Clinton in VP Slot? Um... Not Likely.

A few of the TV heads were positing that what Clinton primarily wanted today is something that can give her claims of "winning the popular vote (minus all the other states that don't count)" some degree of legitimacy, which she will then use to leverage Obama into giving her the Vice President slot.

I see absolutely no way that's going to be happening. I keep hearing this theory and frankly, it continues to sound just as ridiculous each time. Even presuming Obama and Clinton still can even stand each other, and even presuming for the moment that we accept the nonsense of "popular vote" calculations that ignore caucus states, Clinton just doesn't bring anything to Obama's ticket.

One of Obama's most vaunted selling points is that he represents a clean break from the past -- a message that is resonating heavily, after eight years of Bush. Choosing a Clinton as Vice President steps squarely on that message of change, and presents a consummate insider ticket (McCain plus somebody) vs. another insider ticket (somebody plus Clinton). I'd have to think it would be a net loss of (a) excitement among Obama voters, (b) prospects among independents, and therefore (c) actual votes in November, compared to many other possible Obama picks.

Even if you did implicitly accept the disenfranchisement (to use a familiar word, today) of the caucus states in counting up your popular vote totals, winning the popular vote plus five dollars will get you a Starbucks coffee. There isn't even such a thing as the "popular vote" in these primaries, since some states don't even count up those votes.

Now, maybe the Clinton camp really is seeking the VP slot (personally, I expect it's being overhyped by the pundits more than either campaign.) More likely, she's just seeking to use this jury-rigged "popular vote" stuff to try to sway superdelegates -- but Obama is so close to having the nomination locked up anyway that it wouldn't do much more than delay the inevitable. She needs too many; he needs a relative handful, in comparison.

If the Clinton campaign has been looking to get anything from today other than a symbolic victory, they'd be really stretching. Though this has been a lot of ill will to sow for a merely symbolic victory.

And yes -- this whole post feels like I'm just stating the transparently obvious. There's been so much "spin" and questionable "momentum" lately, though, it's hard to judge what the heck is obvious anymore. The most infuriating thing about this whole primary process was the insulting nature of much of the campaign spin, apparently all predicated on the premise that the voters (and even superdelegates) would believe pretty much anything you could force out of your own mouth without laughing.

•  NFW - No Fuckin' way.

  by CTMET on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:00:45 PM PDT

  •  Ah, let her become Vice President at Wal-Mart!

    She hasn't a chance of becoming Obama's running mate, nor should she.

    by rontun on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:03:27 PM PDT

    •  Make Hillary Ambassador to Iraq...

      After all, she know the policy so well.

      by Jimdotz on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:06:55 PM PDT

      •  Lincolnesque approach

        I think Obama should choose HRC for Veep and also announce at the same press conference that he will appoint McCain head of the Veterans Administration.

        by rdbaker43 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:40:03 PM PDT

        •  VA

          No, I think Obama should appoint someone who actually gives a damn about veterans.  See: Webb's GI Bill and McCain's opposition to it.

          by Uberbah on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:42:45 PM PDT

          •  So much word

            The head of the Veterans Administration shouldn't be someone who opposes legislation to help veterans.

            by cishart on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:53:25 PM PDT

      •  Hillary for Greenhouse Superintendant!

        so she can break the glass ceiling

        by Ohiobama on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:53:14 PM PDT

        •  totally rude ...

          by alliedoc on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 05:55:51 PM PDT

  •  what CTMET said. n/t

    by mishte on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:05:27 PM PDT

  •  If Clinton is anywhere NEAR the ticket...

    ...Obama loses this independent's vote in November.

    by simca on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:20:16 PM PDT

  •  Plus, why rile up the ReThug base?

    Republicans are unexcited about McCain. His base is in disarray. This is good news for Democrats.

    Put Clinton on the ticket, and you've got the Rethuglican base all riled up and eager to GOTV against her.

    by Hudson on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:25:53 AM PDT

    •  Also:

      The political climate is going to change dramatically now that the primaries are over and Obama has a lock on the delegates.

      In another week, if Clinton starts making noise about demands, people will be like, "Who the heck are you," and "Why are you still here, making trouble?"

      by Hudson on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:29:53 AM PDT

  •  WTF?

    I must have missed the Constitutional clause providing that spouses of two-term presidents cannot be vice-president.

    by congo51 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:23:39 PM PDT

•  Maybe after Ohio, too late now

  She has imploded with her "unhinged" strategy...

  by ystasino on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:00:53 PM PDT

•  If She is Vice...

  I will EAT my Chihuahua! Under a Heavy Buffalo Wing Sauce.... Might Taste like Wings. Not Sure...but I swear I'lll do it..

  by jvackert on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:01:11 PM PDT

  •  the Humane Society says hi

    And, incidentally, I will do the same if pigs fly.

    by Nathaniel Ament Stone on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:03:19 PM PDT

    •  I'll do better...

      ...by catching and eating one of your flying pigs! Watch for me on a jetpack, carrying a 250-lb. anvil. (Why do I hear Road Runner background music playing?)

      by biryanifan on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:07:20 PM PDT

    •  Flying pigs...

      I'm trying to figure out the shotgun and load you'd need to bring one down with a 30-yard crossing shot.

      Let's see...

      The largest birds commonly hunted are geese and cranes. 3 1/2" 12 gauge or a 10 gauge is typically used.

      Average "meat" hog is in the 100 - 120 pound range. Large, old boars are much bigger, but are not considered prime table fare. So if you were trying to pick a target out of a flock of flying pigs, you'd probably choose a smaller swine.

      Assume for an animal that size that #00 buckshot would be used.

      Using lead shot, in #2 we get 87 pellets to the ounce. Prior to the lead-shot ban for waterfowl, this was the big-bird size. Flying pigs are not waterfowl, so lead shot can (and should) be used to hunt them.

      A 3-1/2" 10 gauge shell holds around 2 1/4 oz of lead shot. So we're looking at 195 pellets in #2 lead.

      A 3 1/2" 10 gauge 2 1/4 oz #00 buckshot shell holds 18 pellets. So to get the same number of pellets in flight as we'd use for a goose, thus giving similar pattern density at similar ranges, we'd need to be shooting 24 3/8 oz of shot. Assuming a 3 1/2 inch shell in both cases, this would require a barrel diameter of 8.4 inches, or about half the diameter of the gun barrels on an Iowa-class battleship.

      --Shannon

      by Leftie Gunner on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:57:11 PM PDT

  •  I think they might go better with salsa

    I suggest beans and rice to go with in a burrito with guacamole and a tasty smoky chipotle sauce. Ignore it if your burrito starts barking.

    by marketgeek on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:06:12 PM PDT

    •  HUA-Larious

      In my mind's eye, I had the picture of a plump burrito with four legs sticking out. Too hilarious funny.

      by jvackert on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:10:34 PM PDT

  •  No!!!!!! Not the Chihuahua!!!!

    Chihuahuas are ferocious little ankle biters. Send the puppies to nip at Hillary's ankles instead.

    by GMary on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:58:11 PM PDT

•  She's not getting anywhere near the WH.

  We all remember what happened to JFK, after all.

  Or was that Bobby Kennedy?

  Someone ask Hillary.

  by haruki on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:01:14 PM PDT

•  Clinton Senate Majority Leader.

  Clinton Supreme Court.  Clinton anywhere other than in the Executive Branch.

  by DC Scott on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:01:25 PM PDT

  •  I wouldn't let her near the executive twig.

    by CTMET on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:03:04 PM PDT

  •  She won't get Majority Leader

    or anything else.  She will be anathema in the Senate for these tactics.  An Ambassador to East Bumfuck, Mongolia I would agree to only if she takes that husband of her with her.

    by gchaucer2 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:04:51 PM PDT

    •  Bumfuck Mongolia? I thought it was bumfuck Egypt

      Either one's alright with me as long as she's nowhere near the levers of power.

      by Involuntary Exile on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:22:47 PM PDT

      •  Bumfuck is in Egypt

        but East Bumfuck is Mongolia.  Easy mistake.

        by gchaucer2 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:45:11 PM PDT

        •  And East Bumfuck is WAY off the beaten path....

          and there are no phones/internet there.  PERFECT place to exile...er, send our favorite fighter.

          by GMary on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:00:44 PM PDT

        •  LOL! Thank you for the geography lesson ;-) n/t

          by Involuntary Exile on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:05:00 PM PDT

    •  Plus, Reid and about 20 others...

      ... are ahead of her in that line.

      by Hudson on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:27:27 AM PDT

  •  The last thing we need is Hillary on the Supreme

    Court. Her total contempt for party rules during this primary process is a good indicator of how she would interpret the law. Forget it.

    by rontun on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:05:41 PM PDT

    •  Not to mention

      she's hardly an experienced constitutional law scholar.

      The Rose law firm was corporate, no?

      by MrSandman on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:08:49 PM PDT

      •  Then she'd get along with Roberts just fine

        Oh goody...

        by SallyCat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:10:40 PM PDT

        •  I forgot. Who needs the constitution?

          Just a buch of pesky rules.

          by MrSandman on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:17:42 PM PDT

    •  Very good point.

      I recall seeing the Supreme Court rumor bandied about a few weeks back.  Got to say I have some doubts about whether she'd be a consistent and strong liberal voice, along the lines of Ginsburg, given her tack to right of center when she got in the Senate.  Take the AUMF (please).  

      by DC Scott on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:11:21 PM PDT

    •  She FAILED the DC bar exam.

      75% pass rate.

      At least Clarence Thomas would no longer have to worry about being the intellectual lightweight on the court.

      by Anarchofascist on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:13:07 PM PDT

      •  No way! You WAIVE IN!

        She had to have been licensed in Arkansas before she came here.  You get to DC when licensed elsewhere, you go inactive there, pay your dues here, you're an officer of the court in DC with all that goes along with that.  QED.  

        I'll need a cite before I can swallow that one.  

        by DC Scott on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:30:52 PM PDT

        •  I know what you're SUPPOSED to do

          But she took the DC bar and failed.

          and Bernstein points to a little-known factor that may have contributed. Hillary Clinton failed the D.C. bar exam after law school, something she hid from her best friends for 30 years until disclosing it in passing in her autobiography, "Living History."

          I'd try to find the quote directly from her book, but I don't care to.

          (My dad took the NJ bar and waived into DC.  My sister took the MD bar and waived into DC.  I know how it works.)

          by Anarchofascist on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:42:51 PM PDT

          •  I stand corrected. Wiki supports you.

            Yes, Hillary failed the Washington D.C. bar exam. After that, she took the Arkansas bar exam and passed that one.

             Yup.  The things you learn here.  I have to say, I'm utterly incredulous.  I've never heard of anyone taking, much less flunking, the DC bar exam.  Wow.  

            by DC Scott on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:50:44 PM PDT

    •  Oh, please

      HRC is not my cup of tea at the moment, but she is 1 zillion times better than Scalia, Roberts, and Thomas.  She would be a great Supreme Court Justice.

      by Valhalla on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:14:16 PM PDT

      •  Not great, not terrible

        Just a corporate lawyer.

        And there is no dishonor for a Yale graduate flunking a bar exam.  They are not educated to PASS a bar exam.  I have that from a woman who graduated a couple years behind Hillary who used to be a partner (litigator) in a mid-town law firm and now is a law prof.

        Hillary may have been fine as a corporate lawyer, but I have seen no indication that her strengths lay in the courts.  And I believe she litigated only one case.

        That's OK; lots of famous, powerful, effective lawyers never darkened a courtroom door.  Few of them, however, went on to be in charge of courtrooms (judges).

        by Reptile on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:24:54 PM PDT

        •  Wait. She flunked the bar?

          Not that she'd be the first Yalie to suffer that fate, but . . . news to me!  

          by DC Scott on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:28:28 PM PDT

          •  You didn't know???

            She was unable to pass the bar, until she moved to Arkansas. There, she finally passed the bar.

            by GMary on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:02:08 PM PDT

            •  I do now!

              Found a link (see downthread).  Don't know what the DC Bar was like in the 70s, but I'll have to say I'm astonished.  (Full disclosure:  I passed elsewhere and waived in.  No exam, just $$$).  DC Bar's always making noise about toughening it up or making everybody who waives in do more than just pay the dues and get a license.  I'm sure there's a story there that I'll never know.  :)

              by DC Scott on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:12:53 PM PDT

      •  That's not much of a ringing endorsement.

        My kitten would be a zillion times better than Scalia, Roberts or Thomas. To be great on the Supreme Court requires a fair temperament and an unwavering respect for the law. Senator Clinton has demonstrated neither.

        by rontun on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:27:50 PM PDT

        •  I support your kitten for the court!

          Don't you think it would be kind of awesome to have the Rethugs on the court all angry at the reality of Justice Clinton?

          by Valhalla on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:54:10 PM PDT

  •  I want to see her primaried out of the Senate...

    her behavior has been reprehensible and it's time to change (take over) the old Democratic Party. Time for progressives not "good old boys"

    by SallyCat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:09:31 PM PDT

    •  Me too; 4 more years!

      by Reptile on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:25:47 PM PDT

      •  And for good measure...

        can we have a law signed into place barring any other members of the Clinton family from the White House? You know Bill is thinking, "Hey, how about Chelsea?"

        Same for the Bush family, of course. Actually, deportation would be better for them.

        by Pastry Assassin on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:37:03 PM PDT

  •  Supreme Court would be terrible

    She's just not bright enough.

    I think Senate majority leader would be great.  It's a position that confers about as much power as other senators choose to impart upon it.

    by Anarchofascist on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:11:05 PM PDT

    •  Come on, she's NOT stupid

      HRC is not a good politician on the national level, and her campaign strategy has been lousy. But this is a VERY bright woman.  Read her law review articles.      

      by dotalbon on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:27:00 PM PDT

      •  One of those types that

        can rattle off statistics but cannot have a decent one on one conversation.  She may be book smart but I have never seen such an array of dumb ass moves as this campaign of hers made.  SHE made the choices of who to pick, she decided who was in her inner circle. They are and were a disaster.  She was also a lousy candidate.  Screaming and screeching, then when it got too testy, a little cry.

        God, I cannot stand that woman.  She says she represents ME?  This white woman is all that Hillary is not.  I would NEVER have said any of the awful things she has said and would know when to say I am sorry and when to quit.

        The Republicans are SALIVATING hoping for Hillary's name on the ticket.  Every single thing that Barack was too gracious to mention will be on the table.

        She brings nothing but a trainload of baggage (and that doesn't include all the baggage from her husband).

        by jjmn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:34:28 PM PDT

        •  Her books smarts are mythological

          and part of her "persona."  Her debate style is to rattle off a series of "technical" seeming talking points to appear wonkish.  I don't believe she has a particularly good grasp of the issues.

          (Note that Bill Clinton, though a bit sharper than her, gets credit for being a thinker when he's really mostly fantastic at reading a room and charming people.  He's not a policy nerd -- though he did surround himself with sharp people and empower them.)

          by Anarchofascist on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:46:56 PM PDT

      •  if she were so bright...

        ...she wouldn't have taken the nomination for granted.  She was around in 2004 and the "there's no way we'll lose this election."  She was also around in 2006 and saw the benefit of the 50-state strategy and campaigning everywhere.  She didn't.

        And finally, you have to be a complete moron to see what the press and the Republicans did to Gore and actually do what they accused Gore of doing: making shit up and making wild embellishments to your resume.

        by Uberbah on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:48:06 PM PDT

    •  I think she is bright

      in a SAT test grades-in-school sort of way.

      She is NOT a gifted politician or speaker, however.

      by Reptile on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:27:23 PM PDT

  •  Clinton is more likely to get

    something like this than VP.

    Normally, picking the runner-up makes sense politically (Reagan-Bush, Kerry-Edwards, Kennedy-Johnson), but my sense is that Obama is not convinced that Clinton will fit as a VP who will be necessarily subservient to him.

    Especially after everything that's gone on in the past few months.

    Picking a woman for VP would help Obama with some aggrieved female Clinton supporters.

    But it will have to be done carefully, because the corporate media will still examine a possible female president a lot more closely than another, safer Village white guy.

    As Mondale found out in 1984.  

    by devtob on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:35:10 PM PDT

  •  Hillary for Baseball Commissioner!

    but only if she herself can pass the urine test

    by Ohiobama on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:50:36 PM PDT

  •  Not the SCOTUS!

    She's proven to be a serial liar, her husband has a trail of shady business deals, and she has pandered to racists. NO Way!

    by Virginia mom on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:42:00 AM PDT

•  I've either

  had too much to drink this afternoon or not enough...would someone PLEASE let me know which it is?!

  by bluestateonian on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:01:53 PM PDT

  •  My money is on not enough...

    :-)

    by mommyof3 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:02:36 PM PDT

    •  For my part, I'm working on that.

      Ever since the reserving the right to take it to the convention thing.

      Since I'm not surprised, I just want to be anesthetized.

      by MrSandman on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:12:40 PM PDT

  •  not enough

    by jjmn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:34:58 PM PDT

•  I thought her threat to go to the Credentials

  Committee would make her the perfect choice for VP...

  /snark

  by darthstar on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:02:05 PM PDT

•  Hillary for VP

  of Appalachia

  by trmasonic on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:02:49 PM PDT

•  For McCain, maybe

  She wants to change the rules after the contest-hmmm, reminds me of Retroactive Immunity-yep, she could fit right in with McSame.

  by Van Buren on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:02:49 PM PDT

  •  This has actually been discussed

    at least on here, if not elsewhere.

    Someone had the theory that McCain would reach out to her to maintain his "maverick bipartisan" image, and that she would take it to stick it to the Obama-ites.

    And that the Republicans would suck it up and vote for McCain-Clinton, for the same reason.

    I can't imagine it -- but then, I couldn't have imagined some of the other things I've seen and heard in the last six months.

    by bmaples on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:06:36 PM PDT

    •  I Can Imagine It

      And I wouldn't be shocked if it happened.

      by lost on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:12:32 PM PDT

      •  I can imagine it too and would not

        be shocked if it happened but, that would be a losing ticket against Obama/Richardson, Sebelius, or a number of other VPs.

        Why?  Because it would destory the Repub party even further than it is now torn apart.

        by ajleiker on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:27:23 PM PDT

    •  Rush Limbaugh's head would explode!

      It'll never happen though. For example, the republicans in my family who hate Hillary and have a bare tolerance for McCain would be thrown into despair by this ticket.

      by laughinglark on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:33:29 PM PDT

•  If every state had a primary

  and every primary were on the same day, and she lost by one vote I'd still say No fucking way.  

  by gchaucer2 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:02:51 PM PDT

•  She will blackmail her way onto the ticket

  She will make such a stink that she will keep her supporters from going over to Obama unless he chooses her as Vice President. She will threaten to go all the way to the convention. She will threaten not to get behind his nomination. She is going to pull something; you can be sure of it.

  by linnie on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:03:31 PM PDT

  •  She's already losing her

    intelligent supporters.  The ilk that were ranting at the hearing can go pound ice.  We've registered voters to replace their sorry asses.

    by gchaucer2 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:06:50 PM PDT

  •  threats

    I think she will pull something also, - but not to be VP, to be P.

    by OLinda on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:10:11 PM PDT

  •  Nooooooo..... I'm racing into denial here!!!

    by Rosemary on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:13:42 PM PDT

  •  If Obama were to cave to such threats

    it would be a piss poor start to his administration.  It would also be completely out of character.

    And in any case, Hillary supporters just get more angry when we play nice, which they view as patronising, not unifying.  

    The only thing they will respect is Obama's absolute and pitiless (albeit respectful) victory.  They know better than to bet against the winner and sit on the sidelines of history for 8 years.

    by Big Easy on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:37:49 PM PDT

  •  She's already doing all of that

    Besides, she doesn't want VP.  She wants POTUS

    by CandyKat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:11:41 PM PDT

•  End the 28 year Clinton/Bush cancer. NOW!

  by crazymoloch on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:03:36 PM PDT

•  Well said Hunter

  It will take some hard work, but it is time for Hillary Clinton to take her place as one of our leaders in the Senate and for us all to work to get Barack Obama elected President.

  Time for Change, time for hope.

  by Morgan Sandlin on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:03:47 PM PDT

  •  Methinks she'll have a few

    years of grovelling before she could be a leader in the Senate.  These antics today have pissed a lot of powerful people off -- and I don't mean her sycophantic high powered donors.

    by gchaucer2 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:08:18 PM PDT

  •  Hillary needs to look at

    Ted Kennedy as an example. She could have a long and productive career in the Senate if she chooses.

    by jck on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:08:20 PM PDT

    •  But what about NY voters? Because this

      NY voter did not vote for her (or anyone, I'm not crazy) for senate in 2006.  I'm tired of Hill and chuck.  It's about time NY got some true liberals in the senate.  Maybe David Paterson might be interested?

      by gmb on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:25:25 PM PDT

•  Clinton needs to do some leading

  She needs to get her supporters on the right road quickly. I'm appalled at their behavior at the meeting today. Clinton needs to do some serious leading and mending in the party.

  by bethcf4p on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:03:48 PM PDT

  •  you think she wants to mend the party?

    I don't.  She's been facing impossible math for quite some time now, yet that hasn't stopped her.  I think she wants this to fester.

    by Preyanka on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:05:35 PM PDT

•  re

  No.

  Insert the "no" in 1000 other languages here.

  by cookiesandmilk on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:04:03 PM PDT

  •  Nyet

    by Ambboogie on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:06:30 PM PDT

    •  Nada n/t

      by bmaples on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:07:18 PM PDT

      •  Lo n/t

        by CTMET on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:07:48 PM PDT

        •  non

          by Jimdotz on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:10:14 PM PDT

          •  Nein!

            since my fav "nyet" is gone

            by Judgment at Nuremberg on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:12:56 PM PDT

            •  Nie. nt

              by Nailbanger on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:17:33 PM PDT

              •  klaatu, barada, nichtu!

                when talking to Gort.

                by Judgment at Nuremberg on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:00:49 PM PDT

                •  Laa

                  (Arabic)

                  by Kosmonaut85 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:04:24 PM PDT

      •  Nein n/t

        by Swatmacher on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:12:56 PM PDT

        •  Ten! n/t

          by ssgbryan on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:23:09 PM PDT

        •  nao...

          by justmy2 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:42:22 PM PDT

  •  Since there is no

    word in Gaelic for "no" I guess I have to say: "Pog ma thone." (kiss my ass) -- directed at Hillary, of course, not you, cookiesandmilk.

    by gchaucer2 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:10:29 PM PDT

    •  Gaelic

      We typically go for "Ni hea" (Negative response to questions)  but of course you're right, there is word for no in Irish.

      My nick though means pepper in Irish ;-)

      However, you can add Nee (Dutch) and Nein (German) to the list.

      by poibar on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:16:34 PM PDT

      •  Gaelic

        I should point out though that my nick is mispelt - it should be piobar, I didn't catch it when registering...

        by poibar on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:17:54 PM PDT

        •  Thanks poibar

          aka piobar!  In my family all it took was a look and that meant, no -- and a possible lickin'.

          by gchaucer2 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:20:00 PM PDT

  •  Non

    That's French, I think. :). I am in a beginner's course through Rosetta Stone. I am learning valuable phrases like "Where did you eat your dinner?" "I ate my dinner in the park."

    by OLinda on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:11:50 PM PDT

    •  You only need three phrases when traveling abroad

      "Where is the nearest bathroom?"

      "How much is that in dollars?"

      "Where is the American Embassy?"  

      by dotalbon on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:29:38 PM PDT

  •  'A'ole. /nt

    by Alohilani on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:34:27 PM PDT

  •  não n/t

    by FLDemJax on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:44:43 PM PDT

  •  nggak

    by jakarta on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:14:30 PM PDT

•  It is not going to happen

  Spin that! ;)

  by vixenflem on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:04:15 PM PDT

•  I though the pop vote argument went out the door

  when that California poll came out last week showing the golden state had, er, changed its collective mind.  No popular vote argument ever meant anything, but that poll wiped out the fantasies pretty effectively.

  I do think it was a possibility at one point, but it's been about two months since that possibility remained in this particular universe.

  by decembersue on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:04:24 PM PDT

  •  That would be the poop vote argument.

    And I doubt we're done hearing about that s**t.

    by MrSandman on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:15:49 PM PDT

•  FUCK NO

  @ a joint ticket

  by Ambboogie on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:04:29 PM PDT

•  I think this is applicable to the past 8 years,

  not just Clinton's fiasco with the media:

  There's been so much "spin" and questionable "momentum" lately, though, it's hard to judge what the heck is obvious anymore.

  by Krush on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:04:35 PM PDT

•  C-SPAN replaying the meeting now if anyone

  is interested...

  by mishte on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:04:46 PM PDT

  •  All like 7 hours of it???? No thanks

    by CTMET on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:09:40 PM PDT

    •  Ever do a Lord Of The Rings marathon?

      Think of it as like that, with lots of noisy Orcs in the audience.

      by Antacid on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:20:42 PM PDT

  •  Spiderman

    is on TBS. :)

    by OLinda on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:15:15 PM PDT

  •  History Channel HD

    has an Indiana Jones special.

    by FLDemJax on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:46:12 PM PDT

•  Clinton brings a win

  Independent women will be key to this race. Hillary brings independent women.

  by nascardem on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:04:53 PM PDT

  •  So does the Kansas governor

    and without the ill will, baggage, and Bill.

    by bmaples on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:08:25 PM PDT

    •  No proof of that

      Until I see some new polls, I am sticking with SUSA "the gold standard." SUSA polls

      There is no proof she brings women to Obama and there's real proof that Edwards does.

      In SUSA Michigan, which included Clinton & Sebelius:

      40% of women vote for Obama/Sebelius against Obama/Romney
      44% of women vote for Obama against McCain
      49% of women vote for Obama/Clinton against Obama/Romney

      Argue against Clinton - there are many good reasons not to choose her.  But there is zero proof that women will flock to Sebelius in her stead.

      by Valhalla on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:30:52 PM PDT

      •  I assume you mean

        McCain/Romney; otherwise it's a bit of an odd contest.

        That being said, Michigan is probably not the best example, considering Romney's strong support there.

        by dtremit on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:50:37 PM PDT

        •  Yep -- sorry

          Though it would be awesome if Obama had a twin!

          by Valhalla on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:52:28 PM PDT

  •  Some independent women already support Obama

    Try another talking point...

    by SallyCat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:12:48 PM PDT

  •  It may bring death too..

    by chuckk on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:13:34 PM PDT

  •  What is an "independent woman"?

    I'm a sixty-plus feminist, and only a few women I know are still supporting HRC.  The rest of us think they're assholes.  

    by dotalbon on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:31:13 PM PDT

    •  Thank you.

      This fiftyish feminist is totally with you.

      Assholes is the perfect word.

      by jjmn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:37:47 PM PDT

    •  I'm glad I don't know you

      Because you sound like you are still in high school; the kids who don't hang out with your clique are "assholes"?

      by nascardem on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:47:17 AM PDT

•  Sen. Levin destroys Harold Ickes'

  ..twisted logic on Michigan

  Jedreport.

  by Scarce on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:05:01 PM PDT

  •  Destroys?