Following the Ohio-Texas-VT-RI primaries, the concept of the "Dream Ticket" was brought up and not exactly dismissed by Senator Clinton:


Obviously the top of the ticket hasn't been decided, but I figured it might be good to rehash this discussion in light of the primary results thus far. One thing seems certain, this is likely going all the way to Denver.

Request of responders: I deliberately did not put this in the Democrat only debate because I would like to see discussion outside of it. But, please keep it productive. I would ask that if you don't plan on voting for either one, please consider thoughtfully what your contribution would be before responding/voting.

With that in mind...

Questions for debate:

1) Is a "dream ticket" of either configuration likely? Why or why not?

2) Would either ticket stand a strong chance of winning in November? Why or why not?

3) Given that neither candidate will likely have the needed delegates to claim the nomination outright, which criteria should be used to determine the nominee: popular vote, most pledged delegates, total delegates? Why?

1) Is a "dream ticket" of either configuration likely? Why or why not?They hate each other. Obama will never be POTUS if he ends up as Hilary's VP, and Hilary is perfectly willing to destroy the Democrats chances if she is denied her "birthright".
I figure he walks and runs for Illinois Gov and waits til another time. If she doesn't get it I predict she will do all she can to torpedo every move he tries to make as POTUS. Clintons never forget a slight.


2) Would either ticket stand a strong chance of winning in November? Why or why not?

Yes. Obama as top and Clinton as VP. Other way around wouldn't work because she would look weak next to him. She would be constantly outshone and come to resent it fast. Plus think about the whispered jokes about how the nation prays every time she gets a cold that it gets much worse, again the resentment would grow.
3) Given that neither candidate will likely have the needed delegates to claim the nomination outright, which criteria should be used to determine the nominee: popular vote, most pledged delegates, total delegates? Why?

Total delegates. After all the screaming done by Democrats and liberals about the popular vote the GOP would have a field day if the Dems go to their own internal Supreme Court to decide the nominee. I really think it doesn't matter at this point. I think the damage is done and the Dems are going to lose a Sure Thing election for the POTUS if they do not contain this now and let it go on beyond PA.

1) Not for me. I suspect it is for Hillary who is about lose the nomination and become a Crossword answer.
2) Well sure. You'd get pretty much everyone on the Dem side.
3) I think a duel would really settle it but I think Barack doesn't want to die... Dems are pretty gung ho about Popular Vote so I say live by that sword.

I think Clinton has burned that bridge the the ground...and had her chariots trample the ashes.

With all the comments about Obama vacuousness and lack of experience (which is not so much less than here own) she's made a shared ticket downright impossible.

Edwards is a good choice I think for both.

Change is in the air and gravitas is no longer the byword. An Obama/Edwards ticket would put key states in play.

Questions for debate:

1) Is a "dream ticket" of either configuration likely? Why or why not?

2) Would either ticket stand a strong chance of winning in November? Why or why not?

3) Given that neither candidate will likely have the needed delegates to claim the nomination outright, which criteria should be used to determine the nominee: popular vote, most pledged delegates, total delegates? Why?


1) Not likely unless Hillary gives the VP nod to Obama; no way Hillary is Obama's VP, as she feels this is here "time", she's paid her dues, and the only thing being VP is good for is positioning yourself to run for Pres in 4 or 8 years. Hillary is 60, so she is not waiting any more.

Of course, I think both sides genuinely do not like each other, so I do not think any such pairing will happen.

2) Such a ticket would get 99% of the black vote, I guess, but frankly, HC's and Obama's politics are so much alike that they really do not help each other much. I would guess most folks who'd vote for either of them in a primary (excluding those rascally crossovers) will vote for the Dem nominee in Nov, regardless.

3) No criteria at all; it should be done as its always been done--by horse trading at the convention. Somebody wants and needs Edwards' delegates, and he may want to be Secy of State....

Presidential campaigns are long and drawn out affairs with moments both poignant and ridiculous. But in the aftermath of Hillary Clinton's big wins in Ohio and Texas here are three quotes worth remembering:

HILLARY CLINTON: [a joint ticket] "may be where this is headed. But of course we have to decide who is on the top of ticket. I think the people of Ohio very clearly said that it should be me."

BILL CLINTON: "I know that she has always been open to it, because she believes that if you can unite the energy and the new people that he's brought in and the people in these vast swaths of small town and rural America that she's carried overwhelmingly, if you had those two things together she thinks it'd be hard to beat."

BARACK OBAMA: "You won't see me as a vice presidential candidate, you know, I'm running for president."


Ask me this question in February and I would have said this "dream ticket" is more like a nightmare. Then, Obama was riding high and negatives were low. His win in Wisconsin made Hillary not only seem weak and old news; he made her seem irrelevant. As irrelevant as Rudy Giuliani quickly made himself with his talk of inevitability.

The Clinton Machine, with its highly paid advisers and years of experience looked like they were about to get their collective butts handed to them by a first-term Senator with an uncanny ability to raise dollars and generate enthusiastic crowds in numbers seldom seen before
in American politics. After the Wisconsin wipe-out, Hillary and her team didn't pout and make their spring vacation plans. They hunkered down and came up with a strategy to hit Obama harder than he had ever been hit before. They calculated if they threw enough at him in a flurry of punches---SOMETHING, ANYTHING---would connect and knock the cocky, but untested challenger off his rhythm.

The strategy worked.

The two bad losses in Texas and Ohio and a inadequate response to Clinton's criticisms of Obama's ethics, experience and readiness to be president disrupted his momentum and made him look like a neophyte and a raw rookie.

At the heart of politics is the art of making the deal. If Obama doesn't use the month between Ohio and Texas (with only likely, but small victories in Wyoming tonight and in Mississippi on Tuesday), to craft a strategy to deny Clinton a win in Pennsylvania, she will be able to cement her claim that while it's nice that Obama is winning small states in the primary that are destined to vote Republican in the fall, she has been able to take the biggest prizes on the board (California, Texas, Ohio, New York and the disputed states of Michigan and Florida).

If Clinton is successful in having the Florida and/or Michigan delegates seated at the convention that would likely give her the numerical advantage in delegates and combined with her momentum put her in the position of being able to offer Obama the job as her running mate and to claim then if he refuses that she tried to make peace with him.

The Dream Team may yet happen, but it could very well be a shotgun marriage of convenience.

2. I've a feeling that McCain will announce his choice of running mate sooner, than later. McCain is not a strong fundraiser and he ends the primary campaign broke. He will need to choose someone who is both able to raise interest from the party base and can also be an heir apparent should President McCain turn out to be one-term-and-done. Florida's governor Charlie Crist seems to be the flavor of the month, but somehow I don't think we've heard the last of Mitt Romney or even Fred Thompson. My thoughts for a real dark horse would be Jeb Bush.

Personally, my choice of a team-up of the two Democratic contenders has Obama in the starring role and Clinton in the supporting role. The problem is it makes no sense for Hillary to serve as Barack's veep unless she wants to wait until she's 69 years old to replace him. That doesn't seem likely to me when she could just as easily go back to the Senate and challenge Harry Reid for Majority Leader or wait for President Obama to appoint her to The Supreme Court.

Flip the coin and Hillary telling Barack, "Look, Barack, it's like the Tower of Power song, 'You're Still A Young Man.'" "You're 46 now. In four to eight years you'll be 50 or 54 with a few more distinguished gray hairs in your head, a wealth of more experience, and still younger than George H.W. Bush was when he succeeded Ronald Reagan."

Most politicians don't want to be vice-president. Have you ever heard of a kid in school saying they want the gig when they grow up? But what's the better option for Barack? Go back to the Senate and finish out his term, get reelected and hope for another bite of the apple in 2012? You only get a chance to be the new kid in town once. After that, you're just another pro making another bid for the top job.

Obama's pride and ego may not allow him to accept being the guy standing behind Clinton, smiling and applauding every time she opens her mouth. But the reality of his situation may not take much of a sales pitch from Hillary.

It's still a bad year for Republicans as evidenced by former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert's supposedly safe seat flipping to the Dems. I still would bet on a Clinton/Obama ticket over any pairing the Republicans put up.

3. I don't think the Democratic presidential ticket will be determined by who gets the largest share of the popular vote, most pledged delegates, OR the superdelegates.

My wild guess is somebody is going to play "Let's make a deal." Both candidates bring big strengths and big weaknesses to the table. There have been some very unkind things said and done during the campaign. But like The Godfather, they have to be savvy enough to know "it's business, not personal." They don't have to like each other to run together. How many pictures have you ever seen of JFK and LBJ shaking hands and grinning like best buddies? Reagan and Bush never spent much time on the couch watching a ball game and pounding down hot dogs and beer.

Hillary and Barack both want to get into The White House and barring the door is John McCain. That's a formidable obstacle that may take both of them working together to get him out of the way.

But there's going to have to be some really good make-up sex before they get to that point. As of yet, the foreplay hasn't started.

Let me start by saying it is a very interesting political game that Clinton is playing at the moment. It is a ploy for votes in the hopes of pulling some people off the fence and into her camp: a vote for her is not a total loss for Obama. An interesting ploy and one that I, personally, hope blows up in her face.


1) Is a "dream ticket" of either configuration likely? Why or why not?

No. I think there is too much bad blood. There might have been a time when this was possible, but Clinton has all but trashed that with her comments - which is why I think her current ploy may blow up in her face.

2) Would either ticket stand a strong chance of winning in November? Why or why not?

Possibly.

3) Given that neither candidate will likely have the needed delegates to claim the nomination outright, which criteria should be used to determine the nominee: popular vote, most pledged delegates, total delegates? Why?

Well, what are the rules in that regard? I think the delegates decide. I don't think the Michigan and Florida delegates should be allowed to participate. The super delegates should go the way of the pledged delegates. If one candidate has more pledged delegates than the other. That candidate should become President.

I like that ... crossword answer. I do remember seeing Bill in that movie about crossword puzzles. That was before he went, in my eyes, from being the epitome of everything bright, and prodigious, and accomplished, to being a disgustingly low-brow pugilist willing to demean Barack Obama's hard-earned victories with belittling comments like "Well, you know, Jesse Jackson carried South Carolina in 1984 and 1988." I guess that just about demonstrates how much appreciation the "first black president" has for all those african-americans in spots like SC who carried him to victory again and again, and supported him through the Monica mess.

Whatevs.

But, curious, BA, why do you think it is Hillary who is about to lose? Just curious.


Actually, I disagree, NT. I think the absolute last thing Barack should do is become VP. For one, teaming up with Clinton would negate the fundamental newness of his candidacy. It would be like pairing fresh salsa with stale chips.

Secondly, Barack is presidential material. We'll see in 2008. Or in 2012. He's 46 -- he could run in 2028.

But the Vice Presidency is a dead-end job. Take a look at the past 150 years, and name me a VP who got elected to two terms as president directly after serving as VP. You can't. The only VP to win two terms in recent history was the consumate Washington Insider, Richard Nixon.

Not to mention, who wants to be the Clintons VP? It's like being the third wheel on a unicycle, ask Al Gore. I think Maureen Dowd said it best:



The further Barack stays from the center of power, the better off he is. Personally, I think this is a one-time thing. He runs hard as hard as he can, and if he comes up short, he does something else with his life, at least for a while. I think he is as unfitting for a VP candidate as she is. Not to mention, they have fundamentally different views on power. I just don't think it would work.

What's more? Speaking as a Barack-boy, I can no longer stomach a vote for Ms. Clinton, even if he is on the ticket. Maybe if I lived in a swing state I'd swallow the poison and chase it down with some justification about the stakes of a 100-year-war in Iraq. But I don't live in a swing state -- I live in NY, and I vote by absentee in Georgia. So if she wins, I'm going to waste my vote on Ralph Nader.

The campaign she has run has sickened me. Maybe the Clintons were always like this and I never noticed, because, frankly, the GOP circa Newt Gingrich was just as cruel, and petty. But watching them gheottize Barack and darken his skin in TV ads, and compare him to Ken Starr, and dismiss every state they lose as unimportant, and say that he's not a muslim, "as far as she knows" -- and then they turn around and translate Hillary Clinton's victory as a victory for all women. On What Basis? What, after 35 years in the halls of power, now she's a waitress mom just like us? Bull hockey. She's a pollster in pantsuits. If she could win this thing appealing to fat white dudes with shotguns under the bed, she'd be out shooting endangered possums tomorrow.
'
So, come November, if Hillary, Bill, Chelsea or Jerry Clinton are on the ballot, I'm going to mark the box labeled Ralph Nader, because I just don't believe in rewarding the Clintons for the despicable campaign they've run. Since I'm more against her at this point than I am for Barack, I don't want that vote sullied by having to vote against Vice-President Barack. And, if Barack runs again, I want to vote for as uncompromised a Barack as possible. I want to vote for "the politics of hope" Barack, not the "politics of compromised values" Barack.

Never happen – they detest each other.



?

The Party rules of course – which by the way say they even if Obama or Hillary gets more of the votes they can pick the candidate.

Obama is afraid of exactly this happening and has said as much – and knowing the Clintons – it could happen.

Delegate count. Plus the Interweb tells me so.

Nighttimer, I mostly agree with your assessments here, but I do have just a couple of points on you last post here:



I'll concede Ohio, but a bad loss for Obama in Texas? Prior to the primary, it was said that for Hillary to credibly go on, she would have to win both states by 35 or 40 percentage points. She took Texas by only 3% in the popular vote, and they split the delegates down the middle. How does this translate to a bad loss for Obama?



Well, living in Illinois, I can tell you that once Hastert vacated the seat, it wasn't all that safe. His area has been trending a little more left in the past few years for one thing.

Second, the Republican running for the seat, Oberweis, is seen here as a perennial political loser. Think "The Ralph Nader of the Republicans" in Illinois. He's lost races for the Senate (twice), the Governorship, and now the House. The state Republican leadership tried hard to get him not to run in this race, because they thought they had a better candidate lined up. And this loss comes after the Republican National Congressional Committee burned through 20% of their total campaign funds on this one race, to try and keep from losing this seat.

And lastly, he's insisting on running against the winner of this latest race again, in November, when the Hastert's term would have been up anyway. Some people never learn, I guess.

I call Oberweis the horrible man with the good milk. I don't buy his milk anymore - it is soured by his politics.

Is a "dream ticket" of either configuration likely?

Nope. This was only floated by Clinton, cynically, because she knew that an ambitious egomaniac like Obama would dismiss it out of hand - and also knowing that, come August, she'd be able to say that she reached out to Obama only to be smacked down. A clever, if transparent, strategy - but if he'd said "Sure, okay", I'll bet she'd have had to change her panties.

Would either ticket stand a strong chance of winning in November?

No. Each of these candidates needs a running mate who'll help make up for some of their negatives - and that probably starts with the requisite white male. Besides, Obama would add nothing to a Clinton ticket. She needs to attract more moderates and the guy the National Journal has named "Most Liberal Senator 2007" ain't it. If, as seems increasingly likely, military action is taken against Iran in the run-up to the election (in order to drive the country toward a more conservative candidate, if nothing else), it would help if she had a running mate with some hands-on military experience - and that sure as hell ain't Obama. Someone like Wes Clarke would do nicely.

Otherwise, most of Obama's constituents used to be Clinton's constituents - and most of them will go for the Democratic candidate regardless (despite all the wailing, moaning, gnashing of teeth, and threats to vote for Nader - unless, of course, I've underestimated the number of fifth columnists in the Obama camp). And it's worth noting that, according to the Pew Research Center, McCain would draw more defecting Democrats were Obama the candidate than were Clinton the candidate - nearly twice as many, in fact. Who needs a running mate that's going to lose you votes?

The only voters that might be lost, were Clinton heading the ticket, are all these alleged "new people" Obama is purportedly drawing out of the apolitical woodwork. But, frankly, who needs them? If they're only getting involved because of a single personality, they presumably wouldn't have been voting anyway. And if the Democratic Party couldn't win a presidential election after eight years of George Bush and Dick Cheney with the voters they already had, they don't deserve the office.

Obama, on the other hand, needs someone with even a modicum of experience, especially in foreign affairs, defense issues, and the economy, to balance his act. Clinton wouldn't be a bad choice (though she'd never do it), unless, again, there's escalation in the Middle East - in which case, a military figure would still come in handy. He's stolen her platform and her constituents, why not steal her best bet for a running mate, as well: Wes Clarke?

Given that neither candidate will likely have the needed delegates to claim the nomination outright, which criteria should be used to determine the nominee: popular vote, most pledged delegates, total delegates?

Gee, how about following the party's rules? The pledged delegates vote on the basis of their state's primary and the PLEO delegates vote on the basis of their conscience (usually for the candidate they feel has the best chance of winning in the general election). If neither candidate gets 2025 votes, the delegates confer and cast a second ballot - and this time everyone votes according to who they think has the best chance of winning. Repeat until one candidate has 2025 votes. End of story.

With all the talk in the various Obama threads about "panties," "vaginas" and sexual metaphors for cats, I'm beginning to wonder am I on or the PENTHOUSE letters forum?

Wertz, your rabid anti-Obama hatred is really throwing off your usually acute political compass.

Why would any presidential candidate who is leading in the delegate count, popular vote and number of wins even consider an invitation to be the running mate to the second place contender? This line of crap being spewed by The Clintonistas is just an obvious attempt to jump-start her "inevitability" battery again. Billary are offering a bait-and-switch to the remaining Democratic primary voters, where they can get the best of both worlds; both Barack and Hillary on the same ticket---but of course with the woman on top (in every sense of the phrase).

There's nothing remotely "clever" about the move. It's a sucker play and only a sucker would fall for it. Obama may not be your cup of tea, but you don't get to head up the Harvard Law Review by being a complete idiot.

Obama doesn't have to be an "ambitious egomaniac" to blow off such a deceitful and dishonest "offer." All he has to do is have a functioning brain and a reasonable amount of common sense.



Personally, I'd prefer Colin Powell to Wesley Clark as Barack Obama's running mate or Secretary of Defense. Bill Richardson would be far more helpful for Obama as the governor of a red state, New Mexico, that could be put into play and also shore up Obama's weakness with Hispanic voters. As regards the National Journal's ranking of Obama as "the Most Liberal Senator of 2007," that was the same label they hung on John Kerry in 2004. Strange how that works out that the leading Democratic contender gets tagged by a conservative magazine and even self-identified "liberals" are drinking the Haterade.

But then, as I've already noted, your perspective is skewed by your antipathy toward Obama.



That's funny. I don't hear a lot of wailing, moaning, gnashing of teeth or threats to vote for Nader by Obama supporters. In fact, recent polling indicates Obama voters are more likely to support Clinton should she become the Democratic nominee than Clinton supporters are willing to support Obama (is that your phone ringing, Wertz?). It seems it's The Clintonistas, not the Obamaniacs, who are more likely to hold their breath until they turn blue if their
girl comes up short.

As far as your "fifth columnists" crack goes, I'd suggest you tune your AM radio to the local right-wing channel where Rush Limbaugh issues orders to his loyal Dittoheads. The drug-addled gasbag has endorsed Hillary and he's very honest about why:

"We need Barack Obama bloodied up politically . . . I'm asking people to cross over and, if they can stomach it--- I know it's a difficult thing to do, to vote for a Clinton, but it will sustain this soap opera."

In Mississippi, the tactic worked.

Now we have the results of the Mississippi primary, and the effects of this strategy are dramatic. Although Obama won over 61 percent of the Democratic primary votes, have a look at the votes of self-identified Republicans... Hillary Clinton wins a whopping 75 percent of the Republicans. Has her crossover appeal radically improved, despite her disapproval ratings holding steady? Or are these, as seems more likely, strategic votes designed to cause chaos in the Democratic party link

You can believe whatever you want to Wertz. If you think all those Republicans in Mississippi went to bed before the election and woke up possessed with the joy and clarity of how wonderful life would be if only Billary were back in the White House, then you're too far gone for me to reason with. Limbaugh and the Right-wing want the easiest Democratic to beat in the fall and with her 50 percent disapproval ratings, Hillary's their guy.




You know, I heard Ralph Nader say the exact same thing Wertz. It sounded like bull when he said it too.

Even after eight years of Bush and Cheney wreaking havoc on the country, the economy and The Constitution, there is no reason to think the Dems have the election in the bag. One thing we've learned from bitter experience is Democrats have considerable talent for blowing leads and elections despite what the polls might say. Polls are merely a snapshot of the electorate's mood at a particular point in time. Moods change and with Iraq on the backburner as a issue, McCain may get a free pass from the public and the press for his enthusiastic support for the war.

Secondly, if you think the only voters that might be lost if Clinton were heading the tickets are the "new people," I have three words for you, my friend. WRONG. WRONG. WRONG.

There are some "old people" whom the Democrats can't win a race for dog catcher without and they are getting good and angry at how Hillary and her supporters are waging this scorched earth policy to wrest the nomination away from Obama.

Perhaps you don't read enough Black blogs, but I do and this particular outburst from JackandJillpolitics.com got a LOT of play in the Black blogosphere. Here's a flavor of it:

For those of you out there supporting Senator Clinton, you need to look at yourself in the mirror and ask what your soul is worth. For if you don't call her on this, you are complicit in an act of treachery. Many of us think that Senator Clinton's transgressions of racial politicking are enough to disqualify her from receiving our support, but I'm not even gonna go there. I'm just talking about democracy and rules and fairness.

If you fail to stand up for democratic principles, then you are against democracy, and you are my enemy. Tell your candidate to back off. She agreed to the rules and now wants to change them. Tell her to back off. She is making a mistake.

Many Clinton people have said here and elsewhere that we must ultimately support her if she's the nominee because the alternative, John 100-Years-War McCain, is unacceptable, because the Supreme Court is in jeopardy, because blah blah blah.

I ain't afraid of John McCain! We just survived eight years of George W. Bush

I ain't afraid of John McCain! My mother went to too many meetings, walked in too many marches, took over too many radio stations for me to vote out of fear.

I ain't afraid of John McCain! My grandmother wasn't the first black clerk at the Supreme Court, and her father did not teach himself to read just so I could vote out of fear.

I ain't afraid of John McCain! Do you hear me?? My people did not build this country with their backs spilling blood, did not have their families systematically destroyed, their language stamped out, their identities stolen en masse so that I might be here today and vote out of fear.

I am not afraid of John McCain or what the Republicans might do because millions of my ancestors lay at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean right now, and they did not die for me to cave so easily. Nothing John McCain could do as president would justify me turning my backs on my ancestors or my principles. We will survive. We have always survived.

You think we're in for hard times if we don't support Hillary? You don't know hard times.

The Republicans have always told African-Americans the Democrats take our support for granted. Know something Wertz? This could be the year where Black people actually listen to them.

Oh, that doesn't mean Blacks will stampede to the GOP and vote for McCain. He's no option. Neither is Nader.

What it could mean is if Hillary gets the nomination by way of skulduggery, deceit, sleazy backroom dirty deals, arm-wringing and just generally shafting Obama, African-Americans may just opt out of the November election. Given a choice between a dried-up White woman and a even more dried-up White man, the best option may be to have nothing to do with either of them.

You're assuming when push comes to shove, Blacks will tuck their tails between their legs and wander back home to the ope and loving arms of Hill and Bill and show up with a smile this November and return them to The Nobody But White House. Well, why not? Previous history would tend to support that assumption.

But what happens if Black voters DON'T turn out for Billary? Maybe in a move to return to the spotlight Sharpton and Jackson call for a boycott of the Democratic ticket. Maybe Obama just sits out the election and his silence dooms Billary's chances in the fall. It doesn't take much. Just a slight push.

Then perhaps enough Black voters with a bad attitude say, "Uh-uh. Not this time. We've had enough." Given a choice between being pimped by one party and ignored by the other, the only intelligent response may be to say "the hell with both of you."

Which should just about guarantee the inauguration of President John McCain next January.

Don't believe me, Wertz. That's okay. You don't have to. I don't claim to speak for 30 million African Americans. It probably won't happen. The Democrats have been able to count on the Negro vote since FDR. What's so different this year?

Just one thing. Black people are watching how so-called "liberals" are trying to destroy Barack Obama and marginalize us---again.

That doesn't mean things won't go according to the script.

But it might.

Glad to see you're doing your part to raise the tone, then. At least it's refreshing to see a bit of sexism coming from the Obama camp - the race-baiting is getting really old.


Because he knows that every delegate at the convention can change their vote on the second ballot, that the "popular vote" among registered Democrats voting in the primaries so far puts Clinton ahead by about a million votes, and that on the basis of the number of wins so far Clinton could easily carry California, New York, New Jersey, Florida, Michigan, and Ohio in the general election while he could carry... Illinois?


It was obviously a sucker play - and Obama did fall for it. Do you seriously think Clinton wanted Obama to accept? Hell, no - that's why I indicated that if he did accept, she'd probably lose control of her bowels. She wanted him to turn it down, ideally with a bit of arrogance - which is exactly what he did.

Regardless of how things go between now and the convention, or even during the course of the convention, Obama has already rejected the second place on the ticket - and Clinton hasn't. Whatever happens, Clinton could have a place on the ticket. Obama can now only have a place on the ticket if, by August, his campaign can convince the convention that he should still have the top slot. If, for any reason, the delegates, the electorate, or public opinion turns against Obama over the next five months, the Party might be willing to go with Clinton and offer the VP slot to Obama - at which point, Clinton can say, "Well, you know, I did make the offer, but he rejected it out of hand. Let's see who else might work..." Obama, on the other hand, may be forced to accept the "dream team" (which, I'm afraid, would probably guarantee his loss).

That's a lot of variables, to be sure, but I still say it was a clever move to get Obama off the table as a running mate now.


Would that he did, then. He could easily have given a soft, non-committal answer (as he had done in the California debate). Instead, the ambitious egomania functioning brain and common sense must have kicked in.


Then, personally, you really do want Obama to lose. To my mind, Obama's biggest negative in this campaign - to a fairly broad cross-section of American voters - is his race. You want to put two black men on the ticket? Or a black and a hispanic?


And your rabid anti-anyone-but-Obama hatred is really throwing off your ability to reason. You think I'm unaware of the political bias of the National Journal? You think I don't know that they gave the same rating to Kerry in 2004? I'm just pointing out what the GOP campaign is going to be focusing on should Obama be the candidate. They'll be focusing on his liberalism (as "evidenced" by the National Journal rating - and his voting record), his real estate deal with and campaign contributions from Antoin Rezko (and his dissembling in relation to both), the double-talk of Austan Goolsbee and Samantha Power, the senator's "Muslim background", his legislative absenteeism, his lack of experience, his Farrakhan endorsement, his relationship with Rev Wright, his wife's "misstatements", his admitted drug use, his failure to wear flag pins, his smoking, and, I'm sure, several lines of attack that haven't emerged yet - like his campaign's persistent race-baiting - and God knows what they'll outright invent. If the Obama campaign thinks Clinton was throwing the kitchen sink at him by mentioning NAFTA and an "experience gap", they'd better be bracing themselves for every household fixture known to man to descend upon him - and he'd better field the charges way better than he has so far. Some of those lines of attack hold a bit of water, many are totally specious - but do you think that's going to stop an army of 527s? Dream on. By the time the Republican Noise Machine gets done with Obama, he'll be lucky to carry Illinois.


Nope - my perspective has been skewed by the under-handed dirty politics and blatant race-baiting by the Obama campaign. I don't particularly care for Obama's personality, it's true, but I agree with about as many of his policies as Clinton's. Obama's inexperience in national and international politics and his apparent lack of substance are drawbacks, but neither are worthy of hatred. Nor is his dishonesty - that seems to go with the territory. I think he could, eventually, be a very good candidate for the office.

The only thing I find hateful about the Obama campaign is the campaign - especially the insistence on making race an issue and the attempts to paint the Clintons as being one step lower than Lester Maddox. You, nighttimer, are typical of many Obama's supporters and you have to admit that you've been playing the race card with startling frequency here - often with no foundation whatsoever. I'm no more a racist than you're a homophobe - and I'm fairly certain that you know that. But it sure hasn't stopped you from taking race-based swipes at me. and that, my friend, is drinking the Haterade. The more often I'm told that I'm part of a "lynch mob" or that my considered political opinion can be reduced to being a "playa-hater", the more skewed my perspective will become.

Like many, I don't take kindly to sleazy smears - and I'm afraid it is my natural inclination to react - and, often, overreact. That's why, were I an advocate of either candidate, I'd choose my words fairly carefully. You may sneer at "sending candy and flowers" to those who haven't already drunk the Kool-Aid, but you know what? It works better than hurling abuse at them. (And I'm not talking about me specifically - there's little anyone here can tell me about either candidate that I don't already know. But there are a lot of voters out there who will take note of the tone of the campaign - and your tone is, sadly, all too typical of Obama's supporters - and that could easily affect their vote.)

This is another reason that the "dream team" wouldn't work for either candidate. The Clinton campaign has been characterized as smearing Obama and the Obama campaign has been smearing Clinton. Both candidates need a running mate who is seen to be "above the fray" thus far - ideally, someone who has not yet been involved in this campaign. Clarke or Powell would fit that criterion, but Richardson would probably be painted as an opportunist who spent most of the campaign angling to be Clinton's running mate, then as soon as Obama pulled ahead in the polls, gave him his endorsement.


That's funny. You must only visit DailyKos to mine it for talking points, then. If you spent any amount of time reading their venomous, vitriolic anti-Clinton threads (and they make up 90% of the site's content now), you'd know exactly what I'm talking about. My God, Markos Moulitsas himself has threatened "civil war" if Clinton gets the nomination. Hell, I even get it from LiveJournal friends in response to my criticisms of Obama. "I think Hillary is awful and will sit home rather than vote if she is the party's candidate" is a typical comment (well, not that typical - but most of the others wouldn't pass the profanity filter here).


I haven't seen these polls, so I can't comment. If I got such a call, though, I'd tell the pollsters that the only Democratic candidate I'm supporting is Mike Gravel - and that if either Clinton or Obama gets the nomination, they will most likely get my reluctant Anybody But McCain vote. I've been campaigning for Clinton because my "usually acute political compass" tells me that Obama has about as much chance of winning in the general election as Gravel does. But if such a poll exists, I guess it answers the question Sen. Obama's put to David Brody of the Christian Broadcasting Network in South Carolina: "I will get the people who voted for her. Now the question is, will she get the people who voted for me?"


Not in my experience.


No, thanks - Limbaugh makes comments like "Let’s say put Hillary on top, that's a position she is familiar with" - and there's only so much sexist trash I can stomach. Apparently, I can get my fill of that kind of crap right here.


And how far gone do I need to be to believe that 37% of Republicans in South Carolina (second to Edward's 43%), 75% of Republicans in Missouri, 72% of Republicans in Virginia, 72% of Republicans in Wisconsin, and 53% of Republicans in Texas want a candidate to the left of Hillary Clinton? My "usually acute political compass" tells me that all those Republicans (not to mention a good number of independents) are voting against Clinton to keep her off the Democratic ticket - and that, come November 4, they're going to be voting for McCain. Maybe Republicans are possessed with the joy and clarity of Obama's policies and, overnight, are embracing universal health care and more Second Amendment restrictions and extended entitlement programs and affirmative action for minorities and strong civil unions for gays and embryonic stem cell research and eliminating tax cuts. I rather doubt it. You can believe whatever you want.

But if either candidate wants to have a chance at winning, they'll need someone even more centrist than themselves - so they might actually get a few of those moderate Republican votes. The "dream team" would be a nightmare in that regard.


I agree entirely. And that's why I'm hoping that the Democratic Party doesn't blow it - by nominating Sen. Obama.


I'll start believing it when I start seeing it reflected in the primaries. So far, those in my age bracket are solidly behind Clinton. Maybe it's because we've been around long enough to recognize the scorched earth policies of the Obama campaign...


I probably don't read enough, it's true. I have come across jackandjillpolitics blog, but I'd always had the impression (seriously) they were black Republicans. I do tend to follow, among a couple of others, The Black Commentator - the essays there tend to align with my more radical tendencies. I know Larry Pinkney's Goose-Stepping Behind Barack Obama: The Absence of Critical Thinking also made the rounds of teh internets. Here's a flavor of it:

As amply demonstrated by Germany and Italy of the 1930s, there is absolutely nothing new about a substantively uninformed, and highly manipulated electorate, euphorically and uncritically lining up lock-step behind a political figure offering a dangerously superficial, media sound-bite rhetoric which indefinably calls for "change." The consequences of falling prey to such superficiality are dangerous and immense. ...

This is not lost upon the U.S. corporate media, which is precisely why said media promotes Barack Obama, and others, who represent superficial, feel-good change, which really means window dressing change [i.e. no change at all for the vast majority of people]. Such so-called change is akin to telling a terminally ill patient that if he or she simply feels good about themselves, their illness will not kill them. ...

It’s time to stop mentally goose-stepping, and start critically thinking. What a revolutionary concept. This, too, is what "Keeping It Real" is all about.

I find it interesting, though, that your jackandjillpolitics blog trashes those that might ultimately support Clinton if she's the nominee with the litany of tiresome "I ain't afraid of John McCain!" Gee, is that what you mean by the "Clintonistas" being "more likely to hold their breath until they turn blue if their girl comes up short"? I'm not convinced.


And that would be a fair enough response. My fear is that, even if Clinton gets the nomination strictly by following the party convention's rules, that the Obama campaign will still spin it as skulduggery, deceit, sleazy backroom dirty deals, arm-wringing and just generally shafting Obama - and will still opt out. And the Kossacks will still stage their civil war. Hell, Obama's supporters are already entirely ignoring the Obama campaign's skulduggery, deceit, arm-wringing, and general shafting of Clinton and, worse, trying to attribute their own race-baiting to the opposition - why should we expect them to change over night?

Your scenario of a massive black boycott of the election is unlikely, though it is possible that much of the Obama camp will hold its breath until it turns blue. Far more likely is that, when push does come to shove, racist America will tuck its guilt between its legs and cast yet another vote for the white guy. Well, why not? Previous history would tend to support that assumption. If Obama's the candidate, that will guarantee the inauguration of President John McCain next January. With Clinton, there's still a fifty-fifty chance - even without the breath-holders.

But she can't do it with Obama as a running mate - for the same reason that your personal dream teams of Obama/Powell and Obama/Richardson would be doomed to failure. This is America, nighttimer: one minority candidate on the ticket would be difficult. Two would be impossible.

Look, I can sympathize with identity politics, but I don't personally subscribe to them (like Andrew Sullivan would get my vote? Or Larry Craig??). I can appreciate your support for Obama, but I really think his campaign needs a change of attitude (like getting rid of David Axelrod now, for a start) - and I wish the candidate were better prepared, even for running a campaign against a serious challenger. He's not. And I just don't think he can win the general election.


Just one final thing. Black people should be watching how a so-called "post-racial" campaign is trying to destroy Hillary Clinton by painting her as a racist. Maybe informed, politically aware black voters will say, "Uh-uh. Not this time. We've had enough of everyone playing the race card - even candidates of color." Then again, you are an informed, politically aware black voter and it seems even you haven't been able to look past the South Carolina memo.

Can we successfully demonize our opponent and possibly destroy our party in the process? Come on, now - everybody: "Yes We Can! Yes We Can! Yes We Can! Yes We Can!"

1) Is a "dream ticket" of either configuration likely? Why or why not?

Nope, and for the reasons given so far. In the end everyone will do what is smart for winning in November. Just how that pans out is anyone's guess. Besides, this primary stuff isn't over with yet, so speculation is just that.

2) Would either ticket stand a strong chance of winning in November? Why or why not?

I'll skip this one because that's really speculating way far ahead.

3) Given that neither candidate will likely have the needed delegates to claim the nomination outright, which criteria should be used to determine the nominee: popular vote, most pledged delegates, total delegates? Why?

I liked Wertz' answer on this. If nothing else, this election season has brought out party rules. Judging by the amount of misinformation showing up, it's quite an education in poli sci.

It is interesting the thoughts on who might run as VP, which often is a step towards a presidential run. I'll do my own speculation that whoever runs for VP will not have run for POTUS in the past.

When it comes to race-baiting, I wouldn't call Geraldine Ferraro, "old." I'd stop at "cranky" and "consistent." She dissed a Jesse Jackson 1988 who was running for the presidency and 20 years later she's right back at again with Barack Obama. Apparently, something about Black men kind of rubs her the wrong way.

Once a cranky bigot, consistently a cranky bigot.



Still not buying it. It's chutzpah for sure, but not necessarily clever for the person trailing the front-runner to make an obviously insincere offer to pick them as their running mate.
What's the appeal to Obama to play Hoke in a revival of "Driving Miss Hillary?" There's nothing particularly brilliant in offering Obama a position that's not even hers to offer.

She should be worried if Obama will offer her a place on the ticket. Not the other way around. Based on how much help Ferraro was to Mondale (a 49-state blow-out), Obama might be wise to pick one of those old White guys like Wes Clark or Ted Strickland. Ferraro couldn't even deliver her home state of New York.

That's not sexism. That's history.





Lett me see if I'm folllowing your lead. You're telling me America isn't ready for one Black man on the ticket, so putting two on the ticket is a sure loser? Likewise for a Black man and a Hispanic man who is a governor, has the most impressive foreign policy credentials of almost any likely Democratic veep and appeals to the largest growing demographic in the nation.

Despite the credentials, national and international respect, the decades of real (not imagined and exaggerated) experience and the sheer gravitas Colin Powell and Bill Richardson could bring to ANY administration, America is so hopelessly backwards and racially polarized that there is no way you can put two Blacks or a Black and Hispanic presidential run together?

Wow. Tough crowd. Guess that means there's no way Hillary can do anything but pick a White male as her running mate. Damn shame that we're getting lesser qualified White men leapfrogging better qualified Blacks and Browns because America's "not ready" for anything else than more of the same politics that don't work.



Sounds like Barack should just quit now and beat the rush later. Of course, with Hillary leading the Democrats into the fall means the return of Bill Clinton's serial philandering, his impeachment, Travelgate, Whitewater, thongs, semen-stained blue dresses, smoking cigars while receiving the oral favors of a chubby intern, Paula Jones, Gennifer Flowers, Kathleen Willey, Juanita Brodderick, the Clinton Death List starring Ron Brown and Vince Foster, impeachment, bombing a pharmaceutical company, the U.S.S. Cole, Waco, the vast-right-wing conspiracy, "Hillarycare," Johnny Chung, Mark Rich, not inhaling, Hillary's lesbian loves, and more dirt, junk and crap than you can shake a 60-second attack ad at.

C'mon Wertz. If you're trying to scare me with the Republican Noise Machine they'll be working overtime reminding every American voter of the scandals and sleaze of the last Clinton Administration. Hillary's not going to be able to tear up and make the bullies back down. She thinks she's a fighter? She doesn't know how hard she's going to have to fight.

Any Democrat that goes up against the bare-knuckled brawlers that work for the GOP is going to get bloodied. There's just more places to punch when they get to run against Hillary AND Bill Clinton, than Barack Obama.



Oh, it's the old "wait your turn" philosophy, huh? Just like all the other Black governors and senators and congressmen and generals and businessmen whom have been told, "not yet" and "you're not ready."

The thing is Wertz, when you leave it up to someone else to decide when you're ready, you never are.

Read something else besides that Clinton groupie, Taylor Marsh, and you find out very quickly Hillary's experience comes primarily from being the First Lady of Arkansas and the United States. Attending state funerals and having tea and cookies with the wife of the president of Uzbekistan isn't the same thing as conducting foreign policy, okay? Hillary had no National Security Clearance and could not have legally sat in on any meetings when important foreign policy decisions were made and unless Bill talks in his sleep she wasn't involved in any of The Clinton Administration outcomes.

Her big domestic initiative was healthcare and it blew up in her face. She closed out Democrats like Daniel Moynihan from the process and galvanized the health industry to organize and squash her plans. But hey, no hard feelings. The healthcare industry gives thousands to Senator Clinton now. Guess President Hillary Clinton would really be motivated to take on Big Medicine after years of cashing their checks.




Wertz, the Lester Maddox attacks have been from The Clinton campaign and their surrogates against Barack Obama and not the other way around. What Bill Sheehan, Bob Johnson, Bob Kerry, Geraldine Ferraro, and the big dog himself, Bill Clinton have done is engage in race-baiting, trying to marginalize Obama as "the Black candidate" leak embarrassing pictures to right-wing gossip sites, attempt to change the rules they agreed to about the Michigan and Florida delegates and lauded McCain while denigrating Obama.

Race is a involved in this campaign and the Clintons have done their worst to ensure it would be. They can't create the conditions and then complain about the results.

It's time to retire this "playing the race card" cliche. It's gone the way of Johnnie Cochran and "if it doesn't fit you must acquit." Those who use race as a club to pound Obama are the first ones to whine, moan and gripe when they are called out for their racist behavior. It's like a drunk driver blaming all those reckless sober drivers for not getting out the way when they could see he was sloshed to the gills.

The Clintons have morphed into a new kind of mammal: The non-racist racist.

There is peculiar bit of jujitsu that white public figures have employed recently whenever they're called to account for saying something stupid about black people. When the hard questions start flying, said figure deflects them by claiming that any critical interrogation is tantamount to calling them a racist, which they most assuredly are not. Last year, Bill O'Reilly took a jaunt up to Harlem's famed Sylvia's and returned with the news that blacks had learned the basics of table manners and developed opposable thumbs. When Media Matters attacked O'Reilly for his voluminous ignorance, he angrily accused his critics of distorting "a positive discussion on race and accusing me of racism."

As Don Imus was being drummed off the air, journalists and Washington oligarchs assembled to assure us all of Imus' decency, pointing to his good deeds on behalf of children with cancer and claiming that despite his penchant for caricaturing black people, he surely was no racist. Michael Richards marred his career by laying into a couple of hecklers with a textbook deluge of hate speech, but what disturbed him most was the fact that someone out there may have inferred that he was, you know, racist. "I'm not a racist,""Richards told David Letterman. "That's what's so insane."

It gives me no joy to report that Geraldine Ferraro has now applied to join the ranks of the obviously nonracist. I was 8 when she ran for vice president and vaguely aware that a party that would promote a woman for an executive office might be a party that would one day give a kid like me a fair shake. Thus I've retched while watching Ferraro beeline to any television studio that would have her, flaunting her rainbow bona fides, and claiming that she's being attacked "because she's white" and demonized as a racist.

The bar for racism has been raised so high that one need be a card-carrying member of the Nazi Party to qualify. Had John McCain said that Hillary Clinton was only competitive in the presidential race because she was a woman, there'd be no dispute over whether the comment was sexist. And yet when the equivalent is said about a black person, it's not only not racist, but any criticism of the statement is interpreted as an act of character assassination. "If anybody is going to apologize," Ferraro told MSNBC, "they should apologize to me for calling me a racist." link

Funny thing about "skewed perspectives." Mine get a bit bent out of shape when someone plays the Nazi card when they say stuff like,...I'm afraid I have to agree with KivrotHaTaavah one at least one point, though it pains me to do so. happy.gif When I see footage of Obama rallies, with all the "Fired Up! Ready To Go!" and "Yes We Can!" chanting (and now brandishing the iconic Obama posters by Shepard Fairey) , I keep looking around for Leni Riefenstahl with a camera. Frankly, they give me the creeps.

I get the creeps when a smart guy like you co-signs KivrotHaTaavah saying Obama's appeal is "Hitleresque," supports infantcide as is the "anti-life Anti-Christ."

I'm not the one siding with extremist, and hateful rhetoric like that. You could have condemned those statements, but instead of repudiating them, you expanded on it.

I haven't called you a racist Wertz and I challenge you to show me where I have. What I have said is you're running with some pretty dubious characters bound together for a shared dislike for Obama, but who have about as much regard for you as a Gay Man as they do for me as a Black men.



I'm not really interested in investing a lot of energy searching for the right combination of facts, policy statements, speeches, and other supporting documentation trying to win over non-committed voters. That's a job for the Obama Campaign and their outreach team. If you've got issues with me as a Obama supporter then we should talk them out on our own time and resolve them where possible. If you truly believe supporters of Obama's candidacy are potentially seeding the political playing field for the rise of a Fourth Reich, I don't know why you'd want to have anything to do with it.

When the time comes and the choices are paired from three down to two and one of them is John McCain, you'll have to rely on your own conscience and decisions. To the best of my knowledge, my voting decisions have never influenced yours in the past. I see no reason my support of Obama now should change anything.



That is simply untrue. Obama wasn't the one who said he and McCain had all the experience and all Clinton did was to give a speech. Hillary had her red phone moment when she gave Bush the green light to go to war. Instead of showing some backbone and joining the other 27 Democrats that voted against the authorization she cravenly triangulated and made the cynical decision to not be accused of not supporting Bush's war.





You're already seeing African-American voters, a demographic the Democrats can't win without, make clear they are solidly behind Obama Maybe it's because we've been around long enough to recognize the scorched earth policies of the Clinton campaign in February and March and are not going to reward her for these sleazeball tactics in November.



But you're prepared to set aside your more radical tendencies to cast your lot with a corporate Democrat who's a member of the neo-liberal Democratic Leadership Council. A bit of a contradiction there.



May I suggest you tear yourself away from The Black Commentator and give a look at some more mainstream Black sites.

The first thing to know about me is that I am a lifelong Democrat. I have voted Democratic in every presidential election since 1976, when I was first eligible to do so.

Furthermore, in 1984, I was a new assistant professor at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, and on Oct. 12th of that year, I was among a crowd of 50,000 or more who came out on a cold, but clear morning to cheer Geraldine Ferraro on the steps of the Wisconsin State Capitol the morning after her historic vice-presidential debate with George H. W. Bush (then Ronald Reagan's running mate or "41" as he is now known in the Bush family).

I note all of this to say that both Hillary Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro have gone too far. Should Clinton somehow steal the nomination from Barack Obama as a result of the fear-mongering, racial politics she has decided to play, then 2008 will be the first year I do not vote for the Democratic presidential nominee. And I am not alone.

I have been casually polling friends and family members on Clinton's tactics, and everyone is stunned. Of the roughly 20 or so folks I have asked about it, only one expressed a readiness to stand by Clinton should she some how get the nomination.

A lifelong politician who cannot see the greater societal harm caused by his/her tactics does not belong in the White House. I do not vote for people who employ the worst race-baiting campaign tactics, whether they label themselves as Republicans or Democrats. link2


Race baiting and religious bigotry, have been features of the Clintons’ strategy all along: First they had a campaign official suggest that Obama may have been a drug dealer; they had an acolyte claim Obama had been trained in a madrassa; they sent the picture of Obama wearing the traditional Somali Islamic attire to the Drudge Report, according to Drudge himself; they darkened Obama’s feature in a commercial used by the Clintons; in the sinister "red phone" commercial, professor Orlando Patterson suggested, by showing the sleeping white girl, they may have wanted to create the impression of danger in the form of a Black man lurking somewhere; responding to a question in a "60 Minutes" interview, Clinton maliciously said Obama was not a Muslim "as far as" she knew, when Senator Obama has categorically repeated numerous times that he is a Christian; and, finally, the recent remarks by Geraldine Ferraro.


It is difficult for us to believe that the Clintons, very intelligent as they are, haven’t imagined that such race baiting and religious bigotry can have the consequence we are pointing out.

This is a disturbing, dangerous and scary thought. link

You can dismiss this as just so much Hillary bashing from like-minded Obamaniacs if you want to Wertz, but blow it off at your own risk. The threat of what John McCain might do is not going to be enough to scare Black voters back to Hillary Clinton when they remember what she did do win the nomination.



Maybe by your criteria where racism and fear always trump experience and qualification. If Hillary puts some safe as milk (and just as White) DNC corporatist like Evan Bayh or Tom Vilsack, Blacks and other Obama supporters will stay home and Cindy McCain can start picking out the new linen for the Lincoln Bedroom.



I'm not playing "identity politics," Wertz. I'm not playing at all. As difficult as it may be for some people to accept (and I don't count you in that number), Black Americans reach the conclusion of who to vote for or against exactly the same way White Americans do. We read, we watch, we listen and we process the information and come to a decision. Just like anybody else.

So far it seems Obama (and David Axelrod) have run a very good campaign and without lifting pages whole from the Karl Rove playbook as Mark Penn and Howard Ickes have. They have been able to put together ground forces and open offices in states where Democratic voters have been largely abandoned by The Clinton Campaign strategy of competing seriously only in the largest states.



The way you haven't been able to look past The Clinton campaign's mistake of allowing Bill Clinton to wander around South Carolina trashing Obama to the point that James Clyburn had to hold the threat of his abandoning his neutral stance and throwing his support to Obama? Representative Clyburn successfully squelched Big Bill's clumsy attempts to play games of racial polarization though even Clyburn couldn't stop Bill from his sour grapes crack about Jesse Jackson. Way to go Bill. Just like Gerry Ferrarro, try to ghettoize and marginalize Obama as nothing more formidable than "the Black candidate."



When it comes to demonizing a worthy and respectful opponent and attempting to destroy the Democratic Party in the process should they be denied their ultimate goal of Hill serving as the Trojan Horse for Bill's third term, this egomaniacal and self-interested duo has been "Ready from Day One" and nothing will stand in their way.

I'm afraid I got drawn into a few points you raised in your previous post (and vice versa) and we are now in danger of seriously derailing this thread. I think we need a thread on race-baiting in this campaign and I hope to get one posted before the night is out. Therefore, I'll try to restrict myself to the parts of our last exchange that apply to the "dream ticket" and potential running mates.


Clinton is the front-runner in blue states; she's the front-runner in the states with the most electoral votes; and she's the front-runner among registered Democrats. There's not that much chutzpah required.


Absolutely - and I've said as much in dissing the whole notion of the "dream team". I've also suggested that, if offered, Clinton would probably turn down the position down - and that an Obama/Clinton ticket would almost certainly be destined to lose.


Yep. Richardson might just get by - he could pass for white and he's got an Anglo name. But the 527s would never let up on the fact that he's "Mexican" and - horrors - that he was raised in Mexico City. On a ticket with a white chick from Illinois, maybe. On a ticket with a black guy raised in Indonesia, not a chance.


Yep.


Correct.


It's more than a shame, it's a tragedy and a disgrace. It's also the truth.


No, it's the old "give me something more than two absentee years as a junior senator before running as the national executive" philosophy. But now we're veering from the topic. Just a few final points of information:

• I've never actually read Taylor Marsh - and must admit I didn't know who she was. I came across her looking for a source article on the Obama campaign's threats to PLEO delegates that hadn't been blacked out by the wire services. As it turns out, I don't base my opinions on what any blogger or commentator or op-ed artiste has to say. I look to the media and the internet for primary sources and to examine a range of political opinion. Besides, my reference to Marsh's blog (and I apologized for using an apparently biased source) had to do with the Obama campaign's "politics as usual", not Hillary Clinton's experience.
  
  
• I was not playing the "Nazi card". Like Pinkney, I was playing the "substantively uninformed and highly manipulated electorate, euphorically and uncritically lining up lock-step behind a political figure offering a dangerously superficial, media sound-bite rhetoric which indefinably calls for 'change'" card. Nor, God save us, was I agreeing with every sentiment KivrotHaTaavah has ever expressed. As stated in the original post, I was agreeing with "one point" - finding Obama rallies creepy, yes, because they're reminiscent of large populist events in which masses respond emotionally to a strong, charismatic personality.
  
  
• James Clyburn's admonition for Bill Clinton to "chill" had nothing whatsoever to do with race - and none of the comments to which Clyburn was referring had anything to do with Obama's dismissal as "the Black candidate." As you have evidently forgotten (surely you're not willfully distorting the story to play another race card), the issues raised by President Clinton were Obama overstating his opposition to the invasion of Iraq, the behavior of Obama's union supporters in the Nevada caucuses, and Obama's "praise" for Ronald Reagan. That's it. Now, I'm sure any good Obama supporter can spin those to be highly racially charged issues, but I'm too old to make such leaps.

I mention the Clyburn story here because it's not one of the examples that can be debated in the eventual "race card" thread. Many of your other points here will be able to be discussed there (apart from your characterization of Clinton's "experience", which could also use its own thread) - and, hopefully, I'll get to them. I'm working on it...

I really don't believe it is. If either one had inclinations about a "dream ticket," there would be *feelers* to the opposite side about such an arragnement and we would not be having a race at the present moment.

2) Would either ticket stand a strong chance of winning in November? Why or why not?

I really think a lot of reactions to this question have missed the mark entirely. How would it not be a powerful ticket? She provides foreign policy heft, "muscle" through being a tough debater and person who knows how to sling the mud back, not to mention, she's married to the best fundraiser in the party? And how about his ability to inspire young people and draw more votes than republicans in a primary? What possible GOP VP would draw greater numbers and support than him? Does anyone seriously think Jack Kemp, Newt Gingrich, or any GOP governor in the nation today would draw more people? He's "good cop" and she's "bad cop."



It should be determined at the national convention, though I wish they'd work something out. It would do wonders for the country and the party if they ever did. I don't believe it will happen though, as there has been some heated comments towards the other side.

I don't see it happening. Both candidates want to be on top.

If Obama doesn't get the nomination, there may be more racial animosity than ever before, and that would not be good. So maybe the best thing to happen would be for Hillary to bow out gracefully and let the man take on the man, if you know what I mean.

At the end of the day, these candidates are power seekers. VP isn't a power position. Quite frankly, it would offend voters to see their candidate of choice take the lesser position on a ticket, come November.



At this point, there is too much bad blood between the two. And between their respective supporters. The Democratic party should be ashamed of itself for allowing this to happen. They don't deserve to win the election if they can't keep their own party from imploding. And my prediction (made in the prediction thread) stands. McCain will win. And the Democrats with all their shenanigans and inter-party conflict will have no one to blame but themselves.




I would want to see the majority of American voters decide.

1) Is a "dream ticket" of either configuration likely? Why or why not?

No. I don't think either would accept the second slot.

If Obama get's the nomination, I don't think he needs Clinton.

I used up three of my MTP, Peggy Noonan quotations on the other thread, so I'm going to use the other three here.



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23766063/page/5/

2) Would either ticket stand a strong chance of winning in November? Why or why not?

I'm not sure who would be the strongest running mate for either. I would suggest former Virginia Governor Mark Warner for Obama.

3) Given that neither candidate will likely have the needed delegates to claim the nomination outright, which criteria should be used to determine the nominee: popular vote, most pledged delegates, total delegates? Why?[/b]

That's a tough question. If it appeaars Obama has been "finessed" out of the nomination, the Democrats may not even get out of the starting gate in what should be a winning year.