “Kristol! I hate that lying, castrating, manipulative, triangulating shrew!”
    But 90% of both of these groups would be full of shit. It will take maybe a month, but people will get over their spite and bruised feelings. And in the end they will vote for the candidate who most closely matches their political values. When people are in the middle of an intense and pitched political battle, they tend to stake out intransigent and uncompromising positions. It’s what they need to do to face down their opponents and prove they mean business. But it’s in part a pose.
    Each of these candidates can make those poll numbers disappear virtually overnight with a ringing endorsement speech, and an appeal to their supporters to support their rival. Both of these candidates are loyal Democrats, not independent “mavericks”, and can be counted on to deliver such a speech.
    People also answer polls strategically. Right now, team Hillary is relying on its last desperate strategy: the claim that Obama is unelectable. So of course when they are polled a number of Clinton’s supporters play ball with their candidate’s current strategy and say, “Oh no. I will never vote for Obama!” They may even think they believe what they are saying, or they may just be bullshitting the pollsters. Obama supporters do the same thing. But since the Obama strategy is not so much based on trying to prove Clinton’s unelectability, his supporters aren’t playing this game in the same high numbers.
    I very strongly dislike Hillary Clinton. One might even say I despise her. I don’t like her, and I have little respect for her. As a human being, political values aside, I’m sure I like McCain much better. But given my political values, and a rational assessment of the likely output of a McCain administration and a Clinton administration, I would be a fool to vote for McCain. McCain and Clinton would unfortunately both give us very similar foreign policies. But McCain would also continue the Republican social and economic policies that I strongly reject, and Clinton would do significantly better in that department.
    And for all their brave talk, and huffing and puffing denials, the Clinton folks are in the same boat. You can’t convince me that any sizeable number of supporters of Hillary Clinton are going to vote for a candidate with a ZERO rating from Planned Parenthood. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.
    I would argue that the politically mature thing here has nothing to do with negotiating some pointless “dream team”. The mature thing is for the supporters of whichever candidate loses to grow up, suck it up, let it go and move on.
    Anyway, I don’t want to go through the next four years worrying that Hillary will go all Catherine DeMedici on us and slip Obama something with his morning coffee.

    Reply

  38. Zathras says:

    For the record, a co-Presidency is a terrible idea, always has been, and always will be.
    Reagan and Ford had figured this out by 1980, and their rivalry four years before had divided the Republican Party far more deeply than this year’s primary race has the Democrats. Enough of it remained, in the form of liberal Republican fear of Reagan to inspire John Anderson’s independent candidacy that year. There were a lot of professional (and amateur) electioneering hands who thought the only way to bridge the gaps in the party was with a dream ticket. The only way to have a dream ticket was to give the No. 2 (Ford) a lot more authority than any Vice President had ever been given. First Ford and then Reagan let it be known that they had no interest in going forward with this idea.
    Clinton supporters would be hurt if their candidate winds up losing the nomination; Obama supporters likewise. That’s politics. Frankly, I think the people who would be most upset could do with a little pain in their lives, to build character and keep them from coming off as such sissies in the future. In any event, Clinton and her entourage would be too disruptive to an Obama administration to be worth the pleasure of her company on the campaign trail, and a sulking Obama wouldn’t do much good in a Clinton administration either. Either candidate has enough capable supporters (Gov. Strickland of Ohio or Sen. Bayh of Indiana for Clinton, Gov. Napolitano of Arizona or Sen. Casey of Pennsylvania for Obama) for the winning Presidential candidate to do whatever healing needs to be done by picking one of them.
    By the way, after scotching the “co-Presidency” idea in 1980, Reagan finally did give in to the people urging him to “reach out” to the Republicans he’d beaten in the primaries. He was able to satisfy them and fulfill his need for a Vice President who would smile and stay out of the way by picking the guy who had stuck in that year’s GOP race long after he had any hope of winning. And that’s how we wound up stuck with the Bush family at the pinnacle of American politics, not a great precedent if you ask me.

    Reply

  39. Tahoe Editor says:

    My point is, this race is tame and foes become friends in politics … all this Obama Nation indignation — and willingness to write off half the party — is the real source of the immaturity.
    Michelle has to “examine Hillary’s tone” before she’d know if she’d back the Democratic nominee? Really, there’s a lot of growing up to do …

    Reply

  40. carsick says:

    Tahoe
    By your analogy you seem to think Romney is the republican nominee. Romney, like Clinton, has not won the process thus far and seems mathematically unable to.
    On the other hand, there is certainly enough time left for Clinton and Obama to make up, at least politically. Heck, Santorum just came around last week for Romney…I mean, McCain.

    Reply

  41. Tahoe Editor says:

    “Do you really think the Obama campaign wants either of them around the campaign in the Fall?” Uh, yeah he wants them around — if he wants the other half of the Democratic Party around and if he wants to get into the White House.
    Steve is exactly on the mark — there is no definitive win whatsoever, and the party is divided nearly down the middle. Obamaniacs who think they can hope their way into the White House without Clinton support are definitely “new voters” and have no clue how this works.
    McCain & Romney seethed at each other for months, yet now Romney’s panting for VP.
    What we need is someone to regale us with tales of running mates who were at each others’ throats before they joined forces.
    Anyone?

    Reply

  42. leo says:

    There you go again Steve. Having Hillary (and Bill) in Obama’s White House is a recipe for dysfunctional government.
    Hillary has been deliberately causing chaos in the primary and I have no doubt she’ll continue after Obama’s inauguration.
    If Hillary had a less divisive nature I’d say she at least might be a good VP, there’s no way I could support that now and I wouldn’t expect Obama to want her or to agree to pick her for VP.

    Reply

  43. bob h says:

    I agree. Since having Hillary as VP would probably be an insufferable experience, I suggest that she goes first, with VP Obama taking the Presidency in 2016-17. Let the immature Obama wait a little, because his defeat in November and the recriminations to follow would tear the Democratic Party apart.

    Reply

  44. carsick says:

    wigwag,
    I’m from Ohio and from experience here I’m pretty certain that our newly elected governor (more liberal than Clinton by many accounts) would work hard for Obama. Also, the poor economy is hitting hard here. The republicans, McCain specifically because he appears fairly clueless and unsympathetic, will have a very hard time winning here. Last time around there was a no gay marriage constitutional issue on the ballot and that brought out the edges of the wing base that don’t seem so excited by McCain this time around.

    Reply

  45. carsick says:

    One other thought. Steve, you’re getting caught up in the primary angst. The general against McCain hasn’t even begun yet. Once this silliness is over, Obama could do many things to regain the blue/red cred he aims for. He could have meetings with Chuck Hagel (private but leaked to the press), he could court Wes Clark (get some Clinton love), he could, as Reagan did (I believe), announce some of his cabinet choices early, etc.
    Maybe you’d even get your dream of Hagel as Sec. State or Defense.

    Reply

  46. WigWag says:

    Spunkmeyer, thank you very much for referring me to the Kos post. I had already seen it. In my opinion, his analysis is seriously flawed. I just don’t believe that Obama can beat McCain in North Carolina or Virginia for that matter. Mentioning Arizona was just silly and meant to distract. I think Kos is right that Obama puts Colorado in play while Clinton doesn’t. He’s also probably right that Minnesota, Wisconsin, Washington State (and for that matter Oregon)are stronger for Obama than for Clinton although there is every reason to believe that either candidate would beat McCain in those states. But what Kos can’t (or won’t) account for is Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida. Right now Clinton beats McCain in most of the polls taken in those states and Obama loses to McCain in most of the state polls. Now I understand that in normal circumstances democratic voters in those states would come home after the nomination is decided. But because supporters of each candidate are so angry, (see Callimaco and Tahoe Editor above)the liklihood of the democrats coming home in those states is greatly diminished. This hurts both candidates alot but it hurts Obama more. After all Clinton has demonstrated that she can appeal to demographic groups that dominate those states, Obama hasn’t.
    What Kos didn’t tell you is that while Clinton wins New York and New Jersey against McCain hands down, Obama is up against McCain in New York only by 5 points and up against McCain only 2 points in New Jersey. That’s awful! Do I think McCain can beat Obama in New York or New Jersey? No. Is it reasonable to assume he might? Yes. Kos is merely doing what we all do, he’s ignoring the facts that don’t bolster his argument.
    Here’s my question for you. Is there any plausible way a Democrat can win the White House while still losing Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio? If there is, I would love to hear it. The simple reality is that either candidate could lose those states given the nature of this campaign, but the danger is worse for Senator Obama. As unlikely as it is, almost any other Democrat has a stronger chance of winning the swing states and thus the election than either Obama or Clinton. We need a compromise candidate, we’re unlikely to get one. Better get used to hearing President McCain,

    Reply

  47. carsick says:

    I’d be very surprised if the super delegates would have the metal to overturn the general delegate winner. Particularly one who has proven to bring new young and old voters into the fold. Plus, as the first African American candidate in history to win the general delegate vote, with overturning the vote, the Democrats would lose any possible credibility of being the party that holds fairness as a fundamental principle.
    I’d also be surprised if Clinton would accept a VP slot with Obama. If he loses (she claims he can’t win against McCain)and she’s unattached, she’s still viable after what is guaranteed to be a tumultuous next four years. If he wins and she’s attached, she’s making a big gamble that she would want the job potentially through to “her time” in 2016.
    If Obama is in the position to offer, my guess is she turns it down, gets the Majority Leader spot and gets active hoping to prepare for another run in 2012.
    If she wins (as shown above, I don’t see how that happens but…) if she wins, she would most likely be forced by the party and circumstance to offer him the role.

    Reply

  48. citizen says:

    Steve,
    1. What math supports your emotional claim that BO’s lead is not definitive?
    2. Do you support the use of 911/great depression fear ads that hrc campaing ran? why do you rail against others who prey on the emotionally susceptiable but give her a free pass? How about the iran comments? could john bolton have articulated these same sentiments any stronger? hello—where has steve gone?
    3. Many of your blog participants are openly invoking his middle name and other fear smear tactics yet you remain silent? where is your high minded outrage? Has your past outrage been based in convenence or principle?
    4. Since late january the clintons undertook a southern strategy to define obama as a militant, muslim black man, yet your silence, with backhanded small paragraph references, is disappointing….
    5. HRC has campaigned in a fashion that has made her unfit for office, in any branch or level of government. It has been 2 months since I struggled with my primary choice, today the struggle is to accept the clinton reality: they are willing to reach into the hate/fear playbook to win…as long as this type of power strategy is condoned/endorsed as a legitamate discours than our republic will continue to spiral into the toilet, perhaps the clinton flag pin has become the american swastika—-disgusting on all levels of rational, critical thinking.

    Reply

  49. Spunkmeyer says:

    Wigwag, you may want to check out this post from Kos on Daily
    Kos compiling recent poll data concerning electability. The results
    may surprise you…
    http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/4/23/2417/55984/47/
    501352

    Reply

  50. tomj says:

    Two days ago I would have thought you were crazy. I soured on Hillary over the last two months, but her ‘win’ speaks more about the devotion of her base than anything else.
    Before all the negative campaigning began I thought that Hillary was staying in for one reason: to show her toughness to be VP: you need an attack dog.
    But then I started to believe that she just wanted to destroy Obama. Maybe, but who knows.
    I think it is time for Obama to do what Hillary did a while back: start talking to voters as if he would consider Hillary as VP, if he believes it possible. It is just possible that her supporters would soften up and realize that she would attain the presidency in eight years, the VP slot doesn’t age you nearly as much as being president, and she will be younger than McCain is right now.
    Obama should also remember this: she has shown her ability to play second, even though she is every bit as ambitious as number one.

    Reply

  51. Tintin says:

    The reason Obama’s lead isn’t definitive is because he can’t get to
    2025 without the supers.
    And the supers don’t have to vote any which way.
    They were invented, actually, to protect the party from the people
    who voted in Carter–a great man as an EX-president, but not a
    great leader while in office.

    Reply

  52. WigWag says:

    Democrats are in a boat load of trouble, at least as far as the presidency is concerned. While their prospects for the House and Senate are looking better and better, their prospects to captures the presidency are looing bleaker and bleaker.
    Foolish democrats point to the lead that Senator Obama (and to a lesser extent Senator Clinton) have in the polls of the popular vote. Their leads are chimeric and they are declining. In the polls that matter, state by state polls of the electoral vote, most show McCain up by 10-30 electoral votes, none show Obama doing better than Clinton.
    Obama backers who think his army of young supporters give him a chance in places like Virginia, South Carolina or Georgia are deluding themselves. McCain will win those states going away. It is true that Obama could bring Iowa and Colorado into the democratic camp but his significant weakness vis a vis McCain in Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio makes his putative strength in those states meaningless. For goodness sake, most polls show Obama leading McCain by at most 5 percentage points in New York. If that’s not weakness, I don’t know what is.
    A democratic candidate who loses Florida, Ohio and Florida has no chance of being elected. Like her or hate her, Hillary Clinton will probably do better in those states than Senator Obama so she is the stronger national candidate. Hillary Clinton has won the Reagan Democrats. If he wins the nomination, Obama needs these voters back or he loses. So far, he has done nothing (at least since Iowa)to demonstrate that he can appeal to these voters. And you Obama supporters, the more hatred you spew at Clinton and her supporters, the more you push them into the arms of McCain. Obama and the people who support him are their own worst enemies.
    Some might argue that the vitriolic commentary that Obama and Clinton supporters toss at each other on blogs like this is anamolous. I don’t think it is. Obama supporters and Clinton supporters represent different demographic groups with different values. There is no reason to assume that their identity as Democrats will trump these demographic and value differences in the general election. Ironically, even if she loses the nomination, only Clinton will be able to to give Obama a fighting chance to be elected. I think this is Steve’s point. Anything less than a full throtled effort by Clinton to beg her supporters to vote for Obama results in an Obama loss. I don’t know if Senator Obama needs to offer her the vice presidential slot or needs to make some other committment. But if Hillary Clinton pulls a Ted Kennedy (as in the Carter run against Reagan), Barack Obama is toast.
    I’m a Clinton supporter and I want her to stay in until the end. Why? Because I think she would be a good president and I think Obama would be a poor president. Disagree if you like, we’re all entitled to our opinions. As much as I want her to win, I have to acknowledge that her prospects in the general election are almost as bad as Obama’s. The comments of Obama supporters on this blog are emblematic. More and more Obama supporters have disdain for Hillary just like more and more Clinton supporters have disdain for Obama. Do you really think that between a convention in late August and an election in early November this anger will dissipate? All this anger and the resultant unwillingness to support the ultimate winner means the Democrats lose the swing states and thus lose the Presidency to McCain. Remember, Bush v Gore was decided by a few hundred votes in Florida. Bush v Kerry was decided by about 20 thousand votes in Ohio. The refusal of just a handful of Democratic voters to support the ultimate nominee could easily make all the difference in the world.
    At this point I am hoping this goes all the way to the convention and that neither candidate wins on the first ballot. I know it’s unlikely, but Obama and Clinton supporter need a compromise candidate each side can rally around. John Edwards would do, Al Gore would do, almost any Democrat can beat McCain, except for Clinton and Obama.
    Now that’s ironic!

    Reply

  53. Tintin says:

    Steve, I tend to agree with you, though I am an Obama
    supporter.
    I believe the rule is that you have to get to 2025–and neither
    one can get there without the support of the supers.
    The other rule is the supers get to decide however they want.
    Choosing to go against a majority of Dem voters (who support
    Obama) would NOT be a good idea.
    However, they are in a position to say to Obama that he must
    offer Clinton something substantive in order to unify the party.
    A quid for the pro of their support.
    This campaign is unprecedented, so the old rules about picking
    a VP don’t apply, IMO. I would like to see a joint ticket, though,
    I agree, it’s hard to see either of the two taking the VP slot.
    Unless it’s a VP slot with a substantial portfolio.
    If Hillary is, in fact, the mature one as Tahoe says, then she
    should be willing to take a VP slot to bring unity to the party.
    Or, when and if the supers go heavily for Obama, she should be
    able to say to her followers: Get real and vote for OUR
    candidate.
    I know that some regard this race as pointless given the lack of
    discussion of accountability, etc., but it’s important to remember
    how different the world would look today if that other non-
    choice–Al Gore–had been made president in 2000. Every
    time you don’t think any of this matters, think about that. And
    keep thinking about it when and if McCain wins…

    Reply

  54. Callimaco says:

    Steve wrote: “Secondly, you suggest that Obama’s lead is definitive, and it just isn’t.”
    The only way Clinton can render Obama’s lead not-definitive would be by overturning the pledged delegate count with superdelegates. If she does that then her nomination will be so tainted and be seen as so illigitimate by so many Obama supporters (and probably none too few Clinton supporters too) that it will be worthless and McCain will waltz into the Whitehouse virtually unhindered.
    Obama’s lead is for all practical purposes, indeed, absolutely definitive. (Unless the Democrats are truly stupid — which, I grant you, remains a possibility).

    Reply

  55. JoeCHI says:

    This is the campaign schedule that everyone signed onto.
    Record-high voters are getting their voice heard in our Democracy.
    The super delegates will fulfill the roles for which they were
    intended.
    The elites who think they know better need to save their grievances
    for after the primary and get out of the way of the rights of voters.

    Reply

  56. Callimaco says:

    The joint ticket ship sailed long ago. Hillary Clinton burned that bridge weeks ago with her attacks and Bill Clinton thinks Obama is a race baiting charlatan. Do you really think the Obama campaign wants either of them around the campaign in the Fall? And if you think a Clinton-Obama ticket is possible, then I have a bridge to sell you.
    Seriously. Stop it. Just stop it. There will be no joint ticket and anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool. More: anyone who pines for one is living in a fantasy world. You don’t help anything by continuing to think it’s possible.
    If there’s going to be a disaster for the Democrats in the Fall then there will be a disaster. Better the Democrats deal with that by remaining in the realm of strict reality rather than engaging is silly flights of fancy.

    Reply

  57. jon says:

    Steve,
    OT, but it looks like you’re online now –
    Any thoughts on Carter’s trip & meetings with Hamas and Assad,
    and the State Dept. response? I particularly liked Dana Perino’s
    response:
    “Perino made an apparent reference to an attack on
    Saturday in which a Palestinian suicide bomber and two other
    gunmen were killed when they attacked a border crossing between
    the Gaza Strip and Israel, wounding 13 Israeli soldiers.
    “Actions speak louder than words,” said Perino of Hamas.”
    This pretty much undercuts the validity of diplomacy. Anyone’s.

    Reply

  58. j says:

    I’m with Spunkmeyer on this one. I don’t think either has the
    temperment to serve as subordinate to the other.
    The point of balancing the ticket is to select a VP who can fill in the
    holes of the candidate – political orientation, experience, religion,
    area of the country, etc. They don’t have much to offer each other
    – midwestern lawyers who are middle of the road, center-right
    Dem Senators.
    The point is to pick up the votes of the straddlers who might sit out
    the election or go halfheartedly to the opposition.
    They would need a southern Governor, a major industrialist,
    someone with solid evangelical ties. Who’s out there?

    Reply

  59. Steve Clemons says:

    Spunky — I think we all see things through our own lenses. I have no idea whether Hillary Clinton would accept the VP slot — but I have some reasons to believe that she might.
    Secondly, you suggest that Obama’s lead is definitive, and it just isn’t.
    There are few precedents for the kind of problem that Dems are having now, and unusual solutions need to be on the drawing board. I’ve previously suggested that a deal be struck on the Senate Majority Leader position — but this would require Reid to acquiesce and Durbin and Schumer — who are in a polite knife fight with each other to success Reid — to stand down. So, even that has no clear and easy path.
    But I know where you are coming from and respect it — but know that I am neither a partisan for Obama nor for Clinton and am trying to give some counsel from a distance. I don’t see Obama’s tilt as definitive, though i do think he will win at the end.
    His failure to vanquish Clinton has many dangers for him and the party in the race — and he needs to resolve those. What I have suggested in the post and in this note above are some ways to do that. There may be others. But it’s not a simple problem that can be washed away by those who think Obama has really pulled of a rip-roaring victory.
    It’s not there. If Hagel were in the race, I’d probably be behind him — and it really does frustrate me that his foreign policy approach, whcih I think most Americans would support and do gravitate towards, is missing in the portfolios of all three presidential contenders.
    More later — and thanks for playing,
    Steve

    Reply

  60. Spunkmeyer says:

    I cannot imagine that Hillary Clinton would accept a VP spot on an
    Obama ticket and I see no reason or advantage to Obama accepting
    a VP spot on hers, as he leads both the popular vote and delegate
    count.

    Reply

  61. Tahoe Editor says:

    Remember the Bushies telling South Carolina in 2000 that McCain fathered an illegitimate black child? Yet now they’re buddy-buddy. This primary has been tame. HRC & BHO were friends and worked together before this campaign, and they’ll certainly do so after it.
    Re: the needs of the party. The party needs to get into the White House. It doesn’t need another love affair that’s over in a matter of months.

    Reply

  62. ToddinHB says:

    This is such a bad idea, I can’t believe you’d endorse it. Though I’m a Obama supporter, I would rather have a competent Clinton administration that avoids infighting than a Clinton-Obama ticket. Better yet, nominate Obama and let him pick the team he wants, not one dictated by the needs of the party.

    Reply

  63. Tahoe Editor says:

    Hillary has demonstrated more maturity with respect to the national Democratic Party than the Obamas. From the start, Hillary has said the No. 1 priority is getting a Dem in the White House, and she has consistently emphasized ultimate party unity.
    The Obamas, on the other hand, have given us “I’d have to examine her tone” when considering whether to support her over McCain if she’s the nominee, and of course the obnoxious & foolish “I have no doubt I can get her votes, but can she get mine” line.

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *