Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Evenly Matched Dems Portend a Long Race

The whole world was watching, but answers were no clearer on Wednesday morning. (Bloomberg News).

By Dan Balz
The roller-coaster ride that has been the Democratic race for president belies a fundamental stability in the coalitions that continue to sustain both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

From week to week, their battle has ebbed and flowed in a drama that has captured the imagination of political junkies and ordinary citizens alike, an epic struggle with emotional highs and lows, sharp swings in conventional wisdom and the anticipation of resolution just around the corner.

Think back to what seemed evident over the past months. Clinton was once the all-but-inevitable front-runner -- until Obama caught fire in November and December. Obama, after his victory in Iowa, was on the brink of ending Clinton's candidacy the day before New Hampshire -- only to see her push him back with a surprise victory there.

Obama was off balance after Nevada, thrown off stride by hectoring from both the Clintons as she appeared ready to take control of the race -- until he crushed Clinton in South Carolina. Then it was Clinton's turn to worry anew as Obama roared out of South Carolina, picked up the Camelot mantle and regenerated the enthusiasm that surrounded him in the days after his Iowa victory.

But the strength of each candidate's support reasserted itself on Tuesday, leaving neither in a position to claim a clean or clear victory. Obama won more states, and according to his campaign, a few more of the nearly 1,700 pledged delegates at stake. Clinton won big states like California and Massachusetts (despite the Kennedys) and her campaign claimed that, including superdelegates, she held the overall lead in delegates.

The Wednesday morning post-mortems by the Clinton and Obama supporters proved no more conclusive than the Super Tuesday results. Clinton's loyalists sensed that the New York senator had blunted a possible Obama surge and therefore came away with a psychological victory. Obama's team argued that Feb. 5 always loomed as the most difficult day on the primary-caucus calendar and that to break roughly even on delegates represented a psychological victory of its own.

The drama of the race has overshadowed the fundamentals that have produced a race that is no closer to resolution after 55 percent of the pledged delegates have been accounted for than when not a single delegate had been allocated. Both Clinton and Obama have solid coalitions that have put them at parity in the race.

Clinton's is the more traditional coalition: women, working-class Democrats, party regulars, Latinos. In past races, that collection of constituencies has proved superior to anything an insurgent candidate could muster. That coalition helped Walter Mondale defeat Gary Hart, helped Bill Clinton defeat Paul Tsongas and Jerry Brown, helped Al Gore defeat Bill Bradley.

Against a traditional insurgent, that coalition likely would prevail again this year -- and still might. Obama enjoys the support of the kinds of people who have backed the Harts and Bradleys in the past: upscale, well-educated Democrats, liberals and independents. But to that he has added two important elements. One is a more energized cadre of young voters than has been seen in recent elections. The other and more significant part of his foundation is overwhelming support from African Americans, something that Hart and Bradley never had.

The departure of John Edwards, far from tipping the balance in one direction or another, seems to have made the respective coalitions even more solid. Both Clinton and Obama appeared to have picked up parts of the Edwards coalition that included antiwar, change-oriented Democrats and working-class whites concerned about the economy.

Clinton and Obama have split the Democratic coalition -- not in an angry or bitter way and not along clear ideological fault lines, but in the literal sense. Each now seems to have about half of the Democratic electorate lining up behind their candidacies. "The grand prize on the Democratic side will go to whichever candidate finally figures out how to transcend the current demographic niches and make headway on the other side's turf," Democratic pollster Geoffrey Garin wrote in an e-mail as the results were coming in Tuesday night. "But it's possible that neither one will accomplish that feat."

Different states tip slightly in one direction or the other by virtue of their political demographics and culture. But as Tuesday's voting showed, across nearly two dozen states, those differences even out. If Clinton did well in more big states, Obama showed appeal in states where Democrats have struggled in general elections.

Everyone got a full taste of what the Democratic Party's complex delegate allocation rules -- installed with the help of Jesse Jackson and Harold Ickes (now a Clinton adviser) two decades ago -- mean in an evenly balanced race. Victory does not necessarily mean a significantly bigger batch of delegates. In Connecticut, Obama won by nine percentage points but got just four more delegates than Clinton out of 48 allocated.

Unless one of the two candidates starts winning consistently and by substantial margins, it seems unlikely that either can accumulate the 2,025 delegates needed for the nomination by the time Puerto Rico casts the last votes of the primary-caucus season on June 7.

What that means is that superdelegates could decide who becomes the party's nominee. These superdelegates have been on the sidelines of virtually every nomination fight since they were added to the convention roster in the 1980s as a way to balance some of the other rule changes that had shifted power to the masses in the 1970s and early 1980s.

There are 796 of these superdelegates -- members of Congress, governors, members of the Democratic National Committee, distinguished party leaders, state party chairs and others. They do not meet as a group, and while some may hang out in smoke-filled rooms, they may not move as a bloc on the orders of a mythical party boss. Their decisions will be based on a variety of considerations -- personal loyalties to be sure, but also how the candidates fared in their states or districts and who they think might be the stronger candidate in the fall.

If Clinton or Obama suddenly starts winning consistently, these superdelegates may begin to break decisively in that direction. If the pattern of the past month holds, they could withhold support until summer -- or await a showdown at the convention in Denver in August, and that face-off could include a potentially divisive fight over seating the Michigan and Florida delegations.

The challenge for Clinton and Obama over the next weeks will be find a way to cut into the other's solid coalition. Obama has tried to peel women away from Clinton with major endorsements from the likes of Oprah Winfrey and Caroline Kennedy, but women held strong for Clinton on Tuesday. Clinton has sought to compete for African Americans but with little success. Obama showed some strength with Latinos in Arizona, but in the critical battle in California, he won only about three in 10.

If someone finds the keys to unlocking the other's coalition, that person will win the nomination. Short of that, the race could seesaw as it has done from the start and carry on into the summer. If you have not booked your reservations for the Denver convention, this might be the week to think about it.

By Web Politics Editor  |  February 6, 2008; 2:06 PM ET
Categories:  A_Blog , Barack Obama , Dan Balz's Take , Hillary Rodham Clinton  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Obama Gears Up for Next Round
Next: Clinton Loaned her Campaign $5M


roikue fgszkib qtliamsn bseakdq ivglsb wguhby rmklpw

Posted by: Anonymous | April 16, 2008 9:25 AM | Report abuse

roikue fgszkib qtliamsn bseakdq ivglsb wguhby rmklpw

Posted by: Anonymous | April 16, 2008 9:24 AM | Report abuse

roikue fgszkib qtliamsn bseakdq ivglsb wguhby rmklpw

Posted by: Anonymous | April 16, 2008 9:20 AM | Report abuse

yvougmjk pinrhxw qlafzx xsejywa vcdr iosr jgpoth

Posted by: Anonymous | April 16, 2008 9:20 AM | Report abuse

This long-time Republican has some advice for you Democratic folks commenting on this article:

I do not think you want any ticket with Hillery on it.

Reason? After eight years of unchecked Bush-bashing, I don't know any Republican that feels there are any civil limits to bashing a liberal Democrat. The Scorched Earth, anti-president politics of 2000-2008 will be followed by the same towards you Dems. Congratulations.

Maybe, just maybe, Obama could avoid that reaction; It is certain, though, that Hillery would only provide more combustibles for the scorched-earth fire to come.

Posted by: wilsan | February 7, 2008 9:03 PM | Report abuse

WE need to demand NOW that both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama take a pledge that the superdelegate votes will be split pro-rata, based on the primary results in actual elections. This will avoid any backroom deals and an unfair result that would make meaningless all the hard work, months of effort and votes cast by all the party's supporters in the primaries, not to mention risking losing in the general election all the new young and African-American voters that have turned out.

Posted by: jonathanhubbell | February 7, 2008 10:57 AM | Report abuse

Ironically, while Obama is running on a theme of "inspiration," "unification," "compromise," "bringing the country together," his candidacy has managed to create a serious schism in the Democratic Party where one never existed. Democrats used to be united, now they are dividing. Intentionally or not, the Obama candidacy is dividing Democrats between the young and the elderly, the working class and the wealthy, black and Latino, male and female. If the battle for the nomination continues in this manner, this schism could tear the Democratic Party apart. If Obama is truly committed to "unifying America", if it's not just empty campaign rhetoric, then Obama should end his campaign against Hilary and join her in a Clinton/Obama ticket.

Why should Obama take second seat to Hilary? Because Hilary is the stronger candidate. Hilary has more experience, she is better prepared, and she has proven she is a "unifier" by reaching out across the isle and working with Republican leaders in the Senate. For those reasons Hilary stands a better chance of winning in November. Further, a Clinton/Obama ticket affords the possibility of 16 years of Democratic leadership in the presidency.

No matter how much we like Obama, he does not have the experience that a president needs to lead the country - a point the Republicans are sure to hammer in the Fall. Obama is not JFK. JFK served 6 years in Congress, 8 years in the Senate, and ran for VP before running for President. Obama has served less than one term the Senate and most of that time he has been running for president. Because of his lack of experience, Obama, like Bush, will have to rely on advisers - think Rumsfeld, Perle, Wolfolwitz, Card, Libby...- to help him understand and confront the issues. That didn't work out so well for America.

Moreover, Obama is running his candidacy solely on this ideal that he is a unifier. He's not running on his experience or the issues, he's running despite of them. But he hasn't united, he has divided - a point the Republicans are sure to make. Bush ran as "a uniter not a divider;" the candidate who would "change the tone" in Washington. Bush was the "outsider," who would change Washington politics. But it was all just words. If Obama truly is a uniter not a divider, it's time for him to unite.

Posted by: susannakintz | February 7, 2008 7:58 AM | Report abuse

Folks (mostly Clinton supporters) are missing the point when stating Obama would be VP for Hillary. They state policies are nearly the same (yet still say he has no substance which makes no sense). Obama has declared he will not have lobbyists in the White House and does not take PAC money. How can he then join Hillary who exemplifies both lobbyists and PAC money? He would have absolutely no credibility to run for president later on. The second area that he is totally different from Hillary is foreign policy. He sees us as part of the world where Hillary is more in line with Republicans. This is not only the vote on Iraq. There is the vote where she states that Iranian Army is a terrorist organization. The vote that Hillary had against banning mines and cluster bombs in heavily populated civilian areas. Obama disagrees with each of those. Then there is distinct possibility that Hillary loses to McCain. Clintonites think this is spin but many of us Obama supporters do not see great differences between Hillary and McCain. The idea that she is completely vetted is ridiculous just look at Bill's 31 million dollar donation for helping a guy get uranium mine deal abroad. Clintons have not been vetted since his presidency and questions on white house papers concerning Hillary's healthcare plan not being released, their ties to Burkle, and who exactly are donors to Bills library are still open questions let alone any other BS not known yet. Then look at how Clinton politics are Rove like. Every primary and caucus has seen push poll calls against edwards and obama but none against hillary. Clintonites forget obama for VP instead if hillary wins just hope we actually will vote for her against McCain.

Posted by: Brian_Aufderheide | February 7, 2008 2:50 AM | Report abuse

"The mere absence of war is not peace."


Posted by: mcmmar01 | February 7, 2008 12:39 AM | Report abuse

Ask anyone who knows either candidate. Neither Clinton nor Obama would nominate the other as/ accept the offer of vice president on the ticket. Let's get real. We need to be thinking about the Bob Grahams, Dick Gephardts, Bill Richardsons, Janet Napolitanos and Tom Daschles of the world.

Posted by: drischord | February 7, 2008 12:31 AM | Report abuse

If Clinton becomes President then I doubt Obama would want to be Vice-President though after W won in 2004 I was going to have a bumper sticker made that would have stated "Clinton/Obama 2008, the future is now."

Really though, if you were Obama would you want to be Vice-President? I think if Clinton is elected then she would be wise to make Obama the United States' ambassador to the United Nations and give him a seat on the National Security Council. Then, in her second term she might consider making him a special envoy to the Middle East to help broker a regional solution including the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

These posts would give Obama a solid foundation to become president later when he has gained more experience, especially in the international arena.

If Obama is elected, I doubt Clinton would want to be Secretary of Health & Human Services simply because she would have to advocate for Obama's health care plan which is the antithesis of what she has advocated for these many years.

Posted by: brwntrt | February 7, 2008 12:30 AM | Report abuse

I like Obama but his ascending to the top of the ticket is fairly tale. Unlike supporters of Obama, I have not hatred of Obama. On the other hand, supporters of Obama appear to be self-righteous and mean spirited. I doubt that that these well educated in the right sense. I have no idea what Obama stand for so many issues. The constant refrain of 'hope' and 'change' are meaningless to me signifying nothing. I also suspect that Obama is not as progressive as many of his supporters think he is. He is an unknown quantity to he probably to his supporters as well.

Posted by: kevin1231 | February 7, 2008 12:26 AM | Report abuse

As a French Californian who left the US when Bush came, I am praying my US friends will elect a democrat for president. If Mc Cain is the GOP nominee, he might be tough to defeat, and I fear that Obama's lack of national and international experience can then be a drawback. That's why I am looking the democrat party in its wisdom to impose the ticket Clinton/Obama, which should ensure victory against Mc Cain.

Posted by: jpbillon | February 7, 2008 12:10 AM | Report abuse

As a French Californian who left the US when Bush came, I am praying my US friends will elect a democrat for president. If Mc Cain is the GOP nominee, he might be tough to defeat, and I fear that Obama's lack of national and international experience can then be a drawback. That's why I am looking the democrat party in its wisdom to impose the ticket Clinton/Obama, which should ensure victory against Mc Cain.

Posted by: jpbillon | February 7, 2008 12:09 AM | Report abuse

Barack Obama has fractured the Democratic Party in a way not seen since the disastrous bid for the Presidency by Ted Kennedy in 1980. The Kennedy insurgency put an end to hopes of the Democratic Party to win the White House until Bill Clinton came along to famously rescue it.

Just so with the divisive Obama. His arrogant, mean-spirited, careless, reckless, devil-take-the-hindmost campaign has succeeded in stripping the Democratic Party of its Grand Coalition and much of its good will and reducing it thereby to tatters. Obama chooses feckless and overriding ambition to decency and good sense when he with malice and forethought rips off 80 percent of the black vote so crucial to Democratic wins while at the same time he deserts the majority of whites, Latinos and Asians and even some blacks who remain loyal to the coalition and its vision and hope for so many.

The fact that a goodly number of his wins on Super Tuesday came in states that despite large African-American populations nevertheless are firmly in the GOP column undoubtedly has not escaped the notice of Party heads. Nor, presumably, has it escaped the notice of the GOP which can now predict with somewhat more certainty happy days in November.

It is time Obama leaves the race for the good of the Democratic Party, its Grand Coalition and for the good of the nation. It is time he gets out of the race and spends his time instead attempting to repair the damage he and his campaign have wrought.

Obama cynically played the race card after Nevada and his campaign in true fairy-tale mode created the notion of a "surge" by luring an astounding 80 percent of African-American voters to his side. And the point is -- that's pretty much all he got. It was a huge price to be paid for a collapse of the unity of the great political organization he has such ambitions to dominate and which hold such promise for America. A huge price and one that should not, cannot be ignored.

It's up to him to do the right thing.

Posted by: ram9478 | February 6, 2008 11:55 PM | Report abuse

One of the people commenting called Hillary supporters low I.Q. minions.

I remember Obama saying that his supporters are the more educated voters.

He also said he got $32,000,000 in campaign contributions on the internet. He also said that the range of donations were from $5 to $25, usually.

$5 to $25 donations don't seem to be to me what the highly education people would contribute - they would make enough money to send more than that.

Giving Obama the benefit of the doubt, he is saying that 1,280,000 people donated money to his campaign alone, if you use the $25 figure. That is a lot of individual donors for one month.

I wonder if Obama is sure that this isn't money from Rezko, the guy in Illinois that is under indictment for influence peddling and has been his friend and financial associate for 17 years.

It is my opinion that Rezko is trying to buy the election for Obama. Whoever is supposed to check these things out -- should ! ! !

I am serious. It bothers me that Rezko is an Arab from Syria. It bothers me that Obama knew him for 17 years and lied at a recent debate and said he had done only about 5 hours worth of work for Rezko.

It bothers me that Rezko has received huge amounts of money from the middle east.

It concerns the FBI, also, because they picked Rezko up last week and he will be going to trial Feb. 17th. See the Chicago Tribune articles about Rezko/Obama dated Jan. 27th, article by investigative reporter, John

Posted by: Iowatreasures | February 6, 2008 11:55 PM | Report abuse

Sen. Obama got it exactly right last night.

Hillary Clinton has lately been loudly proclaiming her fealty to the Democratic Party's best traditions on human rights.

However, just two years ago, Hillary--the purported "expert" on international relations--said there should be "lawful authority" for torture in some cases.

(See, for example,

Her immoral stand was opposite to that of every other major Democratic presidential candidate in 2007-2008, and the heat she took for it caused her to make one of her famous "flip flops."

So much for her being "ready to go on Day 1."

More like not ready for prime time ...

Posted by: Martinedwinandersen | February 6, 2008 11:42 PM | Report abuse

A "dream" ticket combining Obama and Clinton would be more like a nightmare shotgun wedding than anything else.

It would not be credible because one calls us to higher ground and the other offers a siren call from the swamp.

A speech given by President John F. Kennedy is perhaps the best refutation of the Clinton approach to politics, and an endorsement of the Obama magic...

"When power leads man toward arrogance, poetry reminds him of his limitations. When power narrows the area of man's concern, poetry reminds him of the richness and diversity of existence. When power corrupts, poetry cleanses."

America is tired of the arrogance, corruption and lack of that elusive thing called grace that characterized Bill Clinton's "co-presidency" with Hillary.

America is on the move again.


Posted by: Martinedwinandersen | February 6, 2008 11:40 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is scary with her healthcare propositions. I see her plan costing American Taxpayers an enormous annual cost. The people who will be paying for it are the same ones who pay for everything else, the American taxpayers. I would be irritated if those who are subsidized obtain better healthcare than I have. I don't mind helping the poor and impoverished, but there are limits.

The Defense Budget costs us 10 billion dollars a week.
The War In Iraq costs us 4 billion dollars a week.
Free Benefits for Illegal Immigrants costs us 3 billion dollars a week.
Hillary's Healthcare would cost us 2 billion dollars a week. (??)

Just think if Hillary grants amnesty to the 20 million illegals, another 20 million to insure.

Posted by: buzzm1 | February 6, 2008 11:39 PM | Report abuse

I seriously doubt Obama supporters would be happy about any Obama/Hillary or Hillary/Obama ticket. That's not a snub at Hillary. There's a good reason we like Obama over Hillary and it's because we don't want her anywhere near the white house. It would ruin a lot of the Obama movement if he won and then ended up adding her on as a running mate.
I'm sure Hillary would LOVE to have Obama on as a running mate if she were to win... try to grab some of his mojo. But I HOPE he doesn't go there.

I honestly don't know if I could bring my self to vote for her in November even if Obama was VP. Honestly does Hillary vs. McCain really sound like much of a difference? I wouldn't want to associate myself with either one of those two.

Posted by: COskins | February 6, 2008 11:35 PM | Report abuse

Regarding this joint ticket stuff: I don't think so. Both need the other's consituency to consolidate the party following nomination. Clinton, however, would have to re-make her platform to grab his base; Obama, meanwhile, has the passive ability to grasp hers. A young voter has a REASON to abandon her in the general, as does an African-American, as does an upper-income progressive voter. Should he grab the nomination, however, it is hard to envision why and how women, Hispanic Americans or lower-income voters would actively evade his ticket. She is not speaking to the constituencies she doesn't have: youths don't believe she emodies change and dynamism; African-Americans are duly turned-off by the tenor of her campaign; and upper-income and progressive liberals aren't engaged and/or fear her politics and Clinton politics in general. Meanwhile, I've never meant: a woman who says he's a candidate she would avoid; a Hispanic who is alienated by him; a lower-income voter who doesn't believe he would work for their needs. In fact, his victories in small, Midwest states prove he can pick up women and low-income folks with some level of ease. The only constituency he might actively 'scare' off are older voters, who are the 'experience' block. Lastly, the small number of Hispanic voters who have active cause to leave his court are those caught up in the racial tensions of today; I, amongst many (I hope), do not want these people inside the Democratic party, and wish them luck finding representation elsewhere. The massive majority of Hispanics, however, could meld quickly into the economics implicit in his message that attracts many race-blind Americans. In short, Clinton NEEDS the Obama coalition, and could only get it by co-opting him, assuming she doesn't drastically alter her platform. He, however, has a message and platform that honestly doesn't require her presence. In fact, he would look compromised, having run a campaign of change, only to grasp ahold of a potent symbol of the political past after gaining the nomination. She could only gain from grafting his voters into her coalition, but I'm one voter that would certainly come being dragged tooth and nail. We've had the problem of losing democratic voters to youth apathy, poor African-American vote mobilisation and Ralph Nader progressive politics. Rove and Clinton taught politicans a lesson: turn political weakness into a strength. If you're an electability/horse-race voter, why not choose Obama, and transform the cracks and crevices of the democratic coalition into the working core of a platform that would ROLL the Republicans in the general? Women, Hispanics, and 'average' Americans have no compelling reason to stay home and not vote Obama, even if he's got Chuck Hagel as a VP. Again, the only folks who actively lose out in the Obama platform are older voters; his verve is a little off-putting and un-trustworthy to that set, I think. But, if you were trying to win elections for years to come, would you start a party movement with 65+ voters, or these You-Tube crazies who view Obama's videos more Britney Spears papparazi tapes? Finally, to end with a healthy dose of cynicism, I don't feel Bill Clinton would play a minor, passive role in her administration, and that's not healthy for the Executive branch as a constitutional entity. If you're tired of a Vice President that pulls the levers of power without your say, try when it's someone who's not even on the ballot. Considering Obama's perspective, I couldn't imagine a less edifying vice presidency, and would refuse her offer. For the good of the party, we should put the fantasy ticket to rest, and have the courage to vote our heart in primary, by choosing the ONE candidate best suited to be America's next president.

Posted by: jeffrey_roix | February 6, 2008 11:32 PM | Report abuse

Representative democracy is obsolete.

Government of the people, by the people and for the people.

Direct Democracy

Posted by: thc1138 | February 6, 2008 11:30 PM | Report abuse

"I'm a Democrat and I don't want either of them either! We've blown this opportunity big time because we let the loony liberal wing of our party drive the nominee recruitment and culling process."

This post made me realize that the Dems really did blow a significant opportunity with this nomination process. If ever there was a time to nominate a moderate, it's now. I'm a libertarian with an independent streak. I've consistently voted Republican, albeit sometimes holding my nose. If McCain were less hawkish, pro-choice, I could vote for him with no big reservations. But those are big reservations. If Democrats had put out a fiscal-moderate, I'd probably jump the fence along with a lot of other libertarian-leaning individuals. Instead, Dems put out two candidates that want more government regulation, less personal freedom and huge spending increases. These characteristics will invariably outweigh any amount of socially-liberal policies that would otherwise draw in libs.
The only candidate I would choose Hillary over is Huckabee, but I would LOVE to vote for Obama. If he were less of an extremist, for lack of a better term, I'd be in his camp in a heartbeat. As it is, I'll be holding one nostril and going with McCain.

Posted by: 1ofamillion | February 6, 2008 11:25 PM | Report abuse

I see zero synergy between Obama and Clinton. They might as well be in two different parties. I doubt if Obama would accept VP, and think he would probably either (a) let Hillary get defeated and run again or (b) go independent.

(b) Obama can take the independents by storm. Look at how he did in Connecticut! Hillary is a smokestack Democrat...Obama is suburban cable tv Democrat. Two very different animals that don't like each other very much.

The bottom line is that the Democrat Party itself is fractured and the Obama Clinton schism is just the visible sign of that.

Posted by: jabailo | February 6, 2008 11:01 PM | Report abuse

The rules for nominating the democratic nominee was partially written by Jesse Jackson?!?!? *Spitting coffee all over the screen*

Posted by: jazer19 | February 6, 2008 11:00 PM | Report abuse

I like one commentator's lasting impression in my mind, has been since Hilliary ever had the notion to run, She will never be a good president in standing with the middle east because 'she' represents alienation from their mind set
with that said, that commentator resonates with me "Clinton nomination means a republican win." for me also.

Posted by: grdn_nell | February 6, 2008 10:55 PM | Report abuse

tallman2short: You must not know that Obama and Oprah and Michelle Obama are the ones who brought out the race card.

They got 80% of the black vote in SC and other places, but it only fractured the Democratic party in a way that is going to be difficult to repair.

Black people are definitely voting along racial lines now, and you have to know that.

The black people used to love the Clintons before Obama decided to turn them against the Clintons for his own self-serving purposes. He only put a bigger wedge between black and white people, when, before he did that, the two races seemed to be getting along very well.

Now, we're back to black and white issues, when we should be looking at the American people issues.

Obama is a divider - not a uniter.

Obama is not the "hope" candidate, Obama is the dash the Democrat's hope of ever getting Bush, and McCain (who is Bush like), out of the White House.

The way Obama is working it - if he gets the nomination, or if he is even the v.p. attached to Hillary, McCain will treat Obama like so much red meat. Why? Because Obama has not been vetted yet, and the swooning biased media won't vet him.

But I can guarantee you that ruthless McCain will. McCain will crush anyone that gets in his way.


Posted by: Iowatreasures | February 6, 2008 10:48 PM | Report abuse

Was I dreaming (that's the thing to do these days, I guess) but did I hear someone say that Michelle Obama criticized Hillary
Clinton for her spouse, Bill Clinton, that if she can't control him, how is she going to manage the White House?

The more I see of Michelle Obama, the less I like her. She and Barack are both very aggressive, self-serving, pompous people.

I saw Michelle Obama on C-SPAN giving speeches and she always have this dark furrowed brow look, leaning on the lecturn and chastizine her audience. It is very unpleasant and I feel uncomfortable watching her. gw.

Posted by: Iowatreasures | February 6, 2008 10:41 PM | Report abuse

ben2: You and many others like you refer to people who support Hillary as low I.Q. minions.

I have two daughters, in California, one is a registered nurse and the other is a controller of a corporation. (They both worked very hard to get their college degrees).

They are strong supporters of Hillary Clinton, as am I, and my grand daughter who is 18 and attends college.

Hillary is compassionate, considerate, mannerly, educated, experienced and is a trajectory figure in America in ways that you, quite frankly, are not. gw.

Posted by: Iowatreasures | February 6, 2008 10:36 PM | Report abuse

bigguysgym said:

Lots of Obama supporters have pledged to NOT vote for Hillary Clinton if she gets the nomination.
* * * * * *

Where did you learn this from? Is this factual?

If this is true, maybe that is why Obama said Hillary's supporters would vote for him, but his (Obama) supporters would not vote for Hillary.

So much for Obama's rhetoric about unity and hope. gw.

Posted by: Iowatreasures | February 6, 2008 10:28 PM | Report abuse

Hillary can't choose Obama as a running mate.

Obama has not been fully vetted about his 17 year association with Tony Rezko.

Tony Rezko was arrested by the FBI last week and his trial to begin Feb. 27th, for influence peddling.

Obama has had a long and extensive close friendship and financial relationship with Rezko, who is an Arab from Syria, who receives huge amounts of money from people in the middle east.

Rezko has held fund raisers at Rezko's mansion for Obama. They have close ties and it would be foolish for Hillary to take a chance on an "unknown quantity," like Obama.

Plus, don't you think, after a rigorous campaign for a year and a half, that the nominee should have the right to choose their own running mate. It is a judgement call - that strictly belongs to the nominee.

The pundits are already speculating on the super delegates, pushing people into declaring their loyalties - not to the candidate but to their friends, associates and influential people in the political business.

There are jillions of calls being made by
candidates and their supporters to the super delegates. The super delegates, also, should be left alone to make their own decisions based on what they know and learn about the presidential candidates.

This whole media intrusion into our political system is bothersome, to say the least.

You know, and I know, that the media gave us the guy they most wanted to have a beer with and what did that get us? A war and an insurmountable debt.

What is the biased, swooning media trying to give us now? An unvetted candidate because he knows how to read a speech eloquently and movingly. What is that going to get us?

An unknown quantity, "roll of the dice," President that we don't know where his loyalties lie. gw.

Posted by: Iowatreasures | February 6, 2008 10:18 PM | Report abuse

Here's a site that has a list of where superdelegates are currently pledged:

Posted by: dmansmi | February 6, 2008 10:16 PM | Report abuse

The only way Barack will see the inside of the White House is as VP to Hillary. If you think the Clintons play dirty, just wait till the Republicans get through with him. BTW, who has vetted him yet? He seems to skate right through the press and just last week his confidant was arrested! Why the kids' gloves? Every week in these blogs, we keep seeing Monica Lewinsky showing up. Mudslingers for change, I love it.

Posted by: Dave25 | February 6, 2008 10:10 PM | Report abuse

svreader, you better give up hope for the HillBillys. They are out of money, out of votes and out of time.

We don't need another DINO HillBilly in the White HOuse, and apparently, most of the Democrats agree, both with their votes and with their campaign donations.

Obama/AnyoneButHillBilly 08

Posted by: kevinschmidt | February 6, 2008 10:00 PM | Report abuse

President Bill Clinton, should apologize for playing the race-card in South Carolinia.

It does not matter how many African-American Churches he visits, he needs to be honest about his conduct.

African-American Pastors should not allow the Clinton's to appear at there Churches to speak until he apologizes to the African-American Community.

Posted by: tallman2short | February 6, 2008 9:42 PM | Report abuse

Clinton/Obama.. OTFL

Nice try Terry McAuliffe-- corrupt hack thug extraordinaire, and his pathetic low double digit IQ minions.

Posted by: ben2 | February 6, 2008 9:36 PM | Report abuse

You are the complete idiot, svreader, as this ticket, which would could have never appeared, because Obama is too much ambitious to gepardize his entire political career by the association with Clinton, would not be able to apper simply because Obama would win nomintion fare and square.

Posted by: aepelbaum | February 6, 2008 9:29 PM | Report abuse

Time for the party leaders to tell Billary it is time to do the right thing for the party and the nation and withdraw from the race.

Buy all standards Billary, the inevitable juggernaut, has been crushed by the Obama insurgency.

With the Clinton name recognition and all their advantages, this is a repudiation of massive proportions. Stop the ego parade, cut your losses, and chose party and the nation over your self deluded, self indulgent, self pitying arrogance.

Posted by: ben2 | February 6, 2008 9:17 PM | Report abuse


You say you attended the Summit, Colorado caucus last night - in a room intended for 600 but there were 1,000 people there.

I would love for you to give us a narrative about how that caucus went - did the people have to register before hand or just that night, the way they did in Iowa - Iowa trusted people to be honest that they really lived in the state.

How many votes did it take to win a delegate. Were campaign workers allowed to register and vote that night?

Were there trade deals that went on, like in Iowa? Tell us - we never hear how these things go. gw.

Posted by: Iowatreasures | February 6, 2008 9:13 PM | Report abuse

switak3: I enjoyed your comments. I hope others will take the time to really read it.

By the way, does anybody know how many people read this and other boards in a day? gw.

Posted by: Iowatreasures | February 6, 2008 9:06 PM | Report abuse

Chinese people love Hillary Clinton forever!!

Posted by: godness888 | February 6, 2008 9:06 PM | Report abuse

Can Obama deliver once he gets into the White House?

Posted by: Georgiapeac21556 | February 6, 2008 9:00 PM | Report abuse


No, Obama doesn't have the big "mo."

Obama knows how to use deceptive practices to win caucuses. We watched him in Iowa. His campaign workers from other states come there to work, register to vote, and go to the caucuses to vote and influence other voters.

Think about how clever Obama is.

22 people in a caucus voting for Obama get 1 delegate.

9,000 people who vote in a California primary get 1 delegate.

As they say in NY, go figure.

With Obama so closely associated with Tony Rezko for 17 years, the Arab that came here from Syria, who receives huge amounts of money from the middle east - who has been arrested by the FBI last week, and trial set soon for his influence peddling, who has held many fund raisers in his (Rezko's) mansion for Obama, it does beg the question, "Just who is buying all those bumper stickers" and contributing cash on line at the tune of $60,000,000 when Obama was an unknown in Iowa (which made the media swoon), and in Jan. another $32,000,000 in internet contributions and more bumper sticker sales, that also made the media swoon.

What makes me curious about the contributions was a question asked of Obama - saying that Obama had received a large contribution from a drug company - and Obama, in his usual "na na na" style said that they weren't contributions from the company, they were contributions from the employees of that drug company.

Just saying . . . . .

Posted by: Iowatreasures | February 6, 2008 8:52 PM | Report abuse

If Clinton wins the nomination and forms a Clinton/Obama ticket, Senator Obama's role will be purely ceremonial leaving Bill Clintion to become the first Black Vice-President.

Posted by: woody21 | February 6, 2008 8:47 PM | Report abuse

If Obama is worried about the super delegate votes deciding the nominee, why not decide right now that instead of spliting the votes as they have been doing, just have winner take all? If you win a state you get 100% of the delegates.

Not sure but I think he would come up holding the short end of the stick now because Hillary took what was called the big enchillada or the biggest prize (California)up until she won it, then it became no big deal. As it is Obama has the MSM reporting every small thing he does like he is a saint and beating up on Hillary at every opportunity.

People can not call all the shots and nothing is ever completely fair. If he is going to whine about the way the super delegates place their votes, then he should agree right now to divy up the voter delegates on a winner take all basis. (I know of atleast one super delegate that is committed to Hillary that told Chris Matthews last night that his state knows he is committed and no matter how the vote comes out they know he will honor his commitment). Wonder if that is what has Obama concerned? He thinks nothing of trotting out the Kennedy's and Oprah and then taking the credit for bringing out the crowds. (I have seen him give the same speech day after day and no matter how good it was at first it still gets boring the second, third or forth time around). I wonder if the crowds are coming out to hear him or simply because Bush has them fired up and they just want a change from him?

Whatever happens they need to resolve the issue now so there won't be hard feelings at the convention.

Posted by: cjones210 | February 6, 2008 8:42 PM | Report abuse

Don't hack at me because I called Obama, Barack Hussein Obama. I didn't name him that - his mother did. gw.

Posted by: Iowatreasures | February 6, 2008 8:42 PM | Report abuse

sroberts: I have been waiting for you.

You are complaining about relatives in the
White House: Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton.

Obama is related to Cheney. How does Bush, Clinton, Bush/Cheney. Barack Hussein Obama - Cheney, - sound to you?

Just asking . . . . gw.

Posted by: Iowatreasures | February 6, 2008 8:38 PM | Report abuse

I think for Obama to capture more votes from women voters he should send signals now that he understands how important it is to many Democratic voters that a woman be in line for the presidency, and he'd pick a woman for his vice presidential slot.

That, and underlining his positions on the economy, education and health, would signal that he's taking voters now supporting Clinton seriously.

Posted by: mj64 | February 6, 2008 8:35 PM | Report abuse

obee1 said:

I honestly believe Hispanics are not voting for Barak Obama because he is a black man. This is very dangerous for America because it shows ignorance on the part of a very large population and a fast growing population at that.

What is the future for America if the fastest growing ethnic group is so racist against another group?

* * * * * * * * * * *

I say: Where have you been lately? Obama used the race card before he got to SC in a very big way - Obama's rhetoric on the stump, Michelle Obama's speaking on morning shows (they need to know this is possible), and Oprah Winfrey stumping in SC and speaking about MLK.

That was the way the Obama camp played the race card, and in usual Obama fashion played "reverse dirty tricks" and blamed Bill Clinton. Of course now Obama is back to playing his hope and unity card

But Obama playing the race card has created an 80% of the black people voting against Hillary Clinton.

I am asking you, how is that different than the latino people voting so heavily for Hillary Clinton.

I saw an hispanic on cable t.v. defending the latinos preferring Hillary to Obama. That man said that the latinos remember how much the Clintons did for them for the past 20 years, and they are going to remain loyal to Hillary Clinton. - That didn't sound too much like a racial problem, although I have heard that blacks don't like latinos, and latinos don't like blacks.

I don't know what their problem is, but if latinos vote for Hillary because she has looked out for them in the past - I don't think your criticism is warranted. gw.

Posted by: Iowatreasures | February 6, 2008 8:33 PM | Report abuse

The Clinton camp's claims of a victory today, after spending weeks retreating from a much stronger position vis-a-vis her other competitors, reminds of the story told by John Kenneth Galbraith of the debriefing of the German Albert Speer at the close of World War II.

How was it, Galbraith asked, that Speer knew his Germans were losing?

It was, Speer replied, because the glorious victories of the Fatherland were growing ever closer to Berlin.

Let's liberate the Democratic Party from the occupation forces of corruption and moral relativism!

The Big "O" has got the Big Mo !!!
Go Obama !!!


Posted by: Martinedwinandersen | February 6, 2008 8:29 PM | Report abuse

The idea of a Clinton/Obama ticket is very repulsive to me.

If Obama was the nice guy he portends to be, I would endorse the idea.

Fact is, he isn't. gw.

Posted by: Iowatreasures | February 6, 2008 8:24 PM | Report abuse


President 2008 = Dems all the way!

Posted by: ccjenkins | February 6, 2008 8:16 PM | Report abuse

I honestly believe Hispanics are not voting for Barak Obama because he is a black man. This is very dangerous for America because it shows ignorance on the part of a very large population and a fast growing population at that.

What is the future for America is the fastest growing ethnic group is so racist against another group? Hispanic population is exploding and I also believe this is one reason why we must not legalize illegal Hispanics as a large number of them are uneducated and we should only legalize those illegals who have at least a 2 year college degree.

I would also legalize all European people who are here illegally because of their work ethics and civil background.

I sure hope McCain does not legalize these hispanics.

Posted by: obee1 | February 6, 2008 8:15 PM | Report abuse


Good comment there amigo. I like the way you think, even if I'm not supporting the same candidate as you. Go Democrats!

Posted by: jcrozier1 | February 6, 2008 7:48 PM | Report abuse

Did anyone really look at the vote totals from Super Tuesday? If so, you will see that the actual vote numbers were higher, for Clinton and Obama in almost every state compared to the Republicans all together. This is a strong indication that either Hillary or Obama can win in November. Look at Hillary's, especially in California and Massachusetts it totals more than the Republicans put together. Simply put, if the election were held today, either Clinton or Obama could win. That's incredible. One more note. Some of you bloggers are very accurate in your projections. I read a few comments on this and other sites, that were 'on the money' for the outcome. Keep up your accurate research and do share it. It gave me a lot of peace these past few days. Go Hillary!

Posted by: ccjenkins | February 6, 2008 7:43 PM | Report abuse

Cash on hand is what counts today. Despite Clinton's loan and despite Obama's January fundraising, what counts is what can be spent. No one will say that.

Posted by: blasmaic | February 6, 2008 7:42 PM | Report abuse

If Obama can pull off the wins on Saturday and next tuesday he's very much on his way to the nomination. This boost he'll get from those wins will give him momentum going into Texas and Ohio. As an Obama supporter I can say I'm starting to feel very good.

Posted by: lumi21us | February 6, 2008 7:40 PM | Report abuse

Obama/Clinton would be the only thing that would work. Having Billy as a "first spouse" would completely overshadow Obama's role as VP. He would want to set up "his and hers" desks in the Oval Office. Not cool.

Obama is the only president that can unite the WHOLE COUNTRY. Not just the Democratic Party. The Democrats don't need uniting. The country does. Look at what Bush has done to his party - it's in tattered ruins. He won West Virginia in 2004 but right now there are almost 10% more registered Democrats in WV than Republicans. Florida has 4% more Democrats than Republicans. States that were red in 2004 are not even going to slightly resemble a Republican stronghold in 2008.

And Obama is the man to guarantee that. Hillary Clinton's financially-ruined campaign has become the debacle of the 2008 election season.

Vote Obama. Donate today.

Posted by: thecrisis | February 6, 2008 7:11 PM | Report abuse


I'll agree with you on your final point: Hillary is the underdog now. She needed to win Super Tuesday dramatically because the upcoming contests don't favor her. She didn't do that. In fact, when the dust settles she's likely to be behind in delegates after Super Tuesday.

Let's think for a moment about what that means. How prepared can she be to "be ready to lead on day one" if she cannot even manage to hold onto a 40 point national lead when she had every single advantage going for her before she lost that lead and went from undisputed frontrunner to underdog status?

Conversely, how is it that people think Obama is not ready to lead after everything he's accomplished? He's built a national campaign against an all but inevitable candidate and is now the frontrunner? To me, that shows he's ready to lead.

Posted by: jcrozier1 | February 6, 2008 7:11 PM | Report abuse

Who are these 'white males' going massively to Obama?? Are we talking male chauvenist pigs here, who won't vote for a woman?? How terrible. This is an election about ideas, you guys, not sex.

I'm a white male from New York who voted for Hillary twice when she ran for Senate. I don't regret those votes at all. But
I believe Barack Obama would be a far better President. In addition to the less substantial issues for supporting him (inspirational, a clean break from the past, etc), he's a big picture thinker, has more integrity and took a principled stand against this disastrous war when others in his party couldn't or didn't. I've never believed in a candidate more than I do Barack Obama. It's why I voted for him during yesterday's primary and hope to do so in November.

And it has nothing to do with gender.

Posted by: RyanMcC1 | February 6, 2008 7:02 PM | Report abuse

Great analysis!
It is good to see a media analysis from the WAPO that is not biased towards Obama.

The funny part is that many African Americans love the Clintons but once Obama was seen as being "black enough" (ironically thanks to the media spin of non-racist remarks by both Bill and Hillary) it is hard for African Americans not to line up behind Obama ( trust me I know). HRC needs to do a better job of reaching out to young college students. HRC needs to also speak to African Americans and say that if we really are moving beyond race, then it is important that African Americans can feel free to vote for either candidate. Of course the media will say that this is somehow racist and again put the Clintons in a box...if they say anything to peal away votes or attack Obama then someone will lable them as being overtly or covertly racist.

also, can we now stop with the "HRC lead by 40 points last Fall so she was not an underdog..." Remember Rudy also lead by 20 points or so but NOW he is out of the race. The two candidates are now well matched with Obama having a money advantage. The states coming up also favor Obama. This implies that Hillary is the underdog for now.

Posted by: mcfield | February 6, 2008 6:56 PM | Report abuse

While neither Obama or Clinton can claim real victory when you look at where the votes came from- particularly in Ca with the Hispanic vote going to Clinton, it is clear to see that she can not win the general election based on Hispanic votes alone. Obama seems to have a broader base of voters in favor of him, hense a better chance of winning a general election.

Posted by: bdm1brulin | February 6, 2008 6:56 PM | Report abuse

And you wonder why Hillary has won all of the true and historic democratic states.... who is more republican now?....

Even with the Kennedy's backing him he could not pull off Massachusetts's.

I love how people think that in the dissolved state that our country is in right now... we could vote for a man that:
1) says he will unite both parties....and yet only has democratic backers.... (Hill even has Ann Coulter...if she can get her...HELLO!)
2) does not support universal healthcare: this will result in millions that are not insured. (Hillary's plan will insure everyone under the congressional plan that will have insurance companies fighting for your business, and Americans would be able to choose what plan they want...) - Obama's does this: The government chooses the plan and you; the American people either use it, or have no health insurance....hmmmm
3) About the Iraq war... umm he wasn't in the senate when they voted on it so of course he didn't vote for it! He probably would have if he had been in the senate... because he pretty much copies everything that the other democrats do. Plus if you actually read the piece of legislation about the war that they are talking about and look at the media coverage at that time...all of us were tricked and lied to. WMD my fanny! Haha. Um the legislation proposed allowing INSPECTORS.... Repeat....INSPECTORS! Into Iraq, (that means people protected by a small military convoy go into the little Iraqi bases and labs and poke around under the surveillance of the UN). That is what the people who voted on it believed it would be, that is what they were told... that is what we the people were told... remember Colin Powell? I do. This of course as we know did not happen... and Americans at the time remember, had just witnessed terrorists on 9/11 and the things that they could do, so yes sending the INSPECTORS in I think would have been a very smart and safe thing to do... So I would have voted for it too like many other democrats did as well.
4) he has no opinion at all. There were over 100 pieces of legislation he voted PRESENT for instead of yes or no that Edwards, Clinton and a sea of other Democrats have all pointed out. These included about 9 on ABORTION which if I can remember is a very controversial issue. I can understand trying to look good for the media... but having no stance at all to support the people of Illinois and represent their voices, really tells me what kind of a president he will be... allowing other people to make decisions for him. I want a President that will hear my voice and allow me to be heard... act on my behalf... because that is what this government is about... please someone correct me if I am wrong...
5) has no foreign relations as of now.... Hillary has 100's and international people from around the world support her much more than Obama. Just look at the comments and pictures from Europe to Asia, to Africa and South America...oh yeah and Aussies like her too.
6) he accuses others of mudslinging (especially on the MLK issue- where he accused Hillary of being a do you know the Clinton's? HA! Even the founder of BET called him out on that one....She said that MLK of course was the leader of the Civil Rights Movement... duh.... but that she wants to follow the examples of president's LIKE LBJ and give voices to leaders with an important cause such as this one by signing it into law... this MLK could not do by himself...I hate ignorance...) After this crazy race stuff that OBAMA started by spinning words (which he has done very often in this campaign...) Clinton and he decided to call a truce. Two days after, however he was at it again on a talk show laughing making jokes about and accusing both of the Clinton's of racial profiling, slander and a slue of other typical mud slinging actions that very inexperienced politicians get into... dirrrrrty! Haha. And he talks about change....
7) after this he expects Clinton to stay quiet... umm she has been fighting nonsense like this from the Republicans for 30 years... so of course not. Haha. So yes if you are going to dish it out you gotta take some too. "Can't stand the heat...then get out of the kitchen"
On a second note I am soooo tired of the media targeting Bill Clinton. Of course he is going to stand up for his wife... Michelle does it too...but she isn't popular so... no coverage! Popularity sells people! Yes he is defensive, but I think that Michelle is worse... just the other week she said this about Hillary: If she can't control her husband and his infidelity than how is she going to control the republicans and the government? Hahahahahahahahahaha WOW! Umm really personal. The Clinton's only pointed out his continued drug use...sound familiar? (Cough* George W Bush...)
8) also....wasn't it GW who stressed that experience didn't matter... "uniter not a divider"...haha... I think that having another inexperienced guy in office will really hurt in the long run.. I don't think that someone who can't even speak without a teleprompter should be allowed in office... yes he is eloquent because he reads from a screen people... when he is debating see the difference! (You can tell when someone is reading from a teleprompter when there chin is raised slightly more than normal... kind of giving them a look of arrogance...)

I don't want to make it sound like I dislike Obama because I don't, I think that his want for change is real... as was GW's... but do I think he can actually deliver on that change without an actual platform or stance on important issues... no... do I think he is ready to become President of the United States? NO. Maybe in 8 years...
Being a person of words and eloquence is great... when you are a professor. Not when you are a president... you actually need to vote and act.

Plus he kind of freaks me out when someone does not agree with him...he gets testy and accusatory... I have a feeling he doesn't like to share and is a yeller, probably will make rash and impulsive decisions (again reminds me of someone else...)....haha

Posted by: swhitak3 | February 6, 2008 6:51 PM | Report abuse

Who are these 'white males' going massively to Obama?? Are we talking male chauvenist pigs here, who won't vote for a woman?? How terrible. This is an election about ideas, you guys, not sex.

Posted by: mike-straight | February 6, 2008 6:38 PM | Report abuse


Posted by: gitugumi | February 6, 2008 6:34 PM | Report abuse

Ummm Dan....

Why do you say it's unfair for a 9% Obama victory in Connecticut to yield 4 delegates out of 48 available?

4 divided by 48 is 8.3%. This is almost exactly equal to the 9% margin. Actually sounds much more fair than most parts of the primary/caucus process. For example is it fair when one candidate gets the most popular vote but fewer delegates. Is Winner-take All Fair?

You example is a poor one. Is it only unfair because it happened to Obama?

Posted by: bernerjc | February 6, 2008 6:29 PM | Report abuse

Would Clinton supporters stop painting the fact that Hillary is still in this race as an astonishing accomplishment?

Lucille, it isn't an amazing thing that Hillary has "survived" to this point. She was hardly the underdog at the beginning of this. She was the undisputed frontrunner and a 20 point leader in every single poll in America. She has the most popular currently living ex-president as her hatchet man and HAD a huge money advantage, name recognition advantage and establishment advantage.

If you want to tout Hillary's virtues, such as her singularly brilliant mind and her command of the issues, then DO THAT. Please don't post disingenuous comments about how she is the insurgent now that Obama has caught up to her.

Posted by: jcrozier1 | February 6, 2008 6:28 PM | Report abuse

Obama will not select Hillary for VP, despite being on the "short list." It undermines his whole "Change" message. As for Hillary, I think it quite likely that she would ask Obama simply because he would do the most to increase her chances to win. Plus, though it is fashinable to be more cynical I truely think that the Clinton's personally regret the loss of blacks as part of the Clinton coalition and would want to try and repair the damage done.

The next few states work in Obama's favor but I doubt Obama will be strong in Texas. I think the whole MI FA thing will be a huge disaster.

Posted by: dafergu3 | February 6, 2008 6:28 PM | Report abuse

Frighten a NeoConMan today with just two simple words.


Tuesdays results make the Dream Ticket a forgone conclusion. The vote told the candidates what the voters want.

Anyone who is against the Dream Ticket is against a united democratic party. And the Democrats DREAM TICKET is a uniting ticket for the whole of the USA that will result in a Democratic landslide.

Voters showed in New Hampshire and Michigan what can happen to a candidate or camp who is not out to unite.

A united Democratic party will unite America.

That is why the GOP have nightmares about it.

Any loyal Democrat does not just want a single candidate or a mere 4 or 8 years of presidency; they want a raft of candidates for both presidency congress and senate and the time in office that will bring about change and a New Democratic American Age.

They want to be standing up at the democratic convention with two winning candidates shouting "16 years, Sixteen Years, SIXTEEN YEARS!"

"Obama-Clinton or a Clinton-Obama ticket." is the Ticket that gives the NeoConMen nightmares; certainly no bad thing.

I think all Americans now know that ticket gives NeoConMen nightmares.

A united Democratic party is a shoo-in.

George Stephanopoulos and an increasing number of other Obama and Clinton insiders are saying the Democrats DREAM TICKET is now a done deal!

Howard Dean said last night also hinted the Ticket has deal has been done.

Check the Democrat blogs and forums. Insiders in both camps have said the deal has been already been struck.

The California Debate at the Kodak theatre was the public seal on it.

The message was clear from the start of the California debate, in the tels and the body language of Obama and Clinton.

Clinton and Obama were constantly agreeing with each other and emphasizing that the Democrats are united on all the key issues. The only attacks were reserved for the Republicans.

Candidates only do that when the deal is in the bag.

The pair burst into knowing smiles and gave each other the nod when the question was finally put to them; that them running for president and vice president on an "Obama-Clinton or a Clinton-Obama ticket." would be a Democratic Dream Ticket!

Clinton nodded vigorously when the question was asked and Obama went over to give her a hug at the end.

It is going to be an Obama-Clinton or a Clinton-Obama ticket for the democrats.

The democrats now have started printing and selling the T shirts, bumper stickers, buttons and yard signs.

The Democrats DREAM TICKET is now a certainty and it is the only ticket that will unite America!

Posted by: walker1 | February 6, 2008 6:28 PM | Report abuse

If Super Tuesday was a heavy weight fight....Obama Wins 13 to 8

It seems like just yesterday when Hillary dismissed Obamas win in South Carolina and proclaimed ...Now onto Super Tuesday where "millions" ( code word for not just black people in South Carolina) will be able to let their voice be heard.... But in reality what happened in Iowa happened again in state after state. In electorates with negligible African American voters Obama beat Hillary. North Dakota? Colorado? Kansas? Delaware? Connecticut? Alaska?

Ok look at it like this (laughing as write) Obama won more "Square Miles" of America last night that Hillary... and that can't be disputed.........

Posted by: Thatwasntfunny | February 6, 2008 6:27 PM | Report abuse

Anyone know the rules of voting in primaries? If you are an independent and you vote in a Democrat primary are you allowed to go back to the Republican party to vote in the general election?

If you can cross over, I hope the extra white male votes the polls claim Obama got are not just votes for him so Republicans will be able to run against him rather than Hillary.

Posted by: cjones210 | February 6, 2008 6:26 PM | Report abuse


The talk of Clinton as VP is silly. He will choose someone with less baggage.

And, it would have been more honest if the article had mentioned that Clinton left her name on the Michigan ballot when everyone else took their name off of it, and she still almost lost to the "Undecided/None of the Above" voters. I think winning in red states like Georgia, Idaho, Utah, Alabama, in blue states like Deleware, Conneticut, and in bellweather states like Missouri that Clinton incorrectly claimed victory early in.

I think coming from out of nowhere to be in a tie with Clinton for delegates, with an overall lead in the number of states is a big deal. Obama has momentum, the kind that erases a 20 point national lead in a single month. Clinton will waste a lot more of her own money since she's currently reduced to loaning her campaign money ala Mitt Romney out of her own personal bank account and then fade out.

See? I can do patronizing too.

Posted by: jcrozier1 | February 6, 2008 6:25 PM | Report abuse

Someone asked if there's a way to see the list of superdelegates so that they can be held accountable. Here it is:

I will be attending the Democratic caucus here in Bellevue, Washington, this weekend, where I will caucus for Kucinich as a vote of my conscience. If he doesn't get enough caucus-goers to secure a delegate, then I will move to the group of "uncommitteds".

I am truly torn about Clinton and Obama. They are both beholden to too many corporations and their health care plan proposals suck. We need single-payer health care. And they are both too hawkish for me, with Hillary being worse on this score. Obama is a bit too inexperienced to convince me that he's got the required maturity and stability, which Hillary definitely DOES have.

In the end, one of the two of them will get the nomination and I will hold my nose a bit and vote for them.. and then will stay on them to keep them accountable. They must reduce the troop numbers in Iraq, they must not go to war in Iran, they must reduce the military budget and the deficit. We really do need single-payer health care -- Medicare for all, if you must call it that.

Posted by: JewelyaZ | February 6, 2008 6:22 PM | Report abuse

What's amazing is that depite the onslaught of the media, the Obama Chicago Machine (Daly/Oprah) and the Republican Candidates, Hillary has survived and is ready to continue her campaign to the Presidency. This campaign is proving she has the fortitude, the smarts, and the charisma to be our COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF.

Posted by: Lucille4 | February 6, 2008 6:21 PM | Report abuse

The talk of Obama as VP is silly. She will choose someone with more depth.

And, it would have been more honest if the article had also mentioned that Clinton "crushed" Obama in Florida where no one campaigned but he ran national ads. So, in terms of stride and winning in November, I think winning CA, NY, and FL are a pretty big deal. Clinton has momentum - the steady kind. Obama will sizzle in the pan for a bit and waste a lot of people's money.

Posted by: Susan9 | February 6, 2008 6:18 PM | Report abuse

To JakeD:

You're hardly an Independent, unless the polical spectrum middle move way, way to the right, then you can make that claim.

The likely reality is that you just love to troll the forums with baseless arguments. Or are a right wing "nut" with nothing better to do. Enjoy!

Posted by: ovwong | February 6, 2008 6:10 PM | Report abuse

And yes, before anyone asks, I will definitely support Hillary Clinton in a general election if she wins the party ticket. I'm pragmatic enough to know that she shares my positions a lot better than any Republican would.

But god almighty it would be painful watching her and that smug smile and shrill voice on TV for the next 8 years as she triangulates each issue rather than speaking with the courage of her convictions like a certain alternative I know.

Posted by: jcrozier1 | February 6, 2008 6:08 PM | Report abuse

Sen. Obama may become the nominee but to think he will be voted president is just wishful thinking and devoid of reality.

The problem of Sen. Obama is the great racial divide between the african-americans and hispanics. He may get 80% of african-american votes but they are mostly in red states that vote republican so it is nothing. On the other hand, He may not get the latino votes because of this racial divide so it will not help him in the swing states like Florida and Nevada. We must remember that latinos are mostly predominant in blue states. It will even be a disaster if he loses California because of this latino votes.

That he has not been vetted thorougly. You can be sure that he will be scrutized completely and problems like the Rezco connnection will on the air almost daily.

Posted by: tim591 | February 6, 2008 6:01 PM | Report abuse

"The only solution which will unite the Democratic Party is Clinton/Obama.

If Obama is the VP, he will have a very powerful role in the administration."

What a load of horse manure.

This is nothing more than a clever way for Clinton supporters to insinuate, yet again, that Obama isn't ready to for the bigtime and/or to join the grown up table in the Democratic party.

Clinton supporters should look very closely in the mirror as they continue to tout how Obama is not ready to lead. This is a man who has come out of nowhere, knocked an all but annointed frontrunner with every concievable foundational advantage off her horse and put her on the defensive.

Think about it for a moment. Barack Hussein Obama is now at a money advantage with Hillary CLINTON. She has the most popular currently living ex-president in her corner, started out with universal name recognition, a huge money advantage, decades of favors owed by establishment Democrats and, at the end of Super Tuesday with states that, by and large, played to her strengths, she found herself tied with a one-term, black, urban Senator with the middle name of a former Middle Eastern dictator.

If that isn't a testament to Obama's ability to inspire and lead and the fact he is ready to take charge and make big changes then I don't know what is.

With the electoral terrain now moving substantially in Obama's favor in coming months, Hillary supporters can forget a Hillary/Obama ticket. It isn't happening.

Posted by: jcrozier1 | February 6, 2008 6:00 PM | Report abuse

I am a moderate Democrat but I am enthusiastically supporting Barack Obama because I believe he will bring about the changes our nation so badly needs by reaching across the aisle and working with members of both parties. The bitter partisanship in Congress is making it impossible to get reforms in healthcare, the environment, immigration and our foreign policy. Hillary Clinton has ran a nasty, mean-spirted campaign against Obama, full of mud-slingling, character assassination and the politics of personal destruction. As President she and her husband will make the presidencies of Richard Nixon and George W. Bush pale in comparison when it comes their vindictiveness, secretiveness and wanting to get back at their enemies.

America has too many problems that need to be resolved and they never will be resolved if we demonize those who disagree with us. Obama has proven he can work with those whose views don't always equal his in a way to find common ground and get meaningful legislation passed that will benefit all Americans. He will hold true to his beliefs but will still be able to get majorities to pass legislation because of the type of leader he is.

We don't need more partisanship in Congress, we need less. We don't need more lies, more mud slinging, and more dirty campaigning. Nixon is long gone, and Bush will soon be gone. If revenge and getting back at the Republicans is your motive, then vote for Hillary Clinton. If progress and change and laws protecting our environment, extending healthcare to more of our citizens, a fair and decent immigration policy, and a foreign policy that will restore American values without making us a pariah in the world is what you want, then you have one clear choice: Barack Obama.

Posted by: amitai | February 6, 2008 5:59 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton is an arm-twister, a legislative technician, a policy wonk, and a master politician. We NEED her. There is a huge backlog of damage done to the U.S. by George Bush. We need to undo this damage as quickly as possible. Clinton has the experience needed to quickly dismantle the crazy-quilt structure of Bush policies. Clinton will return the U.S. to a balanced budget, prosperity and global strength.

Posted by: jarvick | February 6, 2008 5:59 PM | Report abuse

I don't want Obama to get tainted by the potential scandals of a Billary administration. If he doesn't get the nomination, he should stay out & keep himself viable for the next race.

Obama for President, with Richardson as VP, and Hillary as Chief of Staff. I hear she runs a good meeting!

Posted by: alarico | February 6, 2008 5:58 PM | Report abuse

My guess is the next week of primaries and caucuses will help shake a few superdelegates up.

You can all but forget any agreement or truce or deal between the two. Why? There is no deal to make. What would the pitch be? Something like:

"Okay, I know we are tied and all, but how about this for an offer. You drop out, I'll agree to win. Deal?"

See you guys next Tuesday night.

Posted by: steveboyington | February 6, 2008 5:53 PM | Report abuse

Shelly808, I can't understand people, who are still voting for Clinton after everything she has already done by now. It is fully idiotic. And she , as usually, plays this stinken card about females, applying for females' support it disgusts me the most! Enough is enough! This whining, and mostly sadistic monster has killed and destroyed so many by now - it is time to stop her! Yes, it is time to move on, and as far from both clintons, as only possible. Obama without Clinton in White House in 2009!

Posted by: aepelbaum | February 6, 2008 5:47 PM | Report abuse

This ticket is inacceptable because Clinton/Obama ticket means the continuation of the joined dynasty, which has cause so much terrible troubles to this country. So, everybody , who really wan t chace (all Obama contituents) would not vote for this ticket. The ticket obama/Clinton means without any doubt the untimely death for Obama, in the best case only political death (impeachment or similar) in the most probable case it means the physical death. I like Obama, I do not want him to share to the end the fate of JFK. And the joined ticket with Clinton means the death sentence for Obama. again Obama supporters, who like him, And, practically, all of these supporters do like him, would not vote for this ticket. Clinton should step down. This is the only way for the democratic victory. the unreasonable ambition of this woman has cause much more tha n enough to this country already!

Posted by: aepelbaum | February 6, 2008 5:41 PM | Report abuse

She is hugely funded the the Military idustrial complex...that doesnt get to you?

NAFTA and job losses...that doesnt get to you? I know that was Bill...but they think alike.

Standing by her man (for her own ambitions?) having sex IN THE WHITE HOUSE!...that doesnt get you?

Why are so many people disillusioned by the Clintons!? It drives me nuts. Time to move on America!!!!

Posted by: shelly808 | February 6, 2008 5:36 PM | Report abuse

This whole "dream ticket" idea is an idiotic idea promoted by those who want to draw votes away from Obama to Hillary in the vain hope that that Obama will be vice president. That is the true fairy tale. It won't happen, and if it does it might (or not) help win the election but will add even more bad chemistry to a Clinton presidency already heavily freighted with it - between herself and the Repugs, and then within her own administration. This is the REAL fairy tale.

Again - Obama leads in pledged delegates. He leads in conservative and moderate states, which consult the bulk of the remaining primaries. His slim but growing lead in delegates chosen by the people shows him to be the people's choice, while the huge lead Hillary has in superdelegates consisting of and chosen by the party bosses shows her to be the candidate of the establishment. If nominated Clinton will owe them. If nominated Obama will owe US. Who do you think will be more accountable? Also, Clinton's money has come mainly from the wealthy establishment who've maxed out and she's running dry, while Obama's wading deep in small donations from we the people.

History, the facts and the people are on the side of Obama. Denial, entitlement and the old guard who are the problem are on the side of Clinton. Obama will be our next president.

Posted by: treetopflyer | February 6, 2008 5:29 PM | Report abuse

I hope the super delegates think long and hard about who can beat McCain in November. The registered likely-voter Democrats will vote for Obama or Clinton.

Many black voters and young voters might stay home if Clinton is nominated.

The independents represent almost one third of the electorate. They tend to like Obama and McCain.

And what if McCain does something smart and choose a woman for VP and moderate his stance on Iraq?

Let's face it. Nationally, Hillary has over 50% entrenched negatives. There is not much room for improvement, because voters know her well.

Obama already leads Hillary nationally, and tends to do better with increased exposure.

The Democratic Party Establishment has an uncanny ability to pick the least electable candidate. Let's hope they shape up.

Posted by: saraz1 | February 6, 2008 5:17 PM | Report abuse

The Clintons are Hawks!

Goggle ....

"The 78 day War"

Posted by: shelly808 | February 6, 2008 5:16 PM | Report abuse

bwerbeloff is right, Obama will be sidelined in a Clinton White House.

Is the Latino vote that important anymore outside of Texas? We did Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, California, Oklahoma and Utah last night. Obama will stomp her in the gulf and probably take the Potomac primaries (full of higher degrees and black voters). Hawaii is in the bag and Wisconsin is his back yard. I'm guessing the rich liberals in Seattle and Portland will vote for Hope and Change.

As long as he nabs 45% of Texas he's probably okay. The real battles will be Pennslvania and Ohio.

Posted by: wcgrafton | February 6, 2008 5:14 PM | Report abuse


Obama won the delegate count last night according to NBC why no headline saying, "Obama Wins Super Tuesday Delegate count."?
This is what I was talking the corporate media has subtle ways of forming mass public opinion...or swaying voters. NoN-headlines is just another tactic.

Posted by: shelly808 | February 6, 2008 5:13 PM | Report abuse

As a Republican I think the Democrats are in trouble with either Obama or Clinton but have a significantly better chance of winning in November with Obama.

The reason is that voting along party lines the country is pretty even. To win, the Republican nominee will need votes from conservative Democrats, or the Democratic nominee will need some support from liberal Republicans.

Well, I don't know of a SINGLE Republican who would vote for Clinton. Simply stated she is hated. Not disliked, hated.

On the other hand I know several Republicans who might well vote for Obama.

I also have a feeling that there are some Democrats out there who might stay home in November if Clinton is the nominee. The same applies to some Republicans in the case of McCain, but less so - especially if Clinton is the nominee.

Obama is the risky choice for the Democrats, but no one gets inspired by a safe bet. And the safe bet is rarely so - just ask the Patriots.

Posted by: johngault1 | February 6, 2008 5:11 PM | Report abuse

Like some of the previous responders, I also believe that a joint Obama/Clinton ticket would be an extremely appealing one. When considering who ought to be the President and who the VP, I would encourage voters to consider the candidates' relative strengths and weaknesses... Hillary, as my wife says (although she voted for Obama in the caucus), is "super-smart," has well-defined and thought out policies, and excellent connections. On the other hand, she is also widely viewed as a divisive and unsympathetic figure. Obama, on the other hand, might be weaker on the policy front, but he has charisma and personal appeal as well as smarts; he has managed to do something that hasn't been done for a long time: engage the young generation in the political debate, and encourage it to take its future in its own hands. Quite apart from the impact a disappointment might have on all those "kids" (and therefore on the very future of the Republic), he is without question the more iconic, appealing, and unifying figure. So, how would we maximize each candidate's strengths and use them for the benefit Democratic party as well as the whole nation? Let Obama make speeches about Change while Clinton talks to the Congress. Let Obama, who has lived outside of the US, appeal to other nations' leaders and peoples, while Clinton negotiates with their diplomats. Let Obama be President and Clinton be the VP - hell, there's no shame in that.

If this contest was about the good of this country rather than about the Clintonian ego, I am certain that this most reasonable and beneficial solution would be obvious to all Democrats.

Posted by: marc.trius | February 6, 2008 5:11 PM | Report abuse

Senator Obama is not running for Vice President. Being VP to Bill didn't do Al Gore much good in his bid for the Oval Office. If Obama doesn't win the nomination he could just remain the U.S. Senator from Illinois. I think he would have a good shot at Governor of Illinois if he decided to run. If he doesn't win the nomination, he has good options. He's not looking too bad right now, though. After South Carolina, some Clinton supporters were saying that he would be slaughtered as the new Jesse Jackson on Super Tuesday. Didn't happen quite that way. That alone is a major victory for his Campaign.

Posted by: Absolute_0-K | February 6, 2008 5:09 PM | Report abuse

I think Hillary will be accepted by the overwhelming majority of voters the longer this race goes because she will have more time to persuade Obama supporters particularly the college kids who did not pay much attantion to the substance.

Sen. Obama can not win the nomination because he is having hard time presenting his case to the voters. The rhetoric can attract emotional young voters but can not lead to a victory.

Secondly, Obama is riding high because of the the unanimous support of the African American Community.

If Hillary Clinton pushes hard into the African American community and have a round table discussion, a one-to- one conversation, etc., they will shift their alignment to her because they have never heard any substance from Obama to stick with him.

Hillary '08!
Solution for America!

Posted by: alexm_ethio | February 6, 2008 5:08 PM | Report abuse

I doubt if Obama will want to be the VP nominee for the Clintons. He would lose credibility.
HRC as Democratic nominee = Record Republican turnout.

Posted by: svarada123 | February 6, 2008 5:08 PM | Report abuse

There is ignorance and then there is ingnorance with denial. Someone above said "back to the peaceful days of Bill Clinton." Truly this person displays the dumbing down of the USA. You mean because Bush was President, that's why the two towers and the Pentagon were targets by the extremist Muslims? Do you know what festering means? Do you? 9/11 was the bursting of the seam that was like a pressure cooker because Bill Clinton did not once address the problems directed at American at the World Trade Center in 1993, the American Embassey, the sending of a boat with a bomb into an American vessel. Clinton treated these like they were little misdemeanors for the courts to handle. And the next President, who happened to be Bush, took office when the seam was about to burst open. I would say the same thing if it had been Bush in office for 8 years and Clinton took over in 2001. I am so sick of this type of moronic rationalizing mainly done by extreme left wing liberals. I am an independent. I would vote for Hillary Clinton; however, I would never vote for the extreme socialist, pacifist Barack Hussein Obama. I'm not suicidal. And quite frankly I'm sick of white people being called racists. 90+% of blacks are running to the polls to vote for Obama with the main reason being that he has black skin. And for that reason alone, they want him to take over the position of the most important seat in the Western World. The right wing zealots and the left wing socialists are trying each election to destroy this great Country. For the love of this Country, freedom, and your own families, please give some "real" thought to your voting. Don't vote for someone because of race, gender, cosmetics...what in the world has happened to the population of the USA? They are allowing Hollywood actors and talk show hosts to dictate to them. Are you all truly that sheep-like? Wake up and think for yourselves. Oprah Winfrey is simply a talk show host - nothing more people. And Ted Kennedy - how you stomach this buffoon with the family that just continues to follow his call because the smart one, Robert, is not longer with them. Oh, wait, Robert Kennedy's children do think for themselves and picked Hillary. Let's all think for ourselves. Please Americans, wake up and look at all the issues. Stop following movie stars. Geez.

Posted by: goldmdm | February 6, 2008 5:07 PM | Report abuse

treetopflyer --

You are a win-lose person.

Hillary should just crush you guys.

Posted by: svreader | February 6, 2008 5:03 PM | Report abuse

svreader, why should Obama accept a vice-presidential spot? Other than the fact that the personal chemistry between Clinton and Obama is toxic, Obama actually has the lead in declared delegates, i.e., those chosen by the electorate. See for details. It's still slim, but he's widened his margin because of last night. Now that the Hillary strongholds have been heard from this margin should only increase as we go to the more moderate and conservative states (VA, for one, is based on a model of "disagreeing without being disagreeable" - hardly Clinton country). The only reason Clinton has any lead in delegates is because of the superdelegates (201 to Obama's 110) imposed by the party's elite because we the people must be contained for - well, their good, actually, not ours. Without them the news right now would be how Obama's widening his lead in delegates, not how he's catching up. And guess what? These superdelegates can still change their minds any time they want. They could very well do that if the momentum continues Obama's way and by convention time they need to decide whether to risk the anger of a President Clinton (who can't make it there without them anyway) or that of a disenfranchised electorate whose voices have been rendered moot by the party machine. If the people lead strongly enough, the leaders WILL follow - right to the people's choice, Obama.

Posted by: treetopflyer | February 6, 2008 4:59 PM | Report abuse

Gore was the most powerful VP in history until Cheney.

If Obama is Hillary's VP it will be closer to co-president than anyone can imagine.

As far as Bill goes, he's already been President. He doesn't want to do it again. He's "been there, done that" He doesn't need to prove anything to anybody.

Posted by: svreader | February 6, 2008 4:58 PM | Report abuse

Oh one more thing,

Sure Clinton has some good domestic ideas, and yes she is intelligent and a strong woman. But she is wrong for America as President or Vice president and this is just one of the reasons why I know it...

The Clinton's and Bush's come from the same Internationalism NEW WORLD ORDER cloth. Clinton passed NAFTA which was a Right wing Corp dream. Yahooie, mega bucks to those guys! This policy along with other trade policies is the single most reason for job losses in America. It has also just about wiped out the local Mexican farming industry.

Time to move on America!! Wake up, pay attentiion to the subtle ways big media is trying to sway us towards the same ol same ol.
Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush....
Clinton?!!??? I dont think so.

As for all you women who would love to see a female take the white house, I would to, just not this woman. I am sure a true progressive, smart and likable woman will take the white house soon enough. We need to take care of today and our immediate future NOW with someone who is not so intrenched in the status quo ways of Washington.

Posted by: shelly808 | February 6, 2008 4:57 PM | Report abuse

Obama won the delegate count last night according to NBC why no headline saying, "Obama Wins Super Tuesday Delegate count."?

I also see Hillary is now spending her own money, this must really hurt since the sine qua non of all professional politicians, like Hillary, is never ever spend your own money you are in DC to spend other people's money.

Bill will have to ask the Saudi's and the Chinese for a few more million and promise them Hillary will release more electronic secrets to them when she takes over.

Posted by: msmithnv | February 6, 2008 4:56 PM | Report abuse

maddymappo - Obama was busy voting 'present' in the IL legislature while the adults in DC were voting on Iraq. Who cares if Obama was 'against' the war - that is an easy stand to take because he wasn't there in DC to vote.

This election will come down to Iraq. If the polls are correct and 70% of us want to bring the troops home and Dem will win. Simple.

Posted by: mzaver | February 6, 2008 4:56 PM | Report abuse

I too think this is going to end with both Obama and Clinton on the Democratic ticket.
My guess is that the superdelegates will make this happen, at some point between the end of the primaries and the opening of the Democratic convention. They will want to end what might otherwise be a dangerous racial/ethnic/gender/class conflict.

As to whether the name at the top of the ticket is Clinton or Obama, that'll depend on how the voting and public perception go over the next two months. This will actually be a good process, and the superdelegates will be able to act on the basis of electability. Smoke-filled rooms may have begot Warren G. Harding (the original expression comes from deal at Chicago's old Blackstone Hotel in 1920), but they also brought the country Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and John F. Kennedy. They have their uses.

Face it: As VP, Obama will be an isolated spear-carrier, expected to be simply a cheerleader and yes-man (as Gore was under Bill); it will be a Hillary/Bill administration, and of course big potential problems lurk there. But of course Obama will gain the "experience" that will make him Hillary's annointed successor in 2016. Accepting this outcome will be unpleasant for Obama, but a necessary sacrifice for the good of the party and the country, avoiding a really nasty schism.

Obama-Clinton would be much better, for that would enable President Obama to be the inspiring leader and make good use of VP Hillary's real talents as a policy wonk and deal-maker. With President Obama in charge, that arrangement would make it possible for Bill to be used as needed--and kept on a short leash.

And being VP for eight years will certainly not rule out Hillary running for president in 2016, when she'll be a mere 68. At last she'll be able to claim some real experience--and maybe by that time will be liberated from Bill!

Posted by: jm917 | February 6, 2008 4:55 PM | Report abuse

To make sure my previous post is completely clear:

Clinton is much better than Obama.

Lots of Clinton supporters have been excited about unifying the party around Clinton/Obama.

If Obama wins and fails to offer Clinton the VP slot, many if not most Clinton supporters will either sit out the election or vote for McCain.

Obama supporters need to stop acting like jerks.

Posted by: svreader | February 6, 2008 4:52 PM | Report abuse

The Iraq war has cost close to a million lives. The suffering is endless. Our reputation as a nation has been denigrated. Over a trillion dollars has been spent. Yet, Democrats everywhere are shrugging their shoulders, saying Hillary was fooled by Bush, "just like me", and insisting she should be president by virtue of her experience and competence! If Democrats were astonished that Republicans did not hold Bush accountable for the Iraqi war, how on earth can they give HRC a pass?

Hillary authorized the war because she wanted to appear "strong" when she ran for the presidency. She did not ask the hard questions, nor pay attention to the dirth of facts regarding an Al Qaeda connection or WMD. As a Senator who brags of her brilliant wonking, she could review the reports first hand, and she had the right and the opportunity to raise questions, yet she did not. Instead, she abdigated her role as a responsible leader of the opposition party in order to bolster her future political ambitions.

Barak Obama, spoke out. He saw that our greatest enemy was fear itself and he warned that a war in the mideast would have disasterous results fo the U.S. HRC wants universal healthcare and to educate our children. So does Obama. Anyone can write a good policy. But no one can ever bring the people who died back to life.

As a voter with a conscience, we need to hold our leaders responsible when they place our nation in danger and cause undo harm. It is a sin that so many so called Democrats are praising and rewarding HRC with their votes. How can we expect to be respected as a nation when we think it is just peachy creamy for a Senator to vote to authorize the President to start a war and then complain that she couldn't really know that he meant to start it?

What kind of future can Americans expect for our country when our citizens can so easily turn a blind eye to the suffering that was caused by careless and selfish leadership? I am truly concerned about our moral fiber as a people. Seems to me that we are a very shallow people, to not only let Hillary off the hook, but to place the crown on such a head.

Posted by: maddymappo | February 6, 2008 4:50 PM | Report abuse

I am somewhat perplexed at the outcome from last night being an Obama supporter. I find it odd that a c-span-zogby poll projecting a 49/36 in CA favoring Obama, got upside down.
It also seems somewhat unfair in retrospect, to have CA, as big a state as it is, to be clubbed with the other states on super Tuesday. It gave very little time for Obama, being the least recognized face of the two, to run the kind of grassroots, people to people contact type campaign.
Moreover, I personally find it quite curious that Sen. Clinton's victory in CA and other states depend so heavily on the hispanic vote and not the American mainstream vote. That speaks volumes.

Posted by: amitavar | February 6, 2008 4:50 PM | Report abuse

Clinton supporters would be glad to accept Obama/Clinton. That's actually better for her because he has to do the heavy lifting she would have had to.

There is the age thing, but women live seven years longer than men and both Maggie Thatcher and Golde Meir were pretty old.

The bottom line. Sure. If you win we'll accept Obama/Clinton, even though we think Clinton/Obama is better.

Posted by: svreader | February 6, 2008 4:48 PM | Report abuse

I would say the Clinton/Obama candidacy would be a fiasco, but an Obama/Clinton one could work. Inspiration and leadership should be the role of the president, and the VP should be a better work horse. Besides, I dread continuing to do work internationally while needing to explain why America is still a beacon of democracy when for twenty-plus years we have had presidents


...while we criticize developing countries for presidential family legacies.

Posted by: sroberts | February 6, 2008 4:46 PM | Report abuse

Michelle Obama refuses to support Hillary if she is the nominee:

Why doesn't the Post report on this item? When Bill was asked he would support Obama - he said YES - Hillary said YES. This is news!

Posted by: mzaver | February 6, 2008 4:45 PM | Report abuse

"If someone finds the keys to unlocking the other's coalition, that person will win the nomination. Short of that, the race could seesaw as it has done from the start and carry on into the summer."

I'll suggest another and perhaps more likely possibility: one of the candidates does something amazingly stupid, or something that will be portrayed by the voracious media feeding frenzy as stupid. Remember the Dean Scream?

Posted by: rvanderv | February 6, 2008 4:44 PM | Report abuse

Why is it Obama supporers will only accept total victory, whereas Clinton supporters are willing to share the ticket?

Um, maybe because it's always posed as Clinton-Obama? As an Obama supporter, I want Barack to win the presidency and not be Bill Clinton's assistant to the V.P. And, if Obama emerges from the battle victorious, plenty of others (Jim Webb? Joe Biden? Janet Napolitano?) fit better as a VP than Hillary.

Posted by: RyanMcC1 | February 6, 2008 4:40 PM | Report abuse

one of the writers previously said the the democratic party is the people 's party...well it is quite obvious to everyone but those few who have posted here, that Obama is the only one that has truly inspired more americans to vote than anytime in recent history...he is the people's choice...he has the momentum...he has real leadership , integrity and demonstrates presidential potential better than anyone running...the people want a real leader, someone they can follow without the double talk and scandal that we have been hearing for years...Obama / Clinton is the only ticket that can truly beat the is quite possible that the Obama faithful might not vote for Hillary at all...the excitement will be lost without Obama out front...therefore the republicans would win again ... therefore the only true ticket we need is... Obama / Clinton...


Posted by: docdwb | February 6, 2008 4:37 PM | Report abuse

A long battle for the nomination is advantageous for the Democrats. There's very little ideological difference between Hillary and Obama, and the overwhelming majority of each candidate's supporters say that they'd be content with the other as the nominee. So whoever wins won't have much trouble uniting the party for the fall. The uncertainty about who will be the Democratic nominee will make it more difficult for the Republicans to gear up their "independent" groups to mount a swift-boating campaign prior to the convention, which is what killed Kerry's expected bounce. Finally, if superdelegates end up deciding the nomination, there's the possibility that an Obama-Hillary or Hillary-Obama unity ticket might be the requisite for a deal. That's a ticket that really could sell a change message from gender, age and racial diversity angles.

The Republicans, in contrast, seem likely to end up with a candidate (McCain) that the hard-core conservative GOP base, particularly the religious conservatives and anti-immigration zealots, doesn't like at all. (Putting Rev. Huckabee in the number 2 spot isn't going to change the fact that McCain has chosen not to be baptized and backed giving undocumented immigrants a path to citizenship.)Beyond that, McCain hasn't demonstrated much ability to raise money. He's probably going to have to go off the airwaves for the summer and then have to accept public financing in the fall. Both Obama and Clinton, in contrast, are pretty good fundraisers--especially Obama. If he gets the nomination, it's conceivable that he could opt not to accept public funding, which would give him the opportunity to raise an unprecedented amount of money

Posted by: pjkiger1 | February 6, 2008 4:36 PM | Report abuse

The vote tally in Super Tuesday states with non-closed primaries appears to provide great news for Democrats. (I looked only at states with both Dem and Repub primaries.) With Independents able to participate, among other non-closed state realities, only one of 10 states - Alabama - had more votes cast in the Republican race than the Democrat race.
AL: D-542K, R-566K
AR: D-289K, R-210K
GA: D-1,053K, R-960K
IL: D-1,950K, R-884K
MA: D-1,255K, R-497K
MN: D-207K, R-62K
MO: D-822K, R-589K
NJ: D-1,120K, R-560K
ND: D-19K, R-9K
TN: D-619K, R-549K
More Democrat primary votes than Republican in very-red Georgia? And Tennessee and Missouri as well?? Wow. But perhaps I'm missing something; I'm no election expert. Part of what's striking to me is the fact that in all of these states, the Republican candidates' vote totals are much closer than the Dems. This reflects what we're hearing in the media about lack of consensus nationwide by Republican voters. So, if anything I'd expect heavier Republican participation on Super Tuesday.

Posted by: rbca | February 6, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

It's pretty common knowledge that the Clintons are Hawkish and are Big Corp. Dems...Clinton was for invading Iraq, she can spin it anyway she wants but facts are facts. Look at Bill's policy in regards to "the 78 day war".

To move the party away from old establishment ways, connections, etc ...We need Obama...ready AND RIGHT on day one.

Posted by: shelly808 | February 6, 2008 4:33 PM | Report abuse

Why is it Obama supporers will only acccept total victory, whereas Clinton supporters are willing to share the ticket?

How much longer will Clinton supporters accept the snub, before they decide to go for "winner take all" as well???

Posted by: svreader | February 6, 2008 4:32 PM | Report abuse

I think Obama will have the easier time peeling off some of Clinton's support.

The women's vote is going to be for Clinton and the African-American vote is Obama's. That's not changing. Upscale, well-educated Democrats, liberals and independents are not going to wake up next week and all of a sudden realize Hillary is the right one for us.

Where Obama is likely to make headway is the Latino vote. He is not as well known in the Latino community as Hillary and he did not have sufficient time after South Carolina to make his case to Latinos. He will now. And his record of support for issues important to Latinos is excellent. Thus, he has a real chance to brake though here.

Posted by: JasonT910 | February 6, 2008 4:28 PM | Report abuse

" In Connecticut, Obama won by nine percentage points but got just four more delegates than Clinton out of 48 allocated."

Erm, I believe Obama won Connecticut by only FOUR percentage points, 51-47, no?

Posted by: vishalg_99 | February 6, 2008 4:28 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is an outstanding debater. That's what senators do. Barack is an outstanding orator. That's what presidents do. Senators negotiate the details of legislation; presidents lead the nation.

Posted by: terry1960 | February 6, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

I am a Democrat. The Democrats are the party of the people. The people are voting in record numbers at the Democratic primaries because the Democrats will give us change.

You mean the way they did in '06 when they were going to end the Iraq war and reign in the drunken spending spree Bush was on?
Oh wait, they only said those things before the election. What they did was give Bush every penny he wanted and helped the neo-cons expand the Iraq war.
Hate to break it to ya sparky, but Hillary will continue the same policies Bush has in place today. They're both CFR sock puppets.

Posted by: eco-pharm | February 6, 2008 4:26 PM | Report abuse

A competitive nomination process is healthy for democrats and democracy. Party unity will come once the dust settles. Either Clinton or Obama will be formiddable against the walking dead McCain. Talks of McCain attracting independents and democrats will be yesterday's news when voters are given a choice of 4 more years of the same or be part of the historical movement in chosing the first woman or black president.

Posted by: diplomat111 | February 6, 2008 4:26 PM | Report abuse

"Clinton and Obama have split the Democratic coalition -- not in an angry or bitter way and not along clear ideological fault lines, but in the literal sense."

I would not be too sure about this. I for one and very angry that Women and Latinos are slitting their own throats by supporting Clinton, who does not stand a chance against McCain.

If Hillary gets the nomination, history will reflect that Democratic women were largely responsible for the reversal of Roe v. Wade. Mark my words.

Posted by: staxnet | February 6, 2008 4:26 PM | Report abuse

Obama won't take a backseat to Clinton as a VP. He's smart enough to know that those who allow themselves to be VP's in losing campaigns are doomed to subsequent failure (ask Lieberman and Edwards). Rather, he'd see the example of Kennedy in '56, who knew enough to stay away from being co-pilot on the Titanic of the Stevenson candidacy.

And make no mistake; a Clinton nomination will result in a Republican win.

She's broke (Wolfson admitted that she lent her campaign $5 million last month in order to try and stay competitive.) She's getting votes from her bloc, but at a certain point, even her older and middle-aged white women are going to start wondering why they're sticking with her, when the tide of history is telling them that the answer lies elsewhere (other key components of her constituency will stick with her, as they have a tendency to be less aware of what's going on in the world.)

If Obama runs up another 4 or 5 wins in a row (and he probably will), the map's gonna start looking sort of curious. When the middle of the country, the northern edge of the country - in fact, pretty much EVERY part of the country except for the northeast and CA - is coloured in Obama's favor, it makes it hard to see how she can really be seen as a favourite for the Super Delegates. They might be crass, but Dem party officials aren't stupid; they won't make a push for her if the numbers for November indicate that Obama is the better bet.

Posted by: Marcus3 | February 6, 2008 4:25 PM | Report abuse

I believe Clinton supporters are fanasizing about "Clinton/Obama" to assuage their guilt at throwing away their opportunity to vote for the most transformational candidate of our generation. See ... it doesn't really matter to stay with the old, tired negative politics of the '90s because Barack will happily take the crumbs from the table and get in line and do what he's told and run as Hillary's invisible veep. People get over it -- it will never happen, just as Hillary Clinton would NEVER agree to be Barack Obama's veep. Not gonna happen so get those rationalizations right out of your heads, lol. But, I do want to leave you with these thoughts: Obama 838 pledged delegates, HRC 834; Obama $32M raised in January; HRC $5M loaned to her own campaign in January to keep going; Obama, 350 delegates in states over the next week that line up for him; HRC looking to hold on until the Superdelegates can pull her can out of the fire. Nobody should be counting Mrs. Clinton's veep chickens before she's hatched the nomination, which ain't lookin' good for her! YES WE CAN ... Go OBAMA!

Posted by: Omyobama | February 6, 2008 4:24 PM | Report abuse

my guess is that if Obama signed onto a ticket with Clinton his support would collapse. he would be viewed as a sellout. Hillory and Obama are worlds apart. besides Obama is a very smart man, look what being VP to the Clintons did for Gore's career?

Posted by: lou | February 6, 2008 4:22 PM | Report abuse


Lots of Obama supporters have pledged to NOT vote for Hillary Clinton if she gets the nomination.

Posted by: JakeD | February 6, 2008 4:22 PM | Report abuse

I'm a Republican that voted for Ron Paul yesterday. This fall I'll either vote for Obama or the Libertarian candidate if Obama doesn't get the Democrat nomination. I'd never vote for McCain, Romney, or Clinton. McCain is a lunatic in the mold of Joseph Stalin. Romney, well I just can't trust any cult member. And Clinton has a record of being a serial liar and career criminal.

Posted by: eco-pharm | February 6, 2008 4:19 PM | Report abuse

I am a Democrat. The Democrats are the party of the people. The people are voting in record numbers at the Democratic primaries because the Democrats will give us change.

If Mcain wins the presidency the Republicans will just stay the course with their failed economic policies and with this war in Iraq.

We need an Obama and Hillary, or a Hillary and Obama ticket. That would give us the most voting power, and they would be a winning combination!

Check out my Homepage Website:


Posted by: bigguysgym | February 6, 2008 4:11 PM | Report abuse

The super delegates were put in place to protect against someone who would appeal only to a narrow base within the party ant who could not attract a wider electorate in the general election. It looks like we are going to see if they act that way.

Posted by: davechu | February 6, 2008 4:05 PM | Report abuse

Hillary and Obama both bring so much ability and so much hope to washington.

Obama supporters need to understand that Hillary supporters love her ideas, her vision and her plans, especially her universal health care plan.

Either/Or won't cut it for either side.

We've got to go with Clinton/Obama.

Together they're unbeatable and so are we!!!

Posted by: svreader | February 6, 2008 4:04 PM | Report abuse


Everyone I know is praying that neither get into the White House ; )

Posted by: JakeD | February 6, 2008 4:04 PM | Report abuse

the only reason Hillary is winning on total current delegates right now is the unpledged or "superdelegates", that are not based on voters, but based on Democratic party leaders/regulars (note democratic_delegate_count.html#moreraces). they are based on party regulars, and she is currently winning 211 to 128 on those (about 5 to 3 for Hillary). take that out, and Barack is winning the total delegate count, because he is winning the pledged delegates, which are based on the voters.

IF this trend continues (both trends), this could be the biggest story of them all. what that would mean is that the country voted for Barack, but the party regulars swung the nomination to Hillary. i don't see how a party can survive if that happens, and i don't see how the remaining superdelegates can continue to go that way (am also not sure how permanent those superdelegate counts are, given that they don't actually cast their votes until the convention in June). if they did, they would basically be telling voters in the next election that your votes may well not matter, because as in last time's election (this time), the party rulers basically just overruled the voters and made their own decision. i think nothing could be worse for democracy and i think there may well be some serious pressure on those remaining superdelegates to not go against the voters.

the fact that this is the reason Hillary is currently leading in the total delegate count, and the fact that Barack got more pledged delegates, based on voters, including 15 of the 27 states (23 super tuesday states plus prior 4 states), plus his fundraising advantage at this stage, will probably continue to shift the momentum in his direction.

Posted by: patrickliles | February 6, 2008 4:00 PM | Report abuse

I attended the Democratic caucus in Summit County, Colorado, last night. Nearly 1,000 people crammed into a room that was supposed to hold no more than 600. It was chaotic for a while, but eventually the deed was done correctly. I sense that every one of those people will vote for EITHER Clinton or Obama in November. The much larger number of people participating in Democratic primaries and than on the Republican side (here, those folks fit comfortably in a large room in the Holiday Inn)might indicate a sizable Democratic majority in November.

Posted by: patrickfrances | February 6, 2008 3:59 PM | Report abuse

Well there you have it folks; the race continues. Apparently, Obama and Hillary each represent a different half of our party. I hope that Hillary and Obama will find a way to close the gap that reading these boards and studying the exit results so clearly illuminates. I know african-americans hate the LBJ statement but taken in a larger context, taken in consideration of our large tent party, its meaning becomes clear... black needs white needs hispanic needs asian needs the young needs the elderly needs men needs women needs the city needs the suburbs needs the rural needs every income group and all education levels. Together our party may succeed but divided it will surely fail. Pray we do not, in our enthusiasm for one or the other side, destroy our chances in the fall.

Posted by: rjwash | February 6, 2008 3:59 PM | Report abuse

Obama's momentum is strong, but his big wins are in caucus states, where people essentially vote in public. There is a case to be made that those people who were directly influenced in a public forum would vote differently behind a curtain. People should realize that the general election is not a caucus. Behind the curtain, I believe many who were "influenced" in a caucus to vote for Obama would actually vote for Hillary.

Posted by: BillinNY | February 6, 2008 3:55 PM | Report abuse

Well, Jake, at least I'm in good company! :-)

Next Tuesday is going to be fun. Potomac primary!


Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | February 6, 2008 3:52 PM | Report abuse


That's a GREAT idea -- have you contacted the Obama campaign / web site with it?

Posted by: JakeD | February 6, 2008 3:51 PM | Report abuse

Good point, CntrvilleCitoyen.

P.S. to BB:

Great minds think alike . . .

Posted by: JakeD | February 6, 2008 3:50 PM | Report abuse

It should be easy for Obama to break into Clinton's core demographic. He just needs to ask his college-age supporters to start writing letters - yes, real letters - to their parents, grandparents, parents' friends, and friends' parents.

What 60-something, especially the mothers and grandmothers, would not be swayed by half a dozen or so handwritten, personal appeals from idealistic young people?

The future belongs to the young... whether they want it or not. On that basis alone, Obama should get the nomination... for the good of the Democratic party, and of the country.

Only question is whether the kids still know how to pick up a pen.

Posted by: fairbalanced | February 6, 2008 3:49 PM | Report abuse

"What kind of an idiot would think a Clinton/Obama ticket is possible?"

I guess the kind that led Wolf Blitzer to ask both Clinton and Obama about a "dream ticket". Note: neither one of them ruled it out. Either could have said that he or she wasn't interested in the vice-presidency. Heck, type in "Dream Ticket" on Google and the #2 item (and 6 of the top ten) will be an speculative piece about a such a ticket. Like it or not, there is a lot of buzz about both these candidates.

Personally, I see Clinton/Obama as possible, but not Obama/Clinton.


Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | February 6, 2008 3:48 PM | Report abuse

Unless the Clinton campaign goes broke.

Posted by: zbob99 | February 6, 2008 3:47 PM | Report abuse

As I told norcrossman on the "Obama Gears Up" thread (below):

I still think if Obama is willing to accept the VP slot, Clinton has to at least consider him seriously -- just based on the numbers he's pulling in -- I don't see Hillary ever accepting Obama's VP slot though.

Posted by: JakeD | February 6, 2008 3:47 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: JakeD | February 6, 2008 03:17 PM " Well, I'm registered Independent but do not want either Obama or Hillary in the White House -- does that count?"

I'm a Democrat and I don't want either of them either! We've blown this opportunity big time because we let the loony liberal wing of our party drive the nominee recruitment and culling process.

Posted by: CntrvilleCitoyen | February 6, 2008 3:46 PM | Report abuse


I guess only "idiots" like you and I think a Clinton/Obama ticket is possible ; )

Posted by: JakeD | February 6, 2008 3:45 PM | Report abuse

In answer to your question JakeD, yes it does, but not until November.

Danroth777--The previously uncertain Republican race was portrayed as fractured, because it was in 2007. Rudy was an odd fit and falling in the polls and no one else was getting over 20%. McCain built momentum with a decisive victory in NH, a strong showing in Michigan and a victory in S. Carolina. From that moment, he was described as a front runner, because he was. ecause he was. Yesterday's results showed that to be true. Now I await the silly claim that the MSM desperately wanted McCain. If anything, reporters want a story.

At that time (2007), Clinton held double-digit leads in national and many state polls. It looked like a classic front runner. Portraying that contest as fractured would have been silly. Both Clinton and Obama have showed strong potential to win votes. My feeling is if it comes down to the convention, we'll get a joint ticket.


Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | February 6, 2008 3:41 PM | Report abuse

I have heard Obama is brilliant. I do not think so. The Senator from Illinois keeps saying he is the future and Clinton is the past yet he has teamed up with one of this country's oldest, entrenched political dynasties, the Kennedys.

He says his race with Clinton is not about gender but he had Oprah Winfrey, Caroline Kennedy and Maria Shriver at the same rally in Los Angeles last Sunday.

He is now saying that if Clinton wins the Democratic nomination the Republicans will dig up a truck load of dirt on her. His statement is lamefully dirty.

Senator Obama I will admit is smart, but then so is Dick Cheney. I am not inpressed with a person who keeps saying "a change is coming" but does not tell us HOW he is going to bring about the change. He wants me to "Believe". Maybe I will believe if he ever shows me that he can produce not just speak.

For the record, I will vote for Senator Joe Biden. He has earned the right to be my President. He is a proven, genuine Statesman and smart to boot.

Posted by: Greendolfnverizonnet | February 6, 2008 3:40 PM | Report abuse

What kind of an idiot would think a Clinton/Obama ticket is possible? The kind of change that is needed would never come about that way. The closer HRC gets to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, the more exponentially partisan the country becomes. Obama will lock this thing up in the coming months and unite the entire party behind him, HRC can't do that.

Posted by: walterbond | February 6, 2008 3:39 PM | Report abuse

Obama would be both very powerful and very busy in Hillary's administration.

Look at how powerful Al Gore was. Both Hillary and Bill believe in finding the best people you can, convincing them to join you by based on mutual beliefs.

You can tell Hillary and Obama like each other.

I think they'd make a great team.

As far as Bill Goes, don't worry. He wants to bring peace to trouble spots like he did with Ireland. He's already been President, and left at the top of his game. He's got zero interest in doing it again if Hillary is doing it. He knows she's going to do a great job!!!

Posted by: svreader | February 6, 2008 3:33 PM | Report abuse

"There's no such thing as bad publicity."

Really? Then why has Bill been relatively under the radar following all that "good-bad publicity"?

I also consider myself independent and see pros and cons with virtually all remaining candidates. But I can't help but wonder why the media sought so desperately to portray the previously uncertain Rep. side as "fractured", but the *even more* fractured/undecided Dem. side as "a good fight"? Not-so-hidden bias?

Posted by: danroth777 | February 6, 2008 3:30 PM | Report abuse

Dan, you make some good points here in that both candidates have generated a lot of support and enthusiasm and neither seems to be going away any time soon.

It's starting to appear more and more that the only way to honor the will of the voters will be a Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton ticket. Democrats would love to relive the peace and prosperity of the Clinton years (hopefully without any of the scandals this time), but look for a big change in the divisive, partisan atmosphere that defined the Clinton-Bush terms. I say, put aside the very slight policy differences and put both Clinton's experience and Obama's inspiration onto the ticker.

Posted by: jersey_brian | February 6, 2008 3:29 PM | Report abuse

"If Obama is the VP we will have a very powerful role in the administration."

I doubt Obama would have much of a role in a Clinton White House.

Posted by: bwerbeloff | February 6, 2008 3:27 PM | Report abuse

What a time! Vigorously contested primaries for both parties. An ideological spectrum finally apparent among Republicans, spurred by those disaffected by the domination the Far Right has been able to muscle and concerned that they may well lose disproportionately in the 2008 elections. Among Democrats, a history-making choice between a woman and a black man...and the near-certainty of an age-issue in the general election. You gotta love national politics in America in 2008!

Posted by: TRPhillips | February 6, 2008 3:25 PM | Report abuse

Sorry about the typo, folks. Here's the repost --

The only solution which will unite the Democratic Party is Clinton/Obama.

If Obama is the VP, he will have a very powerful role in the administration.

Both Bill and Hillary want Bill to be a "troubleshooter" and a "fair broker for peace" in international trouble spots, rather than doing a lot of work on day to day policy.

Lets face it guys, if your wife got elected President, do you think she'd let you do ANYTHING, let alone try to call the shots for her?

She'd have you taken out, shot by the secret service, and grin from ear to ear.

No woman president will ever let her husband call the shots, and rightfully so!!!

Posted by: svreader | February 6, 2008 3:21 PM | Report abuse

The only solution which will unite the Democratic Party is Clinton/Obama.

If Obama is the VP we will have a very powerful role in the administration.

Both Bill and Hillary want Bill to be a "troubleshooter" and a "fair broker for peace" in international trouble spots, rather than doing a lot of work on day to day policy.

Lets face it guys, if your wife got elected President, do you think she'd let you do ANYTHING, let alone try to call the shots for her?

She'd have you taken out, shot by the secret service, and grin from ear to ear.

No woman president will ever let her husband call the shots, and rightfully so!!!

Posted by: svreader | February 6, 2008 3:20 PM | Report abuse

Well, a brokered convention could be a gift for the Democrats. The fascination of a convention that actually matters would outweigh any negative aspects. Having Obama and Clinton front and center for the next four months can't be helpful for McCain. There's no such thing as bad publicity.

Posted by: moriarty1 | February 6, 2008 3:17 PM | Report abuse

Well, I'm registered Independent but do not want either Obama or Hillary in the White House -- does that count?

Posted by: JakeD | February 6, 2008 3:17 PM | Report abuse

Good! I hope the Dems end up with a brokered convention and waste millions more between now and Denver.

I would too if I were a Republican. But would that really matter? Obama, after all, raised $32 million in January, just $9 million less than McCain has in his entire campaign ($41 million...not including '08).

As for the superdelegates....will the public see a list of these 796 people and who they support? The rules are the rules, of course. But they should be held accountable, especially if they are voting against the wishes of their consituency.

Posted by: RyanMcC1 | February 6, 2008 3:15 PM | Report abuse

Good! I hope the Dems end up with a brokered convention and waste millions more between now and Denver.

Posted by: JakeD | February 6, 2008 2:43 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company