All the arguments seem to be variants of the "who's running the country?" story. That's probably right though.

I've always been a fan of Jim Webb as a vp for Obama. What do you think of that?

Unity ticket would never work just for the mere fact of the riots in Denver alone.

The DNC negotiates with terrorists.

This idea sure gets a lot of blogink for possibly the only scenario less likely to happen than Hillary getting the nomination...
Seriously. Not in a million years is this going to happen.

I don't see what's so bad about it. Here's a silly analogy:

Ronald Reagan choosing George H.W. Bush. Reagan had run as the outsider, the man willing to take the party back to its ideals and roots, while Bush was the party hand, the insider. They ran very close in the primaries - I think that's the closest race until Obama/Clinton - and it worked out just fine for the Republicans.

The thing for me is that a race this close is basically unprecedented. It's rare that one could argue that a candidate had earned the VP slot, but this race has been an atypical one.

I think the symbolism of the unified Democratic party, plus the sense of fairness in giving Clinton the VP slot after she very nearly took the nomination, are both compelling arguments.

Most of the arguments against tend to revolve around pique at the Clintons or guesses at bad things that might happen in the future.

I think there's a good chance Clinton wouldn't accept - and she'd make a great Senate Majority Leader in that case - but I think Obama ought to offer.

Nobody said the unity ticket was a good idea. They only said it might be necessary to bring the party which has been split almost 50/50 back together at the convention in order to win in November. Personally I'd be completely happy to be rid of the Clintons from national politics and can think of many, many better choices to be vice president.

plus the riots

Hillary will never sit in the back of the bus.

I want Webb as VP too. He's awesome and perfectly compliments most of Obama's perceived weaknesses (And would kick the ass of ANY GOP VP nominee in a debate). My only problem is that I love him in the Senate as well and am scared his seat might fall back to the GOP should he give it up. Can we legalize human cloning just once so we can have two of him so he can be a Veep and a Senator?

I actually find this the least compelling argument I've heard.

The thing about Johnson was yes, maybe it was bad that the reality was he had to be marginalized due to his strength.

But it was a dang good thing he was ready to take power very suddenly. Because he was strong, he was an excellent vice-president. (Of course, because he was a Texan, he then doubled down a war of choice he didn't know how to win, but that's another rant).

I can see lots of reasons not to choose HRC as a VP (the fact that her people leak like a sieve being first and foremost), but I don't think you should automatically rule out "strong enough to create a separate base of power and therefore would have to be marginalized" as one of them. That's one of the necessary evils of our system, that we believe the Presidency so important we're willing to waste an awesome politician by having them serve as, basically, as an understudy in case of the unthinkable.

I would not assume the Obama and Clinton are really hostle to each other. It may be that they look at it as just politics. They are mostly pandering and lying right now anyway, so why should they not work together if it furthers their goals.

The VP is worth a bucket of warm spit. Gallup today shows that Obama has the same "elitist" and white-blue-collar-repellant gap vs. McCain that Kerry had with Bush in 2004. Obama can't win in the Fall without Clinton's help. He might not even win with her help, which is basically her argument. The Obama-deluded media and cult is in denial about his Rev. Wright negatives.

When Obama loses in the Fall, Clinton firstly will be vindicated and also she can run in 2012 when McCain's first term is up. Obama has literally nothing to offer her that is worth her throwing her voters' support behind him to enable him to win in the Fall. She doesn't need his money and she doesn't need the political of a certain loser in the Fall. She can be more redeemed and vindicated with his inevitable loss.

All Clinton has to do is not surrender the nomination, so that it is clear that the Democratic Leadership and Obama will do an end-run around the rules and try to force her out before the convention. Once they make that (rules-and-process-thwarting) move, Clinton can't be tagged a quitter. Once they force her out, the Democratic Party and those who supported Obama so fanatically will be the ones who own the defeat that the future holds in store for the Democrats this Fall. Clinton will be just saying, I told you so? and Remember how hard I tried to explain to you how he would lose? and Remember how hard I tried to change the losing track the party was on?

That's all she needs from this process.

Clinton in Oregon today:

“You’ve got to have a seamless health care system which covers every single person. My plan does, my opponent’s doesn’t…. How can anyone run to be the Democratic nominee and not have a universal health care plan?”

Petey's related query:

"How can anyone pose as a progressive healthcare blogger and support the candidate who bashes universal healthcare?"

DivGuy:

You are confused. All history began with this primary cycle. Didn't you get the memo from the various blogs supporting Clinton or Obama. For a contrast in silly by the "other side", check out Talk Left.

"For a contrast in silly by the "other side", check out Talk Left."

Armando has bizarrely been a voice of reason this cycle.

If you want the silly/extreme equivalent of Klein or Yglesias or the Peretz shop on the Clinton side, check out Taylor Marsh.

Annette,

Please note that not even Bill Clinton won the white vote.

there could only be a unity ticket if hercule poirot and miss marple took up permanent residence at the white house.
cleverly hidden banana peels, questionably cooked vegetables with strange, powdery spices....
peculiarly cloudy brandy.....
no way.
........i honestly would fear for the worst..
when pigs fly...
when reindeer have glowing blue noses.
......i cant imagine it even in my wildest dreams.
hillary and bill "chaos and chutzpah" clinton could not be co-vice presidents,not for two seconds.
they would be more omnipresent than joe lieberman is with mccain.
perish the thought.

"Please note that not even Bill Clinton won the white vote."

Clinton lost the white vote by 3 points in '96. Compare and contrast to the performance by Kerry in '04 who lost the white vote by 17 points.

As Gallup noted today, Obama is running right around where Kerry ran demographically.

A)I wasn't talkiing about Armando. Although, even he has a tendency towards pretending to support Obama, but clearly favoring Clinton on that site.

B) I am referencing Jer or whatever her name is. She's off in cuckooville.

C) You have no credibility about what's reasonable, and what's not. I don't see any difference between how you have approach Clinton versus how Soullite approached Obama. Both of you are extremists. So your view of reasonable comes from your extreme views.

PS- Jac, you and others are wrong. You don't get it. The only one who does get it, and don't personalize politics as many of you do is Ron. These people don't have to like each other or even trust each other. They just have to want to have the best shot at winning. That's all. Stop looking at politics like it's about how you would feel in the WH.

Petey, Bill Clinton in 1992 and John Kerry in 2004 won the exact same portion of the white vote, 41%.

Convenient how you left Ross Perot out of your equation.

why this cannot ever be permitted to happen...
imagine....
hillary :"stop at nothing, " clinton just one step away from the thing she craves most in the world, working day by day with the one person who stands between her and her dream.....
.........it gives me the chills.

John Kerry won 48% of the vote with with the exact same share of the white vote that gave Bill Clinton only 43% of the vote. Al Gore won 49% of the vote while winning only 36% of the white vote. He also won the popular vote and probably the electoral college as well.

But hey, ignore the fact that times chance, as does the electorate. Nothing Hillary supporters like more than arguing that white people are the only people that matter.

Let me repeat- these people are politicians. Until you grasp that the campaign rhectoric was just there to hype your emotions, and aren't reality- then you will see this as impossible. If you see Obama and Clinton for what they are, then you realize, as I do, that yes, they could work together. They aren't all that different except to supporters who want to imagine they are.

akaison

i "get it" just fine.

this is entirely personal for bill and hillary clinton.
i wouldnt trust them around barack obama. they have their own self interest far,far,far above the good of the country and barack obama.

Yeah, except the elephant on the room is that Kerry , Gore and Clinton are white, and Obama is black. That's the reality. We can't go down in numbers with white voters.

"I wasn't talkiing about Armando. Although, even he has a tendency towards pretending to support Obama, but clearly favoring Clinton on that site."

Armando has been willing to tell the truth over the past few months. That's certainly not a quality we've seen out of Klein or Yglesias or the Peretz shop.

Annette, you must be cherry picking your polls if you see John McCain in the lead. John McCain is behind Barack Obama in the vast majority of polls and in every polling aggregate. Even durring the time between Pennsylvania and IN/NC, John McCain rarely beat Obama in any polls, and Obama was still ahead in the aggregates.

In fact, it's pretty obvious that John McCain needs an outlier just to crack 45%. Thats before we start seriously hitting him on the '100 years' remark, and before we start running ads to tarnish his 'reformer' image.

There's nothing to the 'electability' argument other than 'OMG! Can't you see OBama is BLACK!!?!!?'.

"Yeah, except the elephant on the room is that Kerry , Gore and Clinton are white, and Obama is black. That's the reality. We can't go down in numbers with white voters."

Clinton did significantly better than Gore and Kerry among white voters. You can try to argue it's an apples to oranges comparison due to the presence of Perot, but then you've abandoned rational argument. Clinton drew a higher percentage of white voters in '96 than Gore or Kerry, and an equal percentage in '92 despite the presence of Perot soaking up white votes in '92 and '96 in significant quantity.

If the Obama partisans want to argue that the Gore / Kerry electoral profile is one to be emulated, well...

The electability problem with Obama isn't his skin color, it's the arugula factor. And I find it difficult to imagine that the Obama partisans in their high dudgeon aren't fully aware of this. They're been employing race to deflect class issues this entire campaign, and while I don't expect them to stop now, I do expect them to feel ashamed.

I see Obama had to throw off the Hamas representative today...can Hezbollah be far behind??

The guy who says his Grandma was a racist, he never heard his preacher say anything bad, he thinks whites cling to their religion and hate foriegners, and he's friends with an unrepentent terrorist says McCain is losing his bearings.

".........it gives me the chills."

If only it would have kept your from typing.

Petey -

Obama is running even with Clinton in the head-to-heads against McCain. What's your evidence for this electability argument - and please don't use data on Democratic primaries to extrapolate to general election projections.

The electability issue is that Obama is black, and anyone saying otherwise is lying. There isn't a dimes worth of difference between Obama and Clinton in tactics, personality, or policies. They have both used the same tactics, the same identity politics and the same policies. And the claim of him being elite? Give me a fucking break- Clinton is the elite of the elites. Who the hell do you think you are talking to with these innanities about the two candidates? I think they would make a great team against McCain precisely because they are so similar to each other. That's why the supporters can't stand each other.

Petey, no. He didn't. He had Ross Perot in the race taking up a big chunk of white voters. He got the same exact percentage of the white vote that Kerry did. He also got a much lower percentage of the over-all vote than Kerry did. You can sit there and talk about relative numbers, but you're a hack who thinks you can compare a three person race to a two person race. Al Gore received a larger portion of the popular vote than Bill Clinton ever did. He did that while winning less of the white vote. White people aren't the only people that matter.

Polls have shown that Obama gets between 34 and 38 % of the white vote. They also show him ahead of John McCain. Those two facts are perfectly consistent, no matter how much the it pisses off some white people. Spare us your fake 'it isn't skin color' spiel. The only way you can spin this as there being some massive gap between Obama and McCain on income is if you exclude black and latino voters from the 'working class' demographic.

Anonymous,

Until we have verifiable proof that Obama expressed the same views as his former pastor then you have no legs to stand on. So lets move on.

Since the 70s Democrats have not won the white vote this is true in 2006, 52% of the white vote went Republican. With respect to Kerry, he would have won if Bush didn't get 40% of the Hispanic vote (which is rather high for a Republican) and 20% of the black vote in the State of Ohio.

Yes Obama is black we all know that or otherwise we would not be talking about it.

Petey you are an ignorant douchebag hack.

Obama did not win the white supposed working class Democrats because they are racists bunch of uneducated hillbillies. The only racists worse than these crackers, are the racists who argue that Obama may not win enough of the larger general election white trash vote to become president.

Why don't you understand this?

In 2004, about 76% of the electorate was white (CNN Exit polls). In 2000, 81% of the electorate was white(compiled by the roper center). in 1996, 83% of the electorate was white(Wikipedia). In 1992, 87% of the electorate was white (Ropercenter). See a trend?

Q: "How can anyone pose as a progressive healthcare blogger and support the candidate who bashes universal healthcare?"

A: Because that candidate is better on just about everything else, and it's not like Hillary has John Edwards' ability to get the country behind the plan anyway.

When the map looks like this in the last days of an unprecedented 2-on-1 two-month attack on a Democratic presidential candidate who retains a gargantuan money advantage, we've got a lot to feel happy about.

"and please don't use data on Democratic primaries to extrapolate to general election projections."

Obama supporters are just so fond of shouting people down.

"Petey you are an ignorant douchebag hack"

Clarisse, you're an ass. Now go do your homework.

DivGuy: "Obama is running even with Clinton in the head-to-heads against McCain. What's your evidence for this electability argument - and please don't use data on Democratic primaries to extrapolate to general election projections."

Seriously. Petey is not wrong at all about Obama's electability problems--it's just that Hillary Clinton has even greater electability problems. Clinton is literally the second most unpopular politician in America. How well could she possibly do with those negatives? Petey is trying to run the same electability argument he employed in favor of Edwards, ignoring the fact that Edwards and Clinton are two very, very different candidates. In fact a statistical analysis of the most recent polling shows that Obama is more likely to beat McCain than Clinton is.

Don't expect Petey to show up and defend his questionable assertions though. I've noticed he always disappears from these threads whenever somebody brings up Clinton's own electability issues.

And plus the riots

Is there really justification for the ad hominem attacks in these comments? What good are these personal attacks?

hillary would be a horrible VP...I think she would stab him in the back. I like Jim Webb or Mark Warner. Webb would definately be a great attack dog and strong on the war but Mark Warner seems like a better fit for Obama's temperment and would be strong on healthcare and the economy.

Jim Webb -
Strong on the war
strong on veteran's issues
McCain attack dog
alpha male
short temper

Mark Warner
strong on healthcare
strong on creating jobs
strong on balancing a state budget
strong on management
managed Doug Wilderr's campaign'
Chair of VA DNC
only married once - young family

"hillary would be a horrible VP...I think she would stab him in the back."

that's rational

"Once they force her out, the Democratic Party and those who supported Obama so fanatically will be the ones who own the defeat that the future holds in store for the Democrats this Fall...

Posted by: Annette"

You know what, Annette? If you're going to say that, you can just as easily say that *both* Obama and Clinton are responsible for the loss, for infighting the party and for having the nerve to try to run a "minority" candidate in the "party of special interests" vs a white male Republican.

Really. Because there's no electoral problem that Obama has that can't be matched by Clinton. And she's still dragging the co-president around as an added plus. (You know, "the rapist," etc).

"You know what, Annette? If you're going to say that, you can just as easily say that *both* Obama and Clinton are responsible for the loss"

No, you can't. Cause Clinton will be gone. Obama and his overzealous reporters will have sole honors to that claim.

The Vice Presidency that Senator Clinton would accept is the Cheney Vice Presidency, de facto ruler of the country to the nominal President's figurehead role. But above all things the Cheney Vice Presidency must be abolished. We do not need another Cheney; we need another Alben Barkley.

Nobody is saying this will be easy for Obama especially in light of the whole controversy with Rev. Wright. Personally I think both are electable. I know some people who do feel more comfortable with HRC than with Obama but they feel that McCain is out of touch so they will vote for Obama. We, Democrats, need to get our act together because we need the presidency to get things done. Congress is not enough.

""How can anyone pose as a progressive healthcare blogger and support the candidate who bashes universal healthcare?"

Posted by: Petey"

Obama isn't bashing UHC, he's bashing a government mandate to purchase health insurance from corrupt financing companies (you know, the brothers of the folks who brought us mortgage and securities fraud) irregardless of ability to pay.

Stop pretending to such a high degree of mental incapacity.

What gives me concern is that John Kerry, a strong Obama supporter, considered McCain a worthy VP runningmate in 04.

Why is it that after 8 years of failed repub policies, democrats are preaching the bi-partisan crap again?

""You know what, Annette? If you're going to say that, you can just as easily say that *both* Obama and Clinton are responsible for the loss"

No, you can't. Cause Clinton will be gone. Obama and his overzealous reporters will have sole honors to that claim."

Oh, no. You can bet we're going to let anyone forget just how seriously how Bill and Hill overstayed their welcome. They're done. They can give back the $109 million in bribes come June.

And I bet Chelsea gets run off the hedge fund farm. You watch.

I miss Edwards. :(

Clinton is literally the second most unpopular politician in America.

What gives me concern is that John Kerry, a strong Obama supporter, considered McCain a worthy VP runningmate in 04.

I'm generally against the senate idea - one senator on the ticket is plenty, we don't want to upset the senate balance (to say nothing of having a record). Governors are the (modern) traditional other choice, although in the old old days ex-Cabinet members used to be common. (Any of Clinton's cabinet that would be worth giving a call to see if they're interested?)

I believe NtEW's response should read 'that candidate is better on just about everything else' assuming of course that you are an affluent social liberal/economic moderate who wants the Democratic Party pushing non-confrontational technocratic centrism focused on process for the next decade.

I know how appealing that sounds but there are some bitter dead enders who think the Democratic Party should pursue liberal policies on social and economic issues even when that leads to confrontation with the party in opposition.

Anonymous keeps trying to raise fear of race riots, and he has the nerve to call someone else an asshole?

Petey is most famous at this point for calling Matt Yglesias a 'Trust fund scumbag', and he has the nerve to criticize others for personal attacks?

Clinton supporters are completely immune to cognitive dissonance, aren't they?

If I could trust Clinton to keep promises from a Democratic primary, I'd be more excited about her.

Before she copied the Edwards plan (something I'm very pleased that she did), she was talking about how she'd get to Universal Health Care in her second term. So I don't know how tightly she'll hang on to the health care plan or other domestic policy initiatives. And she's become way too comfortable moving to the center over the years.

Meanwhile, Obama clearly wins on just about every foreign policy issue where there's a difference. And that's where the president has much more control over policy.

Soullite, if you mouse-over Petey's name on some of those comments, you can see which comments really came from him and which are from somebody making fun of him.

Krugman today:
More tirades from Obama supporters against Mrs. Clinton are not the answer — they will only further alienate her grass-roots
and he said it with a strait face.

Sweet, Mr. Ethical Werewolf, very sweet.

"Anonymous keeps trying to raise fear of race riots, and he has the nerve to call someone else an asshole"

Nobody threatens race riots like you, Trolllite.

Is it, perhaps, a clue that the people who've been spitting venom at Obama are the ones promoting this idea?

Clinton chose to run a demolition derby campaign against Obama. She gambled, she lost. She has massive, massive, negatives; there is a large population of people who would never vote for her, and it is not the same set of people who would never vote for Obama. She'd have to backpedal on all the stuff she said about Obama, and she's belligerent and refuses to admit error. She's lousy at fitting into the natural role of a vice president. She kneecaps Obamas entire message, because she is not the candidate of change. In short, she subtracts far more than she adds to the ticket.

Choosing her would be taken as a sign of weakness, and she and Bill would be sabotaging Obama's agenda when in the White House - because she'll believe that she could bully him into putting her on the ticket, so she can bully him again. Sorry, no sale.

When I read Bob Woodward's State of Denial (his third book on Bush), the thing that really struck me was that much of the dysfunction of the Bush administration was caused by competing power structures. A lot of the problems with the execution of the Iraq invasion originated in having a weak president and a strong VP. Bremer didn't even know who he reported to.

With Obama as a possible president, I'm already worried that we're getting a continuation of Bush in that Obama is inexperienced and weak (although of much better character than Bush). But Hillary as VP - that would just be too much deja vu over again of the Bush-Cheney arrangement.

Also, what's in it for Hillary? She'll be 72 in 8 years and very unlikely to ever make president. Her only reason to be VP is to be an influential one. I'm a very strong Hillary supporter... for president. For VP, no way.

Sorry... I should have said she'll be 68 in 8 years, not 72.

Neil, I hadn't known that wasn't him. Really, thats just not right. Theres no call for stealing someone else's name.

Anonymous, how many times do I have to tell you: Theres a difference between a riot and a protest. I know you get scared whenever more than 5 young and/or black people get together at one time, but thats your baggage.

Hillary Clinton is physiologically and mentally incapable of devoting her time and resources to anyone's agenda but her own. And she has Bill right behind her, cheering her on. It can't work. Nor can it work for her to be Senate Majority Leader, inserting herself between Obama and the Senate 24/7. Stick her in Albany or the Supreme Court, get her out of the way, she'd be meddlesome and dangerous.

Sorry, can't be kinder than that.

Is this better Soullite? Is it too much to ask Petey to voice his opinion without calling Ezra a "scumbag"? And if "Petey" persists in his vitriol maybe then is it justified to steal his name?

"Don't expect Petey to show up and defend his questionable assertions though. I've noticed he always disappears from these threads whenever somebody brings up Clinton's own electability issues."

How do you like that, Korba was right.

This is a breakthru: a surefire way of getting Petey out of a thread.

First, Bill Clinton was not an exceptional president, or even exceptional politician. He basically got lucky, in running against two uninspiring Republican candidates, and had a lot of help from Perot first time around. He got a lower percentage of the black vote than other recent Democratic contenders, and his ratings among white voters were not stellar either.

As for the threats to vote McCain by Clinton fans - yes, some will do that, but the vast majority will come to their senses, as happens in every election. Happens to Republicans, happens to Democrats, and it's totally predictable, so the doom and gloom peddlers are selling smoke.

The Clinton VP idea is simply not viable. You can't pick the one person who electrifies the GOP base, because you are basically giving them the one reason they need to hold their noses and vote for McCain. Remember that a good part of the base dislikes and distrusts him. You'd have to be crazy to give them any excuse to forget that.

Clinton won't add any states to the column (not that the VP usually does), and has shown that she's not a particularly good fit in terms of race and gender issues. You don't want someone who basically embodies resentment and privilege on the ticket. Clinton has both qualities in spades, as well as enough baggage to keep a herd of elephants employed for life.

Obama should pick a white male, preferably military and Southern. That brings something to the ticket, counterbalances McCain on several fronts, and might put some swing states in play. Webb looks like the obvious choice. Wesley Clark is a bit too old and out of the news to really be a good VP pick.

Anyway, for Obama fans, let the Clinton people vent. This will be over soon enough, and we can get on with the serious business at hand. Don't waste time and breath on the extremists that the blog-world throws up. They have no serious desire to debate or discuss, the just want to play gotcha games. Leave them alone and they'll quit for lack of attention.

Unfortunately, I think it probably is too much at this point. Petey became unhinged a while ago and I can't imagine he will ever stop the over-the-top insults, pathological lying, and complete ignorance of electoral history.

You can live by your own moral compass, It's not like I comport myself the way other people want me to.

I like Jim Webb or Mark Warner. Webb would definately be a great attack dog and strong on the war but Mark Warner seems like a better fit for Obama's temperment and would be strong on healthcare and the economy.

This sort of comment pains me immeasurably, and points to the degree to which left blogistan and the prObama movement in particular are much more tribal than ideological movements.

Mark Warner is central casting DLC. He's never seen a business handout he didn't love, and he has no business anywhere near a progressive ticket. I'll take him as a Virginia senator because he can win, but he is center-right at best on economic issues, and would be a disaster for any real progressive politics.

Jim Webb is better, but has a significant history of misogyny, was a supporter of the Iraq War, and ranks among the more conservative members of the Senate Dems.

I think that the Kos mentality of "just win" has created a bizarre situation where Democrats who win in red states - a valuable thing! - get mistaken for good Democrats who should hold even higher office, when rather they're conservative Democrats who do not represent the party and certainly not the activist base.

Mark Warner? Seriously? Barf.

I actually agree with DivGuy, if there's anything troubling about some Obama supporters, it's their tendency not to think some of these things through.

Mark Warner? Seriously? We may as well just give Hillary the VP slot. We have a real chance to knock the DLC down a peg for a good long time, lets not give them a presumptive nominee for 2016. He's useful as a Senator, but thats as far as it goes. Webb? Sure, at least he makes a good attack dog.

Would it really kill us to nominate a credible woman for VP though? Some people really love Hillary for being Hillary, but most just love her because she's the only credible shot they'll have at seeing a woman President in their lifetimes. We have no shortage of qualified women, and if it would give some people hope, theres no reason not to nominate one of them. Hope is what this is all supposed to be about, remember? There's no point in cynical pandering to southern, white men who won't be voting for us anyway. Hillary hasn't 'earned' a place on the ticket, but I think women deserve a standard bearer without a Clinton's baggage.

My argument's not organisational but pragmatic. The Obama electoral map is not the Kerry/Gore map, and includes places that have lots of Clinton haters.

Election in hands of 15 fucktard 'undecideds' in Dayton? DO NOT WANT.

I'd lean towards Schweitzer as the Veep choice on the ticket. He's about as anti-Cheney as you can get in elected Dems, and an anti-Cheney is what's needed.

And Petey?

Which states are on Clinton's election map?

Where are the Senate votes to pass Clinton's healthcare bill coming from?

Since this is the 32nd time of asking, I expect you to run away like a coward once more. But I'm going to keep asking.

"She kneecaps Obamas entire message"

as do you there

Reading most of these comments, I'm reminded of a dearly remembered Flinstone episode in which many Fred and almost as many Barney clones were walking around saying only, "Yes yes yes" and "No no no."

It worked for Reagan. It worked for GW. It might work for Obama.

So why did Obama let Robert Malley go? I thought they agreed with each other?

And Webb as VP??

It might be funny if Webb hadn't used the N-word so many times ala Mark Furhman.

And don't forget his violating the DC gun laws..I am sure that will resurface.

Sounds like just the kind of guy for Obama...

Eggheady and African....

The first questions any Vice candidate will get is:

1. Would you have left the Reverend Wright God Damn America church?

2. Would you have had a relationship with unrepentent terrorist William Ayers?

3. Would you meet with Hamas and Hezbollah and treat them as state actors?

Jim Webb could be possibly thee worst pick for Obama.

Obama's problem is going to be WOMEN, who will feel betrayed by the Party for nominationg Obama in a smoke filled room with unaccountable super delegates.

Webbs comments about women and his article, 'WOMEN CAN'T FIGHT' will not sit well with Democrat women.

Webb won't have to be swiftboated, he will be pillored by female combat veterans who he said weren't up to the job and had no business fighting in war.

Webb described military dorm life as "a horny woman's dream" and said that he had never met a woman he "would trust to provide . . . combat leadership."

I don't think Obama really needs the most anti-women Senator on the ticket to try to bring the party together.

How many states was that?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws

There is an on-going mis-conception that Webb actually did something to 'win' the Senate race in Virginia.

Factually, Webb was a terrible campaigner, admits he hates campaigning and his opponent Allen actually 'lost' by getting far fewer votes then normal.

If you look at the numbers, Webb did worse then any other Democrat running for statewide office in Virgina in the last 15 years. He even got fewer votes then Democrats who lost their races.

What happen was about 250-300K Republicans stayed home and didn't vote. Mostly as a protest to at the time the rutterless Bush adminstration.

Obama Claims He's Visited 57 States

SD: Big Deal, Everyone, including Obama knows there are only 48 states, just ask Howard Dean.

No, Anon, according to Obama and the DNC, there are 59 but only 48 get to vote.

All the swill that "anonymous" is pumping out here didn't work, and it won't work in the general either. And since Clinton and Obama both agreed that the FL and MI votes wouldn't count, that particular piece of nonsense doesn't put any daylight between them.

Clinton ran a famously inept campaign, and lost. Repeating her greatest hits isn't going to change that; it's just a reminder of how embarassingly bad it was.

"""And since Clinton and Obama both agreed that the FL and MI votes wouldn't count,""

I'd like to see that agreement..got a copy?

I think even Obama has conceded that he would find a way to seat and have vote Florida and Michigan..as long as he is the winner.

But maybe your right, let's see if he demands Florida and Michigan be locked out at the convention.....

I think Ezra's right in this. In terms of once they were in the office Hillary would bring a lot of unnecessary drama.

P.S.
Webb as VP seems like a strong choice, for national security and bringing in a fresh face. Although he's really not much of a natural politician, nor does he have deep roots in VA.

Further thoughts on Webb:
Is America ready for a democratic ticket with two wives that aren't white?

Why does Webb seem like he's a million years younger then McCain when they both fought in the war?

I feel like I know the perfect VP candidate, and I don't understand why his name isn't in the mix:

Sherrod Brown

Relatively popular OH Senator, very strong on economic issues and very credible with white working class voters.

Plus he's a great progressive. By all accounts a very strong campaigner. He's perfect, right?

What's with all the senators being mentioned as VP candidates? Why not Bill Richardson? He's got the executive experience, the international experience and provides an additional voting bloc. McCain isn't getting 40% of the Hispanic vote anyway and Richardson makes that a certainty.

Obama's problem is going to be WOMEN, who will feel betrayed by the Party for nominationg Obama in a smoke filled room with unaccountable super delegates.

Project much?

Jim Webb is better, but has a significant history of misogyny, was a supporter of the Iraq War, and ranks among the more conservative members of the Senate Dems.

I give you two out of three, but was he really a supporter of the Iraq war? This Mother Jones post by Clara Jeffrey reprints a 2002 editorial in which he comes out pretty strongly against it -- and seems to get it right on a lot of other details. ("The issue before us is not simply whether the United States should end the regime of Saddam Hussein, but whether we as a nation are prepared to physically occupy territory in the Middle East for the next 30 to 50 years.")

I'd probably rather see one of the Ohio pols, but Webb called Iraq pretty well there.

I'd like to see that agreement..got a copy?
here's a video of Clinton saying the Michigan vote would not count.

Here's the document she signed.

Anonymous @ May 10, 2008 10:12 AM, was moi
Requiring a name and email before the post response is submitted would cut down on the Anonymous post.

57 states LOL

I give you two out of three, but was he really a supporter of the Iraq war? This Mother Jones post by Clara Jeffrey reprints a 2002 editorial in which he comes out pretty strongly against it -- and seems to get it right on a lot of other details.

Thanks for the correction. That's good to know. Good for Webb.

I agree that if the choice isn't Clinton it must be either Brown from Ohio or someone from the western state like the Gov of Montanna or Richardson of NM. Somone who can be a map changer ro change the rules. I believe Clinton can be that, but there are potentiallyother choices as well. The reality however is that so many of these posts along this thread are a continuation of the primary "I hate Clinton" or "I hate Obama" and have very little to do with actually think of the general.

I agree that if the choice isn't Clinton it must be either Brown from Ohio or someone from the western state like the Gov of Montanna or Richardson of NM. Somone who can be a map changer ro change the rules. I believe Clinton can be that, but there are potentiallyother choices as well.

A compelling case can be made that while Clinton brings certain advantage to the table as a VP nominee, those other politicians you mentioned would be better. That, I think, is the compelling argument against a Clinton VPship: not that she wouldn't help, but that there are other politicians who would provide even more help.

57 states LOL

Went right over your head.

Hillay doesn't bring anything to the table that can't be brought by someone else without her baggage. Thats why she shouldn't be on the ticket. She just pisses off Republicans, and she undercuts Obamas message on judgment and change.

If I thought most of those people who votes for her were especially loyal to her, as opposed to her faction of the party or the idea of a female candidate, I might change my mind. But she brings some massive unfavorables and disagrees with Obama's entire foreign policy. Thats not really a good match.

Soullite

The irony of your comments,a nd those of Petey never cease to amaze me. Of course, the value of her being on the ticket is identity politics, but then where would Obama be without it? Or as Chris Bowers explains- we are getting a black President. not that he agrees with him. Not that he thinks we will finally obtain a progressive majority. But a black president. I really wish more of you could be honest with yourselves, but I find on race most Americans are uncomfortable dealing with their issues. As for clinton and Women, That's my whole point of why she adds value. Women would feel connected, and she does appeal to segments of the population that Obama has no ressonance to. And please, there is not a dimes worth of difference between the candidates on policy. I wish many of you would stop the pretense that there is. They are both essentially centrists candidates promising a centrist agenda. It's simply not true that there are vast policy differences. There policy differences for the most part except for healthcare are tweaks, and even on healthcare the practical effect of Clinton being Clinton is that the outcome would probably be the same as Obama anyway. Like I said, many of you need to leave the primary mentality behind. There are arguments for her, and as Tyro correctly points out, there are arguments for others as well.

just like a lead balloon

A lot of the reasons people might not vote for Obama also apply to Hillary, obviously. Let me add that she cannot get through a sentence without "uh" "ya know" "um" and other fillers. As in "White people, um you know, hardworking , you know, white people, uh...." This is not how a president should talk. Her speech is not THAT much better than Bush's.

soullite

what about claire mccaskill?

i think she would work very well with barack obama. i think they would be an excellent team.
what do you think of that ticket?

i think an obama/mccaskill ticket
would be great.

what about claire mccaskill?

Claire McCaskill has been a very conservative Democrat as a Senator, the worst of the 2006 electees once you control for the politics of their state. She's about even with Mark Pryor and Ken Salazar.

Hillary Clinton is miles to McCaskill's left.

I would love if he picked Claire McCaskill. She is just the kind of candidate he should pick. She's from a state that represents our future, and thats a gateway between the south and the midwest. She's got a strong record of pro-reform stances. She's got a strong, progressive record on economic issues. She has a tough, but not belligerent record on foreign policy.

She also respects the kind of voters that so many Hillary supporters claim Obama doesn't. She's a defender of gun-ownership and she has focused on issues that would offer the working class immediate relief. She manages to show she cares without resorting to obvious pandering. She's everything Hillary Clinton would be if she were actually serious about the things she says in her campaign commercials.

div guy

thanks...i havent known much about her except for her unwavering and early on support for barack obama.
she seems committed to his agenda, and seems to be temperamentall suited to the job of vice president...plus she certainly seems to be a wonderful female candidate.
i give her much credit that in the very beginning, when fewer people were on board, she certainly came out with strong and positive support for barack...even throgh some awfully rough times.
i think it took some political will and courage to have put herself on the line like that.
i admire her for that.
what do you think?

Akaison, you make policy arguments. I make political arguments. I would suggest you acquaint yourself with reality. Politics is what gets people elected and makes them good candidates, not policy.

And no, Clinton isn't as good as others. She has massive unfavorables and a whole lifetime in politics. She will bring ever rabid whackjob to the polls in a way that simple bigotry won't. You can get every bonus that she has from someone else without having to deal with that baggage.

You pick a VP based on their political bonuses, because their politics don't mean shit. They have no power unless the President gives them power. They aren't even especially likely to ever be elected President. Thats the biggest reason why I'd be fine with Hillary as VP if I thought we actually needed her.

No senator from a state where it would be difficult to replace them with a Dem should be the running mate, or in the cabinet. Period.

Governors with a Repub lt. gov should also be ruled out.

The only way you can claim that Clinton is 'miles to McCaskill's left' is if you only care about abortion, gun control, and immigration.

McCaskill is far to her left on trade issues. She is far to her left on economic issues. She is far to her left on Israel/Palestine. She is far to her left on the war. She is far to her left on government reforms.

Imagine that, those of us who care about populism more than cultural issues prefer a candidate who is further to the left on populist issues. Those who care more about cultural issues prefer the candidate further to the left on those issues.

soullite

she has certainly shown grace under fire, and appears to be very loyal and reasonable.
i do think she deserve a lot of credit for being an unwavering, early supporter and spokesperson for obama, even during rough and unpopular times.
she also seems to be a team player, who is capable of listening. i think she would would be a good complement to barack obama, very trustworthy and not self-aggrandizing and the kind of temperament that one would hope for in a vice president.
she seems to have many good personal qualities.

If only Obama could find a qualified African American to put on the ticket..why is everyone insisting his choice has to be white?

What about a Jessie Jackson?
Or a Doug Wilder?

I say go all black; let's not do this half way. If we are going to be the black party, then let's do this thing.

The white liberals will come aboard, where else do they have to go??

also, perhaps if claire mccaskill were on the ticket, some of the clinton supporters might feel a little more inclined to vote for barack obama and perhaps it might mitigate some of the bitterness.

JuicyToo, we aren't the 'black party'. We're the 'everyone party. We have white people, black people, Latino people, Native Americans, Arabs, Jews, Christians, Pagans, Hindu's, Muslims, Budhists, and Athiests. We have straight people, gay people, bisexual people and transgendered people. We have rich people, poor people, and all sorts of people in between. We are the world, and we are America. Thats what makes us great.

Thats why it's such a shame that Hillary and her folks want to hide that and pretend that we're the white party part 2. This country already has a party that yields to bigotry. It doesn't need another.

"This country already has a party that yields to bigotry. It doesn't need another."

Hence, the calls for riots.

"If only Obama could find a qualified African American to put on the ticket..why is everyone insisting his choice has to be white?"

Excellent point! Who are the AA's on the short list? If he picked Cynthia McKinney, he could neutralize the Green Party threat. Who's on board? Trolllite?

Imagine that, Anonymous thinks a racist troll has made an excellent post. He also can't tell the difference between a call for protests and a call for 'race riots'.

I really think you need to go look up what the word 'troll' means. I belong here, I'm a progressive. You do not belong here, you're a racist piece of shit.

If it's not Clinton, as I've said the choices are or should be about map changing:

a) Gov Easely of NC (not my first choice as I think South is hard to win)
b) Bill Richardson of NM (great choice for shoring up Obama's issues with Latino voters and building the Dem Party in the west in an increasely Democratic leaning state). Problem with this choice is his foot in mouth disease.
c) The Gov of MT-- again another excellent- build the party and Western progressives choice.

d) Brown of OH- builds the party there and great response to the progressive wing of the party to signal that we will no longer deal with the GE on the GOP terms. As Brown illustrated- a Dem can win being a true progressive in even Purple to Red Ohio if one is unrepentant about it.

Many of these would make excellent choices. They each have their flaws, but they certainly would fuck the GOP.

OK OK OK! I give up on Webb but we can't believe that the VP isn't going to have to be more conservative than Obama. I will have to check out Sherrod Brown, I don't know much about him.

"I belong here, I'm a progressive."

...anyway, still waiting for those names. How could there not be one AA on Obama's short VP list?

Karen, do indeed check out Sherrod Brown -- he's one name that would make me stand up and cheer. This is the dude who refused to accept his Congressional health care plan for many years in protest of the fact that so many Americans were uninsured.

How about the mayor of Salt Lake City? Rocky something.

"I have the white people, you know, the, uh, hardworking whites...." {and Obama presumably has shiftless supporters of dubious backgrounds) Behold your idol, Hillary Clinton

Anonymous, keep proving yourself a racist, Republican troll. Keep chanting 'Cynthia McKinney' and 'the party of black people'. Keep talking about riots that won't happen. All you're doing is proving to everyone else every horrible thing I've ever said about you.

Barbara Mikulski!

JJ, It really pains me to say this about such a fine Senator, and Sen. Mikulski is a truly good person, but she's also 72. She's just too old. We need someone who could conceivably run to succeed Obama in 8 years.

As nice as it would be to reward such a loyal Democrat with such a high honor, it's just not feasible.

if you named an African american that made sense rather than trying to stir the race card then maybe you would hear it. Right now, reading your post anonymous, it's clear you aren't serious. Just some troll wanting to be feed. Well, now you've been feed, and answered- can we move on without you pretending you actual give a damn about race other than how it can benefit the GOP?

"THE UNITY TICKET"
Pls don't twist the well established meaning of that phrase, Ezra. You're talking about the dream ticket. The "unity ticket", if "Unity 08" ever got so far as to decide on one, would have been something like Bloomberg/Waterston 08!
:D

As for the "dream ticket", I'm hoping for John Edwards. This would resonate well with Clinton supporters (a good part of them are former Edwards supporters), with progressives, white workers, unions, and many bloggers, I guess.

"if you named an African american that made sense rather than trying to stir the race card then maybe you would hear it."

Hardly a GOPer, akaison. Just another democrat who can't support the divisive campaign Obama has run and someone who has been told repeatedly at this site, that to question anything about Obama is to play the race card. How is it NOT the height of cynicism and systemic racism that there hasn't been one AA mentioned yet in Obama's choices of running mate?

Deval Patrick?
John Lewis?

Are you saying that Obama is the only AA politician worthy of being on a presidential ticket?

"""You do not belong here, you're a racist piece of shit"""

By that I guess you mean most of the Democrat Party.

Since we know all Hillary supporters are racists, and all Obamas' black supporters must be racists since him and Hillary agree on the issues, African Americans are clearing choosing Obama based on his race.

And by the way, according to Obama, it is typical of white women to be racists and it is typical of lower education, lower income whites to also be racist since they 'antipathy to people not like them'

Sounds like Obama and Soullite are basically saying everyone in the Democrat Party are racists, I mean who did you lave out??

Clearly Obama is racists because he assigned traits to others based on their race..IE 'typical white women', PA Clingers, etc. etc.

Why does Obama want to lead a party full of racists haters unless he plans to cleanse the party of those people?

It is all moot on Obama anyway. His campaign rhetoric does not match the truth of the man's record.

CNN and MSNBC and the rest aren't going to be able to hide this all through the campaign.

The fact is when you put Obama in contaxt, with his pastor (God damn America), his friends Ayers (I wish I had bigger bombs to blow up America), his wife's statements (I've never been proud and America is mean) about America, it all fits a typical far-left black Chicago politician Ala Jessie Jackson.

He's trying to run on something he is not and hasn't been for 20 years.

The record, does not match the rhetoric.

It is truly beyond hypocritical for Obama supporters to cry racism. Obama is going to get the nomination solely based on racism. You may think it is 'good' racism, but it is racism.

Obama won many states primaries and caucuses because he got over 90% of the black vote...those votes were largely based on his race. Blacks wanted to vote for a fellow black for no other reason then he's black.

A second large portions was educated white elites who think voting for a black person will either asuage their personal guilt or help heal the racial divide in the country. Either way, it may be racism with 'good' intentions, but it is still a vote based on Obamas race.

Whenever someone complains about Obama they are labelled a racists to shut them up... a third race based solution to an Obama victory.

If they are not labelled a racist, then their problem is labelled a non-policy issue, but few if any Obama supporters claim their votes are about his 'issues'.

Then of course Obama supporters label anyone else getting support based on race (like Obama does) as racists. Hillary says I can win because I'm getting the white vote...BAM! racist, even though Obama is getting the black vote based on being black...BAM! not racists..good thing.

Obama supporters should answer why it is good racism when blacks do it but bad racism when whites do it?????

The problem the Obama forces will have is this works great on Democrats, but won't work in a general election because Obama and his supporters can't keep calling whites racists and expect to win.

If he does offer the VP slot, Clinton should definitely decline it. She doesn't need to be a part of that sinking ship.

I'm done with you Anonymous. You're a Republican troll and you don't deserve the attention. This is the last time I'm ever responding to you.

Superdelegate, I know you hate Obama and all, but you best read over all things Anonymous has said in this thread and others before you decide to defend him.

You're defending denials that the Tuskegee experiments ever happened. You're defending endless race baiting that's gone well beyond anything the clintons have done. You're defending endless proclamations that black people are incapable of protest, only rioting.

Think on that before you decide to accept an obvious Republican troll as a 'Hillary supporter' just because he claims to be.

Amazing, I seem to have missed all the indignant posts by Anonymous, Sammy and Super Delegate when Mara, FH, and KK run around screaming 'OMG!!!! You didn't vote for Hillary so You're a sexist!!!'

Hypocrisy is an amazing thing. If you can't tell that Anonymous is a racist at this point, then you probably are one too.

"I'm done with you Anonymous."

*wipes brow*
Whew!

You want a major Irony and a dirty little secret.

Minorities and some whites have often complained that whites use their positions of power to put other whites in positions of power and thus, the deck is stacked against non-whites. And once non-whites get into positions of power that will all change.

Well, Obamas first decision after having the powerful position as the Democrat nominee will be to choose a Vice President to run with.

Obamas choice will begin by eliminating any black candidates and only choosing from white candidates. That's right, his very first deicision will be based on race and will exclude African Americans.
Welcome to the Party pal!

If McCain were smart...and he is not. He would be talking up Hillary Clinton as Obamas VEEP right now.

He would be saying things like, 'I don't know how he could not pick such a dedicated, strong, natural born leader to be his running mate".

Or, "I think Hillary would make a great Vice Presidential pick. If I were a Democrat, I would certainly give her serious consideration".

ETC> ETC>

It would put pressure on Obama, make him respond and endear McCain to her voters.
Lucky for Obama it appears McCain is going to run a pretty pitiful campaign.

Lets be perfectly clear here. Hillary is the one arguing that Democrats, and Americans, are too racist to vote for Obama. I'm not arguing that. Obama isn't arguing that. Nobody is arguing that but Hillary and her supporters. Thats what 'electability' is all about. These people are running virtually identical in the polls. Hillary's 'electability' argument is that her supporters are too racist to vote Obama. Some of you have to come to grips with that.

multiple choice question: who said, "I have the whites, the un hardworking ya know white voters.." a} a republican b} Joe Biden c}anonymous in his/her different guises d} Mrs. Clinton e} Ehud Olmert

Sing it with me, kids: Obama is not a fucking progressive.

Progressives do not praise Reagan and Bush, or argue that religious politicians can't be expected to leave their beliefs at the door just because of that whole separation of church and state thing. Progressives do not believe Bush hasn't quite met the standard of "grave, intentional breaches to presidential authority." Progressives don't talk about solving the "Social Security crisis"--prior to his kidnapping, even Josh Marshall believed that. And hell, prior to that statement, Obama believed that.) Progressives do not praise gay men who do them the kindness of not "proselytizing." Progressives do not ally themselves with vicious homophobes. Progressives do not support an immigration plan sponsored by John McCain, which does not include benefits or amnesty for undocumented immigrants. Progressives do not make it a high priority to demonstrate respect for people who do not believe in women's bodily autonomy. Progressives do not brag about their ability to attract Republican voters. Progressives do not baldly state that they are unwilling to spend political capital on progressive issues.

Are we clear on this now? Obama is not a fucking progressive.

sotrite

You have posted constantly this primary season that the white people not voting for Obama were racists. When someone pointed out that it was probably in their economic interests to vote for Clinton you would go on a tirade.

Now that 'whitey is racist' argument works against your candidate's claims of electability you pretend otherwise.

tool

Don't you have a tumor riddled child you should be taking care of, rather than posting here?

You should really go take care of that rather than worrying about other people.

Soullite,
Only Obama has referred to white Democrat Americans as racists. When he referred to his Grandma to defend Reverend Wright and when he didn't think the people of PA could hear him.

If you were a white women or a PA white Democrat why would you vote for a guy that calls you a racists and he's never met you and knows nothing about you?

This is how it works in Obamaland: When explaining loses, "energizing" your supporters or changing the media narrative then downscale white Dems should always be described as racist. When discussing Obama's general election prospects you must reject this construction and describe those who are now using your it as racists. It is vital that you always label someone a racist. Anyone who points on the inconsistency of your "argument" should be taunted as a facist racist since hope makes its own logic.

Probably the best example of a strong vice-president was Gore who played a leading role in the White House but only when asked by Clinton. He basically led without actually having to push himself on anyone.

Does anythink Hillary or Bill are going to sit and wait until Obama asks them advice? Look all the crap their campaign leaked to press about the Kerry campaign because they weren't allowed to call all the shots.

I'd say Obama needs to pick an independent minded Clinton backer; one who won't be leaking stuff to them all the time. Needs to be white guy from a rust belt state or with military service. Strickland or Clark most likely.

This is how it works in Racist Anonymous Land: When caught in a forum thread wearing bedsheets and an armband, vigorously claim that the people calling you out are calling all opponents of That Uppity Negro racist. Confuse and muddle that issue, but never ever address the fact of your own racism.

Worst...comment thread...ever.

Great argument- Hillary is too qualified to be a good Vice President.

Excellent that in this election season where the "will of the people" was trumpeted to extort the nomination out of the party for Obama, that now we believe that the choice of the person who will be one heart beat away from the Presidency should have no relation whatsoever to the will of the voters.

You are qualified, just as many, if not more people voted for you for the job- but we need someone less qualifed, who won't overshadow our guy or make him look like a novice to be VP. Be ready to read that in the right wing press for the next 5 months.

You have a weak candidate, and the arrogance and stupidity of him and his supporters are giving John McCain more and more hope everyday. Once McCain is through throwing Bush under the bus, we are going to have a whole new race on our hands. McCain is racing to the middle and you people are still running around with your head in the sand. When we lose in November you will all know why.

If only, 222, if only. I fear Obama will win and the D party will lurch even more rightward than it did under Bill Clinton. Then after, again, there will be another "correction."