Obama Better Get the VP Slot

I'm just saying.  

If Hillary gets the nomination after she and Bill leverage nasty little wins like New Hamshire and Nevada, she's not going to have much of a base to energize for the general.  I personally would be surprised if she even reaches 51%.  

The ironic thing is that, despite all the talk about Obama ushering in a realignment election, Clinton-Obama is probably the best shot the Democratic Party has for something like this.  Obama solves all her--and Bill's for that matter--problems.  He injects all the hope, optimism, and energy of the Obama movement into their ugly, by the book campaign.  African-Americans will forgive them for using race to win whites and hispanics in Nevada and California.  He is immensely appealing to indepentents and even a certain segment of Republicans.  Finally, he brings anti-war cred to two of the most prominent democratic sellouts in the lead-up the Iraq War.  

The real question is does Obama take it?  Does he consider running at the top of a ticket with Bloomberg?  Does he wait till 2016?  Something tells me this will be his only shot.

•  Does Obama take it?

  I think no.  I think Obama tries to chew his own arm off rather than take the VP spot with Hillary.

  But I'm open to arguments to the contrary.

  by Bailey on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 04:51:45 PM PDT

  •  He wouldn't

    not that it would be offered to him.

    by A Handsome Man on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 04:54:46 PM PDT

    •  maybe that's his hope

      that he polarizes Dem's so much that he'll have to be asked to bring his polarized supporters with him. This is mean for me, I know, but these sore loser tactics seem small to me.  

      by anna shane on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 04:55:53 PM PDT

      •  No evidence to support your claim

        How pathetic to blast him for something that is your own speculation.

        by turneresq on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 04:56:52 PM PDT

        •  that's what I was saying

          if it's true he has this gossip about her on his web site, then he's guilty of smearing.  It's gossip, unless he saw it himself and collected names and vetted it.  Too soon for that to be possible.  

          by anna shane on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:04:24 PM PDT

          •  Who would EVER take Hillary's VP slot?

            She clearly cannot control Bill - look at his outrageous behavior on the campaign trail.  

            Anyone with any political ambition or any sense of dignity would refuse a Hillary VP slot, because why be 3rd fiddle?

            by Greuben on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:13:06 PM PDT

            •  oh, no one can control him

              she's never been able to, but he's okay, he's got universal appeal.  LIke Obama, only even more.  

              by anna shane on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:44:48 PM PDT

            •  I regret

              supporting this POS during impeachment.  The Senate should have voted to remove his sorry ass.  His replacement would have had much more honor, and a big leg up in 2000 as the sitting President.

              by TLS66 on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 06:01:50 PM PDT

              •  A two-term Dem President a POS ?

                up-rated, of course.

                by kidneystones on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 07:42:23 PM PDT

                •  Nixon was a two-term President, too

                  his resignation nothwthstanding, Reagan was another, and let's not forget the current Chimp (though he didn't actually win the first one).  So, yes, POS.  It's an assessment I'm pained to make, but I've given Bill a pass too many times.... Monica, the pardons, etc. Then he got cozy with the Bushes, and now, with his despicable behavior in the past weeks...ugggh.

                  by TLS66 on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 11:38:30 PM PDT

            •  Bill will be running things in the WH

              IF Hillary wins, it will take a highly compliant Clinton insider type to serve as VP and constantly have Bill sucking away the oxygen and second guessing decisions.   I don't see Obama in this role and I am not conceding an Obama loss either. Incidentallly, Bill has disappointed me with his in your face, unprincipled behavior in this campaign. I've read some stuff...I am not delusional about Bill Clinton but he was still one of my favorite people.  Now... not so much. He needs some humility.

              by cas2 on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 06:55:56 PM PDT

          •  help me out here...

            an unclear reference in your comment:

            "this gossip about her "

            what gossip?  did I miss something?  Please clarify.  Thanks.

            by penncove on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:40:33 PM PDT

            •  gossip

              is repeating what you heard not what you experienced yourself.  It's hearsay and it's unworthy of his don't smear message. Seems that he jumped the gun on calling the NV delegates for him too, the party says no, the newspaper say no, say he's confused about the counting process.  How embarrassing?  

              by anna shane on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:47:01 PM PDT

              •  anna, please

                I still don't understand what, exactly, you're referring to about this "gossip".  Is it about something Obama has on his site, or is it about something being slung around here on dKos??  Please illuminate.

                As to the delegate count thing, I don't know if you're quite right.  AP is carrying the story.  Can you provide a link which confirms that the NV state party is throwing cold water on the Obama read of likely delegate assignments, which CNN, on their results site, has, as of 6.03 PM PST, flipped in Obama's direction.  

                by penncove on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 06:04:39 PM PDT

                •  I read it in the Sun

                  I don't have a link, but I'm sure there will soon be one posted.  This will get sorted out I'm sure, I just think it's weird to be posting on it, like kos diary, as if it's a done deal when that is far from the case.  The Sun says Obama doesn't understand the way delegates are selected.  It seems like trashing her win, and she did win.  some are talking about dirty tricks, not really getting the votes, all sorts of stuff that is unpleasant.  But, I don't mean to be unpleasant, sorry.  I hope kos write a retraction that gets as much interest as his obama really won one.  

                  by anna shane on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 06:24:42 PM PDT

                  •  here's a neat irony

                    we're getting all exercised here about who gets 13, who gets 12 in a pretty close election....

                    meanwhile, in SC, according to CNN's latest projections, McCain, for 33% of primary votes (no caucus chaos here), gets 13 (projected) delegates, while Hucky, with 30%, gets 3....

                    In Nevada, again per CNN, Romney, with 51%, gets 18 delegates of 31 (or 58%)

                    once again, even in one of our messiest and most confusing settings, the Nevada caucus, we Dems are closer to proportional democracy than the GOP....

                    by penncove on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 07:12:47 PM PDT

                •   Links 2 Jill Derby, Chairwoman Disputing Obama's

                  camp's figures.

                  I didn't that look far down thread to see if anyone answered this so sorry if it's a repeat.

                  But as for the NV state chair who's been "throwing water" so to speak in response to Obama's claims it's in a lot of places.  Here's one full quote.

                  "The calculations of national convention delegates being circulated are based upon an assumption that delegate preferences will remain the same between now and April 2008," said Jill Derby, the chairwoman of the state party. "We look forward to our county and state conventions where we will choose the delegates for the nominee that Nevadans support."

                  Here's one link to Sun Article:

                  http://www.lasvegassun.com/...

                  by santh on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 07:15:12 PM PDT

      •  If Hillary wins the nomination...

        I think Obama will not hesitate to support her and the Democratic Party.  The fact is all three of the top candidates have more character than their "supporters" have shown over the last few weeks.

        by A Handsome Man on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:04:12 PM PDT

        •  I have never

          seen Obama hesitate to do the right thing.  I'm sure that, if he is not the nominee, he will support the nominee fully.

          I'm also sure that he would accept the VP role if it was offered.

          by DMiller on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:08:49 PM PDT

        •  Sure, he would.

          Hillary, I'm really not sure about.  As I've posted elsewhere, he do believe she did what she could to sabotage the Gore '00 and Kerry '04 campaigns ("I STILL would have voted for IWR", remember?).

          by TLS66 on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 06:04:21 PM PDT

        •  Probably true...

          And it has nothing to do with my character, thank you very much, that I won't vote for her.  It has everything to do with my hatred of Clinton style politics, a return to the 1990's, and dynasties.  That's not a party I want to support if that's the direction it's going to go.  I'd support Edwards, I'd probably even support Kucinich.  I will not vote for the Clintons even if Barack Obama begs me to.

          by SlowNomad on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 07:26:24 PM PDT

  •  of course he does

    Why wouldn't he?  

    by jbrians on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 04:55:08 PM PDT

    •  Bill n/t

      by pletzs on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:04:48 PM PDT

  •  I don't think he would want their

    taint.  But who knows?  They will need him more than he will need them.

    by PrometheusSpeaks on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:21:01 PM PDT

  •  NO. This is not about him. Its about getting away

    ... from sleazy politics. Joining the sleazebags only makes think he was full of shit.

    by crazymoloch on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:39:41 PM PDT

  •  Wouldn't be a Good Move

    on Obama's part.  Why would he want to be a part of a losing effort.  I'll vote for Hillary if she is the nominee but know that she is not going to win.  She's John Kerry II.  I wish democrats would take a chance with someone else and quit nominating these North Eastern Senators who've been around for ever.  It's very frustrating.  

    by JTA on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:55:05 PM PDT

  •  He'd be..

    All over it.

    They're the same candidate.

    Then, the Democrats would lose the general.

    by demer on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 06:44:19 PM PDT

  •  I certainly hope he doesn't

    It'd be insulting.  To everyone who supported him as well as to himself.  And it wouldn't sway me.  I'd hate to think how the Clintons would squash every bit of hope and promise out of him.  I still would not vote for the Clintons unless Huckabee were the Republican nominee.  Otherwise, I become an Independent after over 30 years of only voting Democratic.  If the party is going to go back to yesterday, they've proven to me that they don't listen and they are stuck.  At that point it'd just be codependent to continue to prop them up with a vote I don't mean.  

    by SlowNomad on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 07:22:37 PM PDT

•  I can't see her asking him to run with her

  any more than I can see him taking up her offer. Bill's burned too many bridges.

  by haruki on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 04:51:59 PM PDT

  •  I think she would have to

    The truth is that the party is dividing up pretty heavily into Obama and Clinton camps.  Right now the relations are so bad that I can imagine that some supporters from either camp not going to support the candidate that wins.  That's going to be bad for the democratic party.

    I think the only way that the rift is bridged is if the loser of the primary gets the VP slot.  I think this would work best in the case that Hillary got the nomination, since having the VP slot would anoint Obama as the party nominee in 8 years if they win.  Obama would still be in his early 50's in 2016, which is still pretty young for a presidential candidate.  Then in 2016, he would have both the establishment support, and the experience claim.

    I still think he's got a real good shot of winning the nomination, but if he didn't, I think Hillary would have to nominate him for the VP slot, and he'd have to take it.

    by smash artist on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:08:13 PM PDT

    •  I would support Hillary against Huckabee

      but that's the only scenario in which I would.

      - Albert Einstein

      by Walt starr on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:21:52 PM PDT

  •  This is not Obama's last hurrah

    I fully expect Clinton to tap Wes Clark for the VP slot if she wins the nomination.

    And I fully expect Obama to not only support but work hard for the party nominee if it's not him. He's young and has a great future ahead of him. This is not a do or die campaign for him. And he builds lots of good will for the future if he campaigns hard for the eventual nominee.

    by Demi Moaned on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:20:33 PM PDT

    •  There will be no more presidential runs for Obama

      Michelle Obama has made that clear.

      - Albert Einstein

      by Walt starr on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:22:29 PM PDT

      •  Yea but

        that can be schmoozed over with a good back rub.

        by ZappoDave on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:28:46 PM PDT

•  Can anyone else envision a more ignored job

  than being Sen. Clinton's Vice President?

  Whoever it would be better hope that a lot of third world leaders croak.

  by citizenx on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 04:52:13 PM PDT

  •  What a petty comment

    I see no reason why the office of Vice President should be any less attractive under Clinton than it has been under most Presidents (the current incumbent is unusual in that regard, and not to be imitated, I hope).

    by Demi Moaned on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:16:53 PM PDT

    •  Think real hard.

      No, really think...

      by PrometheusSpeaks on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:28:55 PM PDT

•  OK, running with Bloomberg is ridiculous

  No way he does that. But I think if Clinton wins, it is looking more and more likely that Obama will be the VP(or at least they will try to get him as the VP). A few months ago, I would have thought, no way, but for the reasons you stated, I think it is likely now.

  by jj32 on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 04:53:17 PM PDT

  •  What was the deal with that meeting in NY?

    I think this is Obama's only shot, since the fresh face thing dies after the first attempt (witness Edwards).  Its at least an outside possibility, I think.

    by Descrates on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:04:30 PM PDT

    •  No, Obama is a democrat. period.

      unlike some on this blog, apparently.

      by FleetAdmiralJ on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:05:22 PM PDT

      •  A lot of us on this blog are independent

        if you don't want independents supporting your candidate, go ahead and tell us so.

        - Albert Einstein

        by Walt starr on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:23:21 PM PDT

        •  how did we get

          from my comment to yours, exactly?

          by FleetAdmiralJ on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:36:04 PM PDT

  •  No way in hell she chooses him.

    No way.
    That's my view.

    by Sam Loomis on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:06:51 PM PDT

    •  You are probably right

      But I think there is higher probability of it happening now than it was a couple of months ago.

      by jj32 on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:29:04 PM PDT

      •  Depends on how much trouble she has

        mending the wounds in the community after she beats Obama for the nomination.

        If she rolls into the summer still having trouble (and I'm sure Mark Penn will be polling this every day until the convention) with this, then I'd say she'll pick him.  Especially if she has to face St. McCain, who will be her strongest opponent.

        by Sam Loomis on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 06:32:36 PM PDT

•  If Obama accepts a Hillary V.P slot

  Then he may lose all the support he had. Obama was considered the "anti-washington." If he stands with Hillary, he is - to many of his supporters embracing the very things he stood against.

  by imported beer on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 04:53:49 PM PDT

  •  Um, he's going to stand with Hillary anyway

    or do you somehow think he's not going to endorse her if she wins the nomination?

    by FleetAdmiralJ on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 04:59:28 PM PDT

    •  Reagan Endorsed Ford in '76

      But wasn't open to being his vice president. Worked out alright for him.

      by pletzs on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:06:01 PM PDT

    •  No, No

      Personally, I think he will endorse her, and support her if she wins the nomination. He will be a crappy Democrat and a sleazy human if he didn't. I was specifically talking about being a running mate.

      by imported beer on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:08:08 PM PDT

•  It would be brave

  Taking Obama would be a very risky and brave choice.  That isn't really Hillary's M.O.

  by jbrians on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 04:53:54 PM PDT

  •  Disagree

    Brave would be not at least leaking his name a serious possibility.  They have seriously alienated black voters, at this point, along with Obama's other supporters.  If they want anything approaching a mandate to govern, they need an expansive and energized coalition.  Your right that this sort of thing isn't their MO, but they are anything if not smart about national politics.

    by Descrates on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:09:44 PM PDT

  •  VP candidate is picked

    by who can bring in the most votes in swing states. That's all there is to it.

    by denise b on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:16:18 PM PDT

    •  Hmmm

      Clinton/Gore?

      by DMiller on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:23:27 PM PDT

    •  Often

      the Dem Vice is an unlikely choice.

      Kennedy picked Johnson, very much an opposite of Kennedy and at first they didn't like each other at all.

      Lieberman had run for Prez in 2000, but wayyyyy in the back of the pack.

      Gore could be a vice pick, Edwards is in place, maybe not for Hillary but Obama.

      Sometimes they want to pick an unknown, to put the focus on the prez candidate. That's what I think the R's will do this time around.

      by ZappoDave on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:33:41 PM PDT

      •  Why should Gore accept?

        The Clintons already screwed him over once. Hw's a loyal Democrat, to be sure. But if the Clintons think they can use him as a doormat again, they have another think coming.

        by TLS66 on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 06:07:45 PM PDT

        •  You tell em' n't

          by ZappoDave on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 07:19:10 PM PDT

•  This'll go over well...

  SInce there's like this Primary thing happening, how about we wait and see how Super Tuesday shakes out?

  by Torta on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 04:54:36 PM PDT

•  Disagree

  Obama must be President, or else Bloomberg wins it.

  by steelman on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 04:55:25 PM PDT

•  Senator Clinton already has her VP.

  And, his name is Bill Clinton.  

  by Eloy on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 04:57:48 PM PDT

  •  Then Speaker of the House is next in line, not BC

    by jkennerl on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:09:28 PM PDT

    •  well

      I dont think they meant Bill would be her VP literally.  in fact, he CAN'T be her VP since the qualifications for being VP are the same as President - including the 2 term as president rule I believe.

      by FleetAdmiralJ on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:12:40 PM PDT

  •  She could do that

    I suppose.

    by ZappoDave on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:35:12 PM PDT

•  the audacity of stupidty and childishness

  Stay home or vote McCain options = no Democrat in White House.

  Bye bye end of war
  bye bye woman's right to choose
  bye bye middle class tax cuts
  bye bye green energy.

  But: Hillary is evil and corporate.

  Repubs rock!

  by NY Writer on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 04:57:56 PM PDT

  •  some day

    some anti-Hillary person is going to actually have to show me how she is evil and corporate...

    by FleetAdmiralJ on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:02:06 PM PDT

    •  i'll give it a shot

      She is funded - to the hilt - by defense contractors

      She is best buds with Billy Tauzin, the head lobbyist of PhRma.  Her health care plan is a joke.  She's phonier than Mitt Romney.   She will make Pelosi-esque efforts towards being a progressive, but ultimately cave and capitulate on anything that isn't personal about her and Bill.  She will pass a few child-friendly, SCHIP-esque health care measures and claim that she's doing God's work.  

      Basically, I see her tenure turning out exactly like Rod Blagojevich in Illinois.

      Not exactly - evil corporate - more, just plain tone-deaf incompetent.

      by Greuben on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:20:20 PM PDT

      •  Well

        Unless you're an Edwards person, you have some issues, since Obama is "funded" by some unsavory people as well...and has hung out with some of them too.

        If I were using that basis to decide on a candidate, I probably wouldn't want to vote for anyone either.

        However...

        She's phonier than Mitt Romney.

        I think this is the silliest line in the entire rant. Going back to when Bill Clinton was in office, I'm trying to figure out how she was different then from when she was in the Senate to how she is in this campaign.

        If she was "as phony as Mitt," you should be able to come up with as many flip-flops, etc. as people have with him.  But you can't.

        She will make Pelosi-esque efforts towards being a progressive, but ultimately cave and capitulate on anything that isn't personal about her and Bill.

        So how do you cave and capitulate when you're in charge, and your party is in charge of Congress?  Who, exactly, would she capitulate to?

        Or is any compromise at any level now considered "capitulation?"  And if so, then Obama will clearly do it too, as will Edwards.

        by FleetAdmiralJ on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:31:32 PM PDT

        •  Obama doesn't take PAC or Lobbyist money

          Obama is not funded by "unsavory" people, unless you think that individual employees of companies are "unsavory" in which case, you have a problem since most of us work for companies.  

          Hillary Clinton is ridiculously phony.  Listen to her answer in the debate about her "greatest weakness."   Listen to her describe her "mortgage rate freeze" plan - does she ever level with the American people and tell them that if you are a current homeowner with a mortgage, and you've been playing by the rules, you get screwed?   Your home equity - which is the primary source of wealth for the middle class - will decline?   Does she acknowledge that she's simply pandering to real estate speculators and investors who tried to play the market (and lost) at the expense of ordinary, working-class homeowners who simply wanted a house for their kids?

          No?  Can you point to a single business analysis of the effect of her mortgage-rate freeze plan that does not think that it will collapse the housing market?  

          No?   No shit.  Of course she won't admit that her plan will fuck every one of us over who has a house and pays on a fixed mortgage.  

          Same as of course she won't admit that she has no plan to fix the actuarial (but real) deficit in Social Security.

          Same as of course she won't admit that in order to realize "universal" health care she is going to force people to pay for health insurance when they can't afford it.  

          Same as of course she won't admit that it might be her campaign plan to withdraw troops from Iraq, but when her generals come back and say the surge needs six more months, she's going to say, well, that was my plan then, now my plan is to stay indefinitely.  

          by Greuben on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 08:39:07 AM PDT

  •  Hillary will not end the war

    Period.

    by HoyaLawDem on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:04:50 PM PDT

    •  if she wont

      then Obama wont either.  They basically say the same thing in regards to the war.

      by FleetAdmiralJ on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:06:08 PM PDT

      •  They say the same thing

        Hillary's hawk instincts will dictate her policy.  She will wake up in January of 2009 with a divided country.  Do you think for one second she'll expend valuable political capital to pull out the troops?  I don't.  Look at her votes and her record.

        by HoyaLawDem on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:09:31 PM PDT

        •  yeah?

          and Obama's votes are better?

          by FleetAdmiralJ on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:11:30 PM PDT

          •  His instincts

            are ten times better than hers.  Hillary will not end this war.

            by HoyaLawDem on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:12:29 PM PDT

            •  three points

              1. how do you know his instincts are better, much less "then times better"

              2. what does that have to do with ending the war?

              3. Why wouldn't Hillary end the war?

              by FleetAdmiralJ on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:15:36 PM PDT

  •  Hillary will end the War?

    I hope so.  It does seem to be her trajectory though.

    by Descrates on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:16:31 PM PDT

•  Some questions/poitns

  1. why are her wins in New Hampshire and Nevada "nasty?"  Are they nasty because you're an Obama supporter and don't like it when Hillary wins?

  2. No Obama, isn't going to tag-team with Bloomberg.

  by FleetAdmiralJ on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 04:58:04 PM PDT

  •  I can give you a bunch of reasons for their

    nastiness.  But they've all been covered elsewhere, and you'll just accuse me of being biased because I'm an Obama supporter.  Let's just leave it at this is my perspective.  At this point, I'm guessing our perspectives are so different, providing reasons simply won't get the job done.

    Yes, I think there's at least an outside chance that he teams up with Bloomberg.  Otherwise, why the not so confidential meeting in NY?

    by Descrates on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:21:07 PM PDT

    •  not necessarily

      It depends on what your reasons for her wins being nasty as whether it means your biased (I will say myself that if I voted right now I'd vote for Obama.  However, I see Obama and Clinton about equally).

      However, if you don't say anything other than what amounts to "they just were" then I will assume it's from candidate preference bias.

      Otherwise, why the not so confidential meeting in NY?

      To garner an endorsement, maybe?

      by FleetAdmiralJ on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:23:35 PM PDT

      •  Definitely plausible

        Bloomberg seems most interested in running against Hillary.

        by Descrates on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:25:54 PM PDT

        •  He does?

          by FleetAdmiralJ on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:32:15 PM PDT

•  1) All your bullshit aside, it might be a good

  ticket. However 2) Obama would not be a very good vice Presidential candidate (he would be worse then Edwards in fact) in that the position requires that Obama fights for the Presidential candidate. He won't do that. 3) Obama does not bring anything to the ticket other then "excitement". He doesn't bring a state or experience. It's not like Kennedy/Johnson. 4) Obama and Clinton obviously don't think much of each other and have completely different views about the Democratic party, the country and the job of a President.

  by tigercourse on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 04:58:22 PM PDT

  •  It's not a good pairing.

    One other thing that needs to be mentioned is that there is a certain small segment of the independent centrist population that might be okay voting for a white woman or a black man at the top of the ticket as long as the VP is 'traditional' but may get the jitters about a ticket that has no white guys.

    by pHunbalanced on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:08:01 PM PDT

    •  You are right. The only reason for Clinton to

      take on Obama as VP is to heal any kind of rift between the African Americans and the rest of the party.

      He doesn't add anything else to the ticket. And I wouldn't look forward to him being the automatic frontrunner in 2016.

      by tigercourse on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:10:41 PM PDT

      •  There we differ

        I would love for him to be the automatic frontrunner in 2016. I just wanted him to get that by being Gore's VP.

        As for 2008, there is not going to be any huge rift between Clinton and the black voters. Clinton still has plenty of strong support in the black community and black voters tend to be a little savvier about politics than white voters at equivalent income levels. I think the GOP hit their modern highwater mark with black voters in 2004. I suppse there may be a bit of a turnout suppression issue with a Clinton nomination, but it won't be severe.

        by pHunbalanced on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:16:15 PM PDT

  •  He would bring this though:

    The black vote in important swing states.

    I know you probably don't think this is serious, but i can tell you from anecdotal evidence in these parts: if she ran in the general today, youd get black turnout down around 40-50%. Dead serious. There is a meme circulating in the hood that she is a "racist old white lady."

    Now, she could certainly still win with super low black turnout, but she's going to have to spend a lot of time in states she normally wouldn't have to worry about.

    Especially against McCain. Especially against McCain if he sees the opportunity and puts Powell on the ticket.

    But I doubt Obama would even accept if offered. Theres really nothing in it for him. If she wins, he's still a big shot in the party. If she loses, he's an even bigger shot. But if he goes for VP and wins, hes marginalized. If goes for VP and loses, hes marginalized.

    Theres nothing in it for him.

    by brooklynbadboy on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:11:37 PM PDT

    •  No, I agree. Enough of a divide seems to have

      been created between black and whites that something should be done to heal it. I wish there was a different African American that Clinton could choose. If only Booker had a few more years.

      by tigercourse on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:14:12 PM PDT

      •  I dont know what could be done.

        It's starting to set in.

        I'm not saying black folks will go and vote Republican, although I'm sure some will. Especially military if its McCain. The bad thing will be depressed turnout.

        Republicans are seriously going to capitalize on this, naturally. They are going to heap praise on Obama all summer long and make sure Black foilks hear it loud and clear. They will also go ape-shit on Clinton and turn Obama into a living martyr.

        I doubt black folks will buy it, but there will be this sort of "fuck all the white people" attitude that will depress the turnout.

        Clinton could have won this election without this happening, but they chose not to.

        by brooklynbadboy on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:21:29 PM PDT

        •  Exactly what could Clinton have done differently

          to mollify the black vote? I can't think of anything. This was almost inevitable. When the choice is either the first woman nominee or the first black nominee, a clusterfuck can't be far behind.

          How do you think women would feel if Obama wins the nomination based on his "all Hillary did is drink tea" line?

          by tigercourse on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:24:41 PM PDT

          •  Well, if it were me advising them-

            I'd focus very much on the data: you know, the increased black home ownership, the increased black jobs, increased black wealth.  The increase, increase, increase in the 1990s. Thats what I would push.

            Pocketbook stuff. Obama really has no argument against that, because its true. Nothing racial about it either.

            But this circulating emails, drug dealer, muslim stuff? No good. Trotting out Magic Johnson?

            And why is that bill is always doing the radio shows? Let hillary call. You know, let the candidate run.

            She could have won any state so far without antagonizing a single black vote. They got too nervous.

            Its not good for the general. Seriously.

            by brooklynbadboy on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:37:33 PM PDT

          •  What Obama should have said about Hillary

            if he practiced Clinton tactics, is to basically go out and say she is a bitter, pathological battle axe. Turn her into a empty shell of an old, unloved, discarded woman. A hateful, emasculating feminist out to turn the country over to Gloria Steinem and turn your daughters into raving lesbians.

            The problem is, thats not the kind of politics he advocates. Rightly so.

            by brooklynbadboy on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 06:00:26 PM PDT

            •  He doesn't have to do it

              because all his supporters already are.  Isn't that basically the caricature that Hillary has on here from all the Edwards and (especially) Obama people?

              by FleetAdmiralJ on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 06:01:31 PM PDT

            •  So, one of Clinton's people brings up Obama's

              drug use. That's foul play. One of Obama's people says that Clinton doesn't care about black people. That's fine.

              By the way, there were Clinton Lesbian rumors flying about a couple months ago (one Obama supporting website was pushing them). Was Obama's camp innocent in this, but Clinton still guilty of race baiting?

              by tigercourse on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 06:04:26 PM PDT

        •  Of course, the best way to defend against that

          Is Obama going out and saying that it's republican BS and that they should support Clinton.

          If they support Obama so much, and if he actively campaigns for Clinton, wouldn't that be more persuasive than GOP BS?

          by FleetAdmiralJ on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:25:01 PM PDT

          •  Whats in it for Obama?

            Seriously? Place himself on the opposite side of the community for the Clintons? Please. That would be a disaster for him and would make him exactly the kind of politician hes running against.

            Its not republican BS. Its what everyone I talk to when I get my haircut seems to believe. genie out of the bottle.

            The best thing he could do, if i were advising him, would be to go to red states and do all he can to help Democrats get elected to Congress. As he did in 2006.

            He won't actively campaign for Clinton. I think thats out of the question. What he will do is publicly endorse her and then keep away from her.

            by brooklynbadboy on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:41:46 PM PDT

            •  He will actively campaign for clinton

              you can bank it, I think.

              "What's in it for him?"  I guess having a democratic candidate doesn't count?

              by FleetAdmiralJ on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:43:03 PM PDT

              •  Look at it from his perspective.

                Youre Barack Obama. You've now got a list of friends all over the country and a huge base of support. You took on the Clintons and kept it close. You lost. What next?

                Well, Clinton faces a tough election. Your home base community isn't feeling her anymore. Your neighbors are telling you all about the dirty tricks they used against you and the things they circulated about you.
                You dont like them and your wife wants this to be over so she can go back to being a normal human being. She doesent like Bill.

                She could win. In which case, you'd still be a Senator who could run for Governor with your reputation intact.
                She could lose, in which case you'd be in prime position to run again should you so choose. If she lost, it wouldnt be Obama's fault. She'd get all the blame.

                But going out and advocating Hillary Clinton would pretty much see to it that he has nothing ahead but a stiff Senate challenge from the left. Win or lose.

                by brooklynbadboy on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:54:27 PM PDT

                •  asdf

                  But going out and advocating Hillary Clinton would pretty much see to it that he has nothing ahead but a stiff Senate challenge from the left. Win or lose.

                  And then liberals wonder why the moderates in the party distrust them.

                  If the feelings within the party were that strongly anti-Hillary, then she wouldn't be in contention to win the nomination to begin with.  If she wins the nomination, clearly she's supported enough to prevent Obama from getting a primary challenger just by campaigning for her in the general.

                  I reject the notion that campaigning for Clinton will be bad for him at all.  And even if it were, It would lower my opinion of him if he took the selfish stance of "well...if she loses then I can run in 2012 when the nation is even MORE fucked after 4 more years with a GOP candidate" than by trying to help her win.

                  by FleetAdmiralJ on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 06:00:16 PM PDT

                  •  If he becomes a shill for Hillary,

                    he's finished.

                    Everyone who supported him would be disgusted, and thats a wrap for him.

                    You have to understand, Obama supporters, for the most part, dont give a shit about the Democratic party AS A STANDS. They want to reform it to make a real majority party. But he really cant go out and say "i stand for change, but i also strongly support the status quo." Just doesent work.

                    Like i said, he can publicly endorse her, and then go work hard for Congressional and Gubernatorial Democrats in red states. Nobody will expect him to become a hillary shill, not even hillary i suspect. He wont say anything negative, but he wont be hugging her on stage either like McCain.

                    by brooklynbadboy on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 06:06:33 PM PDT

                    •  he may be running as a change agent

                      but he's still a democrat.  His supporters should stop pretending that he's anything but that.

                      by FleetAdmiralJ on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 06:11:56 PM PDT

                      •  he may be, but

                        not all of his supporters are.

                        In fact, the majority are not. I suspect the bulk of them will go back to apathy, a smaller percentage will vote Democratic anyway, and a smaller percentage will vote Republican.

                        by brooklynbadboy on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 06:17:42 PM PDT

                        •  That's why I actually think Obama

                          WILL campaign for clinton.

                          He he does nothing, that will probably happen.  If he does campaign for her, I'm sure he'll bring many of his supporters along.

                          by FleetAdmiralJ on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 06:20:25 PM PDT

                          •  if he campaigns with her...

                            he loses all of em.

                            by brooklynbadboy on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 06:29:56 PM PDT

                            •  well

                              we obviously disagree on this point

                              by FleetAdmiralJ on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 06:33:51 PM PDT

                              •  I think your way wrong on this one

                                by Descrates on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 06:49:08 PM PDT

                                •  if oh so much of his support

                                  is coming from independents, then almost just as well.

                                  Not that I don't want independents voting for democrats in 2008, but this is the democratic primary, not the independents primary.

                                  by FleetAdmiralJ on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 06:54:07 PM PDT

                      •  That's a bizarre comment

                        What do you mean by.  I'm a registered democrat, but its sure not all there is to me.  And I don't agree there is anything inherently good in voting for the center left party in a two party state.  Explain where your headed with that comment.

                        by Descrates on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 06:47:51 PM PDT

                        •  it means that he's a democrat

                          and as a democrat politican he will support the democratic nominee.

                          If he doesn't, he'll never have a chance to win the dem primary, and the democratic base will view him as a party traitor.  Especially if it results in 4 more years of a GOP president.

                          The Green party lost any and all respect it ever did have in the party after 2000.  Obama would risk the same if he did anything that appeared to cost dems the presidency in 2008.

                          by FleetAdmiralJ on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 06:52:49 PM PDT

                          •  This is all assuming he is calculating he can win

                            the primary in another year, which I'm not convinced he is.  Nor am I convinced he even wants to.  We'll know more after SC, but if underperforms his polling #'s there, I think we have to start taking seriously the possibility that there is a legit Bradley principle in play.  He may conclude after all this that white americans won't elect a black man--a view I am increasing coming to hold.

                            by Descrates on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 06:58:04 PM PDT

                            •  And the Bradley principle

                              may end up being a self-fulfilling prophecy.

                              I.e., the more people bring up that race may be a reason that people aren't voting for Obama, the more people who may not vote for him because he's bringing up race.

                              by FleetAdmiralJ on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 06:59:57 PM PDT

                              •  Those are two seperate phenomena

                                The self-fulfilling prophecy may indeed follow from the Bradley effect, but that does not mean the Bradley effect is not operative.  It just means people are acting rationally on the basis pertainent information, in this case the Bradley effect.

                                by Descrates on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 07:46:23 PM PDT

      •  Booker?

        Whoa.  

        by Descrates on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:27:37 PM PDT

        •  Booker actually does stuff instead of giving

          speeches about how he plans to be a hands off leader. I can't see Obama driving around the streets at night, doing everything in his power to lower crime.

          by tigercourse on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:29:44 PM PDT

•  Maybe we should let the Primarys play out.

  Its not over until it over. Why worry about vice?

  by Owllwoman on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:00:55 PM PDT

•  No Obama for VP...

  Then the Clintons would get credit for raising a black man to a shot at the White House.

  That would be sick.

  by General Sherman on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:05:08 PM PDT

•  HRC is the bitter caustic type, it would be pure

  Hell for Obama.
  He should not take it.

  Something happened to me For the first time today, when watching the 5.30 news cast. BClinton appeared and was talking to reporters and when I looked at his face, I did not develop the usual feeling of warmth and affection I always do.

  I hated seeing his mug on TV.
  The nasty divisive HRC campaign has left a very bitter taste in my political oral cavity

  I will support HRC if she nabs the nomination. I wont vote for any of the rethugs not running.

  I wont however do anything to promote her candidacy. I already dislike her.

  by wuod kwatch on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:05:28 PM PDT

•  after the infighting

  She probably won't.

  by Salo on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:05:49 PM PDT

•  Why should he?

  What good would that do him? That would be a HORRIBLE career move on his part. Terribly bad.

  The best thing for him to do is be a fantastic Senator, possibly run for Governor or Mayor of Chicago.

  No, the WORST POSSIBLE THING for Obama would be to run with Clinton.

  Besides, she can win without him. Barely.

  by brooklynbadboy on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:06:21 PM PDT

•  Being VP is the best job in the world

  if you want to minimize your chances of ever being president.

  by clonecone on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:09:07 PM PDT

  •  well then it would be good for him

    if he doesn't get the nom since he said he wouldn't run again . . .   ;)

    by nycstray on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:22:55 PM PDT

•  Are Obama and McCain closely aligned in views?

  His supporters who also like McCain aren't doing Obama any favors!
  Seriously, grow up. In this life, we can't always get exactly what we want.  
  I want to marry George Clooney. If I can't, that doesn't mean I'm going to storm off and marry a toad.  

  by Rosemary on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:25:20 PM PDT

•  Surely you jest

  Does he consider running at the top of a ticket with Bloomberg?

  Bloomberg would be the top of THAT ticket.  And without a political machine behind it, that choo-choo won't get very far.

  by Izarradar on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:26:23 PM PDT

•  If Hillary is the nominee

  Obama is the least useful person for her to put on the ticket.

  Though I have never bought into the notion that VP makes any difference whatever (see, e.g., Edwards, Kemp), Obama could only hurt the ticket.  If Hillary is the nominee, she will already would be looked at with a jaundiced eye by many (being a woman and a Senator from Northeast).  Adding another Senator from the North, a minority one to boot, would only convince people that Hillary is too liberal for their taste.

  by Drgrishka1 on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:29:16 PM PDT

  •  For some reason

    I think Clark is the VP, regardless who wins.

    by FleetAdmiralJ on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:33:33 PM PDT

•  Robert Frost says -

             The Secret Sits

  We dance 'round in a ring and suppose,
  The secret sits in the middle , and knows.

  by Abra Crabcakeya on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:38:18 PM PDT

•  General Wesley Clark

  will be Hillary's running mate. She will need a General standing behind her not Obama.

  by SocioSam on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:49:21 PM PDT

•  WTF votes McCain?

  Whatever you think of Hillary, you can just not vote or write in somebody else.

  by theran on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:52:09 PM PDT

•  You forgot "Pie". (n/t)

  by TLS66 on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:58:49 PM PDT

•  it's truly amazing

  how many Kossacks have clicked on McCain.

  "Bomb, bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" and 100 years in Iraq, just to show the Clintons who's boss.  What a joke.  As if anything the Clintons could do would be worse than giving the guys at the helm now another four years to fuck us harder.

  Unreal.  At my reading of this poll, with 147 votes, we have 76 people either voting McCain or not voting, and only 71 voting the Dem ticket.

  What a disappointing sampling.

  by kate mckinnon on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 06:02:51 PM PDT

  •  It's the old liberal principle

    it's better to lose than to win.

    I forget who here I picked up that phrase from, but over and over and over they seem to prove it right.

    by FleetAdmiralJ on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 06:05:39 PM PDT

    •  That's not a liberal principle

      Its a leftist principle.  This is an important point.  Liberals want to keep the current system in place by buying people off.  Leftists think the system is structurally unjust. Thus, there are indeed times it is better to lose than to win.  Kerry is a case in point.  Thank god he didn't win.  If there is a realign afoot in this country, it is solely because his lose allowed for four more years of the Republicans stewing in their own juices.

      by Descrates on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 06:53:44 PM PDT