Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Pelosi Pooh-Poohs the 'Dream Ticket' (Again)

UPDATE, 5:30 pm: VoteBoth, an Internet-based petition campaign started by a former aide to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign to advocate for a shared ticket, released a statement vehemently disagreeing with Pelosi's comments. "I have the greatest respect for Speaker Pelosi, but she is dead wrong," said Adam Parkhomenko. "In the last 48 hours, thousands of people signed up to support a Clinton-Obama 'Dream Team' ticket at VoteBoth.com and talk to DNC delegates about it. We will continue to make sure these voices are heard and help our party take back the White House."

ORIGINAL POST

With the Democratic presidential contest showing no sign of ending any time soon, many within the party -- led by former New York governor Mario Cuomo -- believe the only way to solve the problem is for Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton to share the ticket this fall.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) disagrees.

In an interview with four student journalists as part of mtvU's "Editorial Board," Pelosi revisited comments she made roughly a month ago -- that there was no way that the so-called "Dream Ticket" would come to pass.

"I've just been involved in politics for a very long time and I just don't think that would be the ticket," Pelosi said told the student panel. "Whoever the person is that's running for president is his or her own person. The only time I saw something like this come together was when I was your age, when I was in college, and John F. Kennedy chose Lyndon Johnson."

Here's more from Pelosi:

In the clip, Pelosi makes a simple geographic argument. Regardless of whether Clinton or Obama winds up as the nominee, neither one will need to worry much about carrying the home state of the other -- New York and Illinois, respectively.

But, her quote referencing the decision by Kennedy to pick Johnson despite the animosity between the two men seems to suggest that Pelosi believes the differences in personality and approach between Obama and Clinton make it a near-certainty they will not wind up on a ticket together.

Is Pelosi right? Maybe.

If Obama is the nominee, the Dream Ticket would be unlikely. His message of a new kind of future-looking politics would be somewhat compromised if he decided to name Clinton -- one of the leading figures in the 1990s version of the Democratic Party -- as his veep.

Obama feels little or no loyalty toward the Clintons -- unlike many other people in Democratic politics these days -- and therefore would feel no obligation to put Sen. Clinton on the ticket.

If the situation is reversed, however, it's hard to see how Clinton doesn't at least make an offer to Obama. Should Clinton wind up as the nominee, it would almost certainly be the result of superdelegates defying the pledged delegates and the popular vote.

That scenario would create MAJOR problems for the Democratic party in several segments of its base -- particularly among African Americans -- and Clinton would likely feel heavy pressure to heal that rift by offering the veep job to Obama. (Whether he would take the offer is an entirely different question.)

Polling bears out the idea that Clinton-Obama is far more likely than Obama-Clinton. In a recent Gallup survey, 42 percent of Democrats tested wanted to see Clinton as vice president if Obama wins the party's nod; by contrast 58 percent wanted Obama chosen as the second-in-command if Clinton claimed the top spot.

Looking inside the numbers, a majority of Obama supporters oppose choosing Clinton as vice president; seven in ten said they would prefer he pick someone else. Clinton backers are far more open to the idea of Obama on the ticket as 53 percent said they would want the New York Senator to pick her colleague as vice president.

While Clinton has broached the idea of Obama serving as her vice president (an idea he rejected), the candidates have largely avoided talk of ticket sharing in the belief that they are both running for the top job not the second slot.

Much can change in the final two months (or so) of this campaign. Neither Clinton nor Obama has made a Sherman-esque statment about their willingness or unwillingness to accept the vice presidential nod if offered. It's clear that many within the party would like to see the two candidates wind up on the ballot together and may well exert pressure on the eventual nominee to make that happen.

Does he or she bow to that pressure? And is an Obama-Clinton or Clinton-Obama ticket as powerful as some activists believe? If Nancy Pelosi is right, we'll never know.

By Chris Cillizza  |  April 9, 2008; 10:33 AM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Democratic Soft Money Group Ramps Up
Next: Andrews Unfazed by N.J. 'Power Structure'

Comments

We would be lucky to have Bill Clinton back. Sadly, in this country Obama would live about six months to live if he were elected. Either candidate is better than Bush but Clinton is smarter. For the good of the country Obama should take up the torch in 2012 or 2016. That is what the nations needs. Two consecutive liberal presidents.

Posted by: George | April 10, 2008 12:41 PM | Report abuse

'Should Clinton wind up as the nominee, it would almost certainly be the result of superdelegates defying the pledged delegates and the popular vote.'
This kind of back room dealing would turn off a multitude of Democrats and Hello President McCain. Hillary Clinton is in this race for power and not for the people. She is very transparent based on the scorched earth campaign she is running.

IT IS A BEAUTIFUL THING TO WATCH HER CAMPAIGN IMPLODING!!!!!

Posted by: Bonnie | April 10, 2008 9:08 AM | Report abuse

You are just so great, Nancy!

Posted by: JakeD | April 10, 2008 6:53 AM | Report abuse

This is a ridiculous idea. First off, neither one likes the other. And that is being polite. Secondly, do you honestly think that Obama would feel secure knowing that the wicked witch of the east was waiting in the wings. She would be plotting a "mishap" to befall Obama. Please!!!!

Personally, neither one has what it takes to be president. Both have been exposed.

This bloodbath has been rather interesting to say the least.

Posted by: JD | April 10, 2008 6:31 AM | Report abuse

Okay I also say that Nancy Pelosi will be
as he is now being called,"Mr Clueless In
Chicago" Barack Hussein Obama Vice Presidential Choice as that was part of the
deal Obama made with Pelosi and DNC Ding
Dong Howard Dean,to get them to steal the
nomination for him.

Posted by: Claudine | April 10, 2008 5:57 AM | Report abuse

It's not going to happen. Got it?

Posted by: Barack Obama | April 10, 2008 2:27 AM | Report abuse

Sticking to your guns or first choice, is often the correct choice (like on Multiple Choice TESTS/QUIZES). Obama always struck me as unelectable and we now know in April, HE REALLY IS UNELECTABLE (yet the media is still vigorously selling him to us). Think its cause they profit more with Republican policies for Big Business?
I know Wall Street is praying Hillary doesn't get the nomination because she will surely win. They should be doing the opposite, praying she does win. Sometimes what momma hurts initially and looks bad at first, yet turns out to be (99% of the time) the BEST thing that could have happened when its all "said and done."
I know this is the case here. CNN, MSNBC, etc etc just want the tax cuts for the rich/corporations to become permanent. Now, the Repulican nominee John McCain, is for those tax cuts that he voted against originally as "tax cuts for the rich."
He flip-flopped? Yes. Big surprise? No. 2000 was a media hack job, they sold us Bush and he gave away 2 TRILLION dollars to them. Now we borrow money from the Chinese to buy oil from the Saudis.
~GOD BLESS AMERICA~

P.S. - John McCain will be working hard on billionaire Theresa Heinz-Kerry's side (J. Kerry's wife & long-time McCain supporter/donor) AND SO SHOULD YOU. As well as Oprah and George Soros' side. The middle class and those lower will continue to burn and dwindle away into ashes and dust.

Hillary 08'

Posted by: Why, Lord? | April 10, 2008 2:13 AM | Report abuse

I think Hillary has a real shot at winning the popular vote, which if she does, then she will have won the will of the people. Thereby, according to Obama's position, superdelegates should decide to go with Hillary. I personally think the entire process needs scraped and that the nominee should be selected by overall popular vote from primaries, not caucuses. Make it match the general election - that would make sense? But then again, when would our government do anything that makes sense?

Posted by: Travis | April 10, 2008 12:16 AM | Report abuse

Hillary getting the VP is what this whole period is about.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 10, 2008 12:13 AM | Report abuse

Lyle,

Good Luck tomorrow.

Sign in here as soon as you can, when you get back.

Posted by: MarkInAustin | April 9, 2008 11:48 PM | Report abuse

Spare me the conspiracies about Hillary Clinton, quite frankly, I want to vommit every time I hear one about her or Bill. Get me the hard facts before you place the world's blame on Hillary's shoulders. Additionally, as a FL resident and college student, if I remember correctly it was Ralph Nader who screwed us over in 2000. I cried and people died. Time to move on. What that does not mean is choosing a candidate who is manifestly the weaker (and more swiftboatable) candidate. Why do that? Why risk it? I could go into great detail about all the reasons Hillary would win and Obama would not. What drives up his Gallup numbers are Independent voters in Red States that have a 10% chance of being Blue. Hillary still has more Democrat votes and votes from Blue states and swings states. Get a brain, then talk to me.

Posted by: Chris | April 9, 2008 11:40 PM | Report abuse

Absolutely not! Hillary, nowhere near the ticket! As an African-American woman over 40, she turned me off when you dumped the kitchen sink! I will not vote for Obama if she is anywhere near the ticket!!!!!!!

Posted by: Ann, Houston | April 9, 2008 11:34 PM | Report abuse

Chris

Here's an idea for an REALLY interesting article: investigate and tell us about how the Clinton's screwed up the primary for the Democratic candidates in 2004 - ensuring another Bush victory- just so Hillary could have her one term in the Senate before running as the "inevitable" candidate this time around. One of these days John Kerry, John Edwards, Howard Dean and Al Gore are going to tell that story, and it'll be worth the wait.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 9, 2008 11:31 PM | Report abuse

Obama,

the George McGovern/John Kerry of 08'

Do you honestly think that we can afford another Republican administration in this country?

VOTE for HILLARY! Obama is NOT the messiah....why not be safe and let him be her VP? I know you are in love with him but at least you will be able to see him frequently and have the security of knowing that we have an experienced professional behind the wheel. This is SO frustrating and so wrong.

Posted by: Chris | April 9, 2008 11:28 PM | Report abuse

VOTEBOTH is a joke. Notice that the site puts Hillary's name at the top of ticket. Since when did the person with the most delegates and votes get pushed aside to become the VP nominee. Give me a break! I hope before people sign the voteboth "petition" they will read it to see who's name appears first on this "dream" (or as I see it)"nightmare" ticket.

Posted by: marya | April 9, 2008 10:36 PM | Report abuse

lylepink -

If you stay home or vote Repub, don't you fulfill the prophecy? Look at the primary campaign he has run; some respected commentators are pointing out that that's a good indication of the way he would govern. It's also a good indication of how he would run a general election campaign. I think if he gets the nomination he will run a surprisingly good campaign, and has a good chance of beating McCain.

As for the media creating or exaggerating his appeal to the Dems, how do you explain the fact that he's running 9-10 points ahead of HRC in the Gallup and Rasmussen daily tracking polls, 5-6 days in a row?

Posted by: jac13 | April 9, 2008 10:28 PM | Report abuse

i would like to see speaker pelosi considered on obama's short list. she is tough,smart, and effective. she would be the portrait of the real " fighter " w/ obama as good cop.

Posted by: jacade | April 9, 2008 10:06 PM | Report abuse

jac13: I think what leichtman is trying to say is about the same as me--Obama cannot win the GE in 2008, and The media, along with Repubs, are doing their best to promote this MYTH that he is the favorite of Dems nationwide, which is FALSE, every Dem I know and have talked with have the same Opinion as I do, he has ZERO chance of winning in 2008. This is also the Opinion of my Repub friends I've know for 30 to 40 years.

Posted by: lylepink | April 9, 2008 9:59 PM | Report abuse

Some Dems just keep smoking the same dope.

Hilleary's negatives are above 50%. She is a boat anchor on any ticket. Independents, moderates and traditional Republicans will not vote for her in any capacity.

The media and traditional Dems are pretending that the Clintons corruption, Monica, the Blue dress, the cigar have faded from memory.

They have not. There is a reason the Clintons were impeach and it was not just the overreaching of the hack Starr.

The Clinton's are damaged goods. The only reason they are still in this is because they are corrupt thugs.

She continues to be toxic beyond comprehension--destructive to the broader interest of the Dems and the country.

She is risking another Republican administration, and thus the completion of the Theocratic takeover of he Judiciary and the elimination of our civil rights (reproductive, privacy, sexual orientation, expression, etc.)

WISE UP. Super delegates need to get her to stop now.

Posted by: jim | April 9, 2008 9:48 PM | Report abuse

Leichtman -

Just now reading your 3:59 post.

It's hard to express the dismay I feel at your (and others') being so disillusioned with Obama as a potential nominee that you will abstain from voting for president (not that any Dem has a chance in TX anyway) if he is the nominee -- or, worse, voting for McCain.

Don't kid yourself: not to decide is to decide. When you stay home you promote the candidacy of someone. In this case, that "someone" is a man who makes no bones about staying in Iraq indefinitely, sacrificing countless more lives and millions more dollars; a man who intends to seek the extension of the Bush give-away tax cuts for the rich; a man who will fill at least two and possibly four Supreme Court vacancies with more scalialitoroberts clones; and a man whose chances of dying in office and making (pick one: Giuliani, Romney, Crist, Huckabee or, worst of all, clueless asleep-at-the-switch Condi Rice) president are about 60%.

Obama is worse than that? Really?

And your staying home doesn't help bring that about? Really?

Posted by: jac13 | April 9, 2008 8:42 PM | Report abuse

What I am referring to is at that time he was lumped in with "any other Dem". Since he is now leading, people have a different perspective of him than before. As far as the media is concerned, if something (additional that is negative) comes out before the election the public persection may change. As of right now this race is like night day compared to 6/2007.

Posted by: Dwayne | April 9, 2008 8:28 PM | Report abuse

I have read a great deal about the JFK choice of LBJ (I was 11 years old, so I don't remember it when it hapened), and the fact is that JFK chose Johnson for one reason and one reason alone: to carry Texas. And it won him the election.

BTW, for those who don't think their votes count, the popular vote difference between JFK and Nixon was about 100,000 votes nationwide (that's right, 100 THOUSAND) -- less than 1 vote per precinct!

Posted by: jac13 | April 9, 2008 8:18 PM | Report abuse

Dwayne: The EC totals I have are not changed in any way since June of 2007 with Hillary the almost certain winner in the 22 states i have. What you are referring to [I think] is the support of Obama by Repubs that think/believe Hillary cannot be beat by any Repub in and at that time frame. There has been no change [IMHO], about their thoughts. I still think/believe something is out there about Obama The Media are not reporting. I am watching "Hardball" and there could be no one that "HATES" the Clintons more than Chris Matthews for whatever reason. How any Obama supporter can deny The Media support is ridicules.

Posted by: lylepink | April 9, 2008 8:04 PM | Report abuse

5:21PM: OK My reasoning, [leave a name so I can respond] for Hillary winning goes back to 15 June 2007 on the EC map that has 22 states that are almost certain to vote for Hillary in the GE and any other Dem loses some of these. The contrast to this recently is the almost unthinkable thought that Ca. would be in play in 2008 should Obama be the nominee. These states for Hillary does not include WV and Ky. which she would most likely win and Obama would lose. According to every way I can think of would give Obama only 209 EC votes with everything going his way, and lets try and be honest about this and admit he has ZERO chance of winning.

Posted by: lylepink | April 9, 2008 7:11 PM

OK thanks for the response. The problem I have is you are basing your reasoning on June 15 2007. The entire race has changed since then. At that time, Hillary was the frontrunner, most peolpe did not know who Obama was. Not to mention we were still over 6 months from the first primary. I really believe if those 22 states that you quoted were to be "re-polled" today you would get a completely different picture. Sorry to hear that you are sick. I hope you get well.

Posted by: Dwayne | April 9, 2008 7:40 PM | Report abuse

lylepink:

That's a great attitude. With a mindset like that, you'll surely get well.

On a different note, I think I've figured out our misunderstanding. In Iowa, the vote totals from the R's and the D's mean two completely different things.

The R's hold a secret ballot in their caucuses, which is reported to the media by the party, so their numbers will reflect the actual vote total. They do still select delegates from the precincts, conventions, etc. which is where the final delegate allocation comes from.

In contrast, the D's make the caucusers go to different parts of the room, based on which candidate they support. They then count the vote -- anyone in a group that's smaller than 15% of the total has to move into a bigger group. When everyone is settled, then they get a final tally and allocate their allotted delegates proportionally. It is this delegate count, and not the total vote, that is reported to the media. That's why the numbers are lower than the R's

In fact, the Iowa D's had record turnout this year, something on the order of double the turnout in 2004 and much more than the R's. So, the Iowa D's are just as energized about this election as the D's everywhere else in the country.

Posted by: mnteng | April 9, 2008 7:13 PM | Report abuse

5:21PM: OK My reasoning, [leave a name so I can respond] for Hillary winning goes back to 15 June 2007 on the EC map that has 22 states that are almost certain to vote for Hillary in the GE and any other Dem loses some of these. The contrast to this recently is the almost unthinkable thought that Ca. would be in play in 2008 should Obama be the nominee. These states for Hillary does not include WV and Ky. which she would most likely win and Obama would lose. According to every way I can think of would give Obama only 209 EC votes with everything going his way, and lets try and be honest about this and admit he has ZERO chance of winning.

Posted by: lylepink | April 9, 2008 7:11 PM | Report abuse

One other thing -- most of his support, particularly among whites, is precisely because he is not Clinton. (Ferraro's statement more accurately would have been, he is where he is because he is black and not Hillary Clinton.) Now that black voters have had enough of the Clintons' willingness to play the race card and bash black preachers (those that aren't dead or Uncle Toms, anyway), bringing Clinton on board alienates his base.

Posted by: gbooksdc | April 9, 2008 6:44 PM | Report abuse

IMHO, Obama's best choice would be former Fla. Sen. Graham. I think that would flip FLA Dem., and Graham is a guy who has experience, commands respect, and like Obama, was right on Iraq all along.

Posted by: gbooksdc | April 9, 2008 6:41 PM | Report abuse

mnteng: I don't like the pain involved, so I'll put a couple of Lortab in my pocket just in case anything happens like the last time [awful] , but I am gonna beat this bugger. The totals I gave, as reported, seem to be about rite, since the Repub numbers are in the many 10,000 and the Dem totals, as reported, show virtually no interest, I can only assume the Iowa Dems had little info about Obama and were rejecting Edwards.

Posted by: lylepink | April 9, 2008 6:40 PM | Report abuse

Translation = It's a done deal you stupid MTV kids; don't you realize that Barry has picked his Judas, er, check that, VP.

[Nancy' Brain: Enough of this eminently logical silly talk. Wait,wait Nancy - you need to be careful with your disrespect. Got to work hard to remeber this irrational pecking order: Barry's kiddie cult = respect; prominent democratic fundraisers = disrespect. Yeah, that's the ticket].

CHANGE WE CAN'T BELIEVE IN.

Posted by: Cool Cousin Dick | April 9, 2008 6:22 PM | Report abuse

Oh, and I hope your biopsy goes smoothly tomorrow. Be well.

Posted by: mnteng | April 9, 2008 5:59 PM | Report abuse

I'll vote for McCain if Obama gets the nomination!!!!!!!!!!!!! We don't need a crack head,bi sexual,racist president......

McCain or Clinton never Obama !!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: keith121212 | April 9, 2008 5:56 PM | Report abuse

lylepink:

Sorry, I wasn't clear in that last post. My point was just that the vote totals presented for Iowa (for example) do not represent the number of people that caucused for their particular candidate. Instead, they represent the proportional allocation of delegates from each of the 1700+ precincts where the caucuses were held. So, BHO and HRC didn't just get 940 and 737 people, respectively, voting for them -- each vote probably represents something like 100 caucus attendees, who chose to stand in each candidate's corner.

From the NYTimes (http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/states/IA.html)

"The vote totals for the Iowa Democratic Party are State Delegate Equivalents, which represent the estimated number of state convention delegates that the candidates would have, based on the caucus results."

At least for Iowa, it was a semi-closed process, only D's and I's, and the R's were probably more interested in determining their own candidate. In PA, we do seem to have a significant number of R's crossing over to vote in the D primary (and some of us I's as well). But I'm not sure how much effect it will have -- it looks like maybe 70,000 R's switched to D for the primary and there are over 4 million registered D's now (what's that, about 2%?). If they all vote for BHO (or HRC), then it will be a noticeable difference. However, due to our arcane delegate allocation rules, those R's will have to be well-placed to have a significant effect on the overall delegate count.

Posted by: mnteng | April 9, 2008 5:56 PM | Report abuse

Sounds like a great way to get Obama killed.

I love the example, Kennedy and Johnson. Putting Johnson on his ticket is what got Kennedy killed. A political opponent with close ties to the CIA... Hmmm... Sounds like Clinton.

Then again Obama is from Chicago... and on presumably better terms with the Chicago mob than Kennedy.

I wonder how this will play out...

Posted by: wiretapp | April 9, 2008 5:46 PM | Report abuse

"I'm holding my nose and voting for McCain if my Obama gets the nomination."

I do hope you'll enjoy 'serving' in Iraq.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 9, 2008 5:38 PM | Report abuse

IMHO, The Repubs cannot beat in the GE. This has been my thinking since I discovered the Repub strategy of stopping Hillary at any price/cost so many months ago, and I can find only a couple of folks that are aware of this effort on the many sites I visit every day.

Posted by: lylepink | April 9, 2008 5:13 PM

I am intrested in why you say that HRC could not lose in The General. I think she is the most flawed between the 2. Eveything good that she we would bring to the table is being offset by her contiuned missteps on the campaign trail. Not mention the baggage the Former President Clinton brings.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 9, 2008 5:21 PM | Report abuse

It's a shame there have been no polls for the "dream team". The Combined total of their supporters would be unstopable. But can they be combined? I suspect that those who say they would not vote for Obama still won't even if Clinton is VP.

If Obama did give Clinton the VP slot he will be awake and ready for that 3 am call. Who could sleep after efectivly telling Clinton that she can be president over his dead body?

I like Rice for VP.

Posted by: Blame | April 9, 2008 5:19 PM | Report abuse

mnteng: These are the total votes cast in the Primary/Caucus states that have voted so far. The responsibility of each state to report the results of the votes cast is not questioned. My main concern is with the X-Overs and those that are Repubs changing their Registration to Dem to vote for Obama in their effort to stop Hillary, who, IMHO, The Repubs cannot beat in the GE. This has been my thinking since I discovered the Repub strategy of stopping Hillary at any price/cost so many months ago, and I can find only a couple of folks that are aware of this effort on the many sites I visit every day.

Posted by: lylepink | April 9, 2008 5:13 PM | Report abuse

Patrick NYC,
If by not voting for a D you mean that as support of McCain, I could not disagree more. If so, we'll have to agree to disagree. I can tell you that I seriously considered a vote for Obama (and in case you forgot, I am conservative). The reason is because, at least for the office of president, I tend to value personal traits (leadership, pragmatism, being capable, etc) as much as particular policy positions. Way early on, Obama struck me as having a lot of those traits I look for. Today less so but he still ranks higher than HRC in my trait book (Leichtman obviously has a different view and that is his perogative). But nonetheless, for many people, there is more to the president than how close they say they are to exact policy points. I can easily see how many people to the left of me politically could nix one of the Dem candidates and look to vote for the other Dem or McCain. I am not sure where MarkInAustin currently sits, but I believe that he has only eliminated HRC in who would vote for. But I can see that those that are so caught up with being either a true D or a true R would focus in on the party/policy instead of the person. And there is nothing wrong with that either.

Posted by: Dave! | April 9, 2008 5:12 PM | Report abuse

Tally-ho eveybody!

I'm just returned from my romp through the heather... [sigh]

I've driven my porshe all day and I am famished!

Did I tell you about my falconing? Oh yes, bother, seems I have...

I'm off to do some quail hunting, so carry on everybody.

Until later, toot-a-loo!

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 9, 2008 5:07 PM | Report abuse

I have to say, Rob, that everything can't be about race. What I don't like about Obama supporters is that they make everything about race, when it suits them. It is patently offensive to some of us. Stop it already. You are doing Obama more harm than good with that language, because it just alienates and offends people who don't support him.

Posted by: Blink | April 9, 2008 5:02 PM | Report abuse

Why would you not vote(or vote for McCain) instead of voting for Obama?

Posted by: JNoel002 | April 9, 2008 2:15 PM

Because Democrats tend to make those decisions emotionally. Might be a side effect of their primary constituencies (the young and female).

Posted by: JD | April 9, 2008 5:01 PM | Report abuse

To make matters worse, McCain, although some dems would paint McCain as being just like Bush, does have the reputation as a Maverick. People don't see him as a conservative extremist. He is willing to work for democrats. That may make him more palatable to a lot of Clinton supporters (probably not to Obama supporters, because they are more liberal). Just sayin'.

Posted by: Blink | April 9, 2008 4:55 PM

-------------------
I think he gave up the maverick title when he sucked up to Farwell and his right wing fringe.

Posted by: Patrick NYC | April 9, 2008 5:00 PM | Report abuse

Senator Obama, should he lose the nomination, would lose all credibility if he were to accept the vice presidency in a Clinton administration. Such a move spits in the face of all he stands for and all he has been lobbying against regarding Washington politics-as-usual. I propose he perhaps was even insulted by the arrogant insinuation by both Clintons that the voters could have it both ways with a Clinton/Obama ticket...an assertion they made while in second place. The symbolism of Senator Clinton driving the metaphorical car, with Bill riding shotgun and Obama relegated to the back seat punctuates a back-of-the-bus Selma, circa 1963 mentality.

Posted by: Rob A. | April 9, 2008 4:59 PM | Report abuse

I'm amazed how many people despise Obama for the terrible crime of running against Hillary Clinton. How dare he compete in a primary! He should have just stayed out of it and let her win!

Nobody's mad at Edwards, Biden, Richardson, etc. for running against Hillary. They had the good grace to not upstage her, and drop out of the race early. But Obama thinks that he deserves to win the Democratic nomination for president. Such nerve!

Seriously, people, it's a primary. Get over it.

Posted by: Blarg | April 9, 2008 4:49 PM
--------------------
I agree that both should stay in the race and again will vote for the winner. I don't dislike Obama becase he ran against her, in fact I had planned to vote for him until he hired those homophobic preachers in SC to do fundraisers last October.

Add that to his ties to the bigot Rev Wright and I see a trend of his, as he has said to sit down with those he disagrees with. Well I do not agree with him on this one, not unless they are put on notice for dispicable views.

Posted by: Patrick NYC | April 9, 2008 4:56 PM | Report abuse

"I can not see anyone who claims to be either a 'true democrat', one who believes in most of the party's principles as I do, or supports either Barak or Hillary, could support even a former moderate GOP like McCain."

True, but how many people out there are really true democrats-- there are a lot of people who are barely on one side of the fence, who would jump ship and vote for McCain if their person loses. The democrats cannot win the race if they only count on true die hard democrats. They have to be able to get some more moderate and conservative people as well. To make matters worse, McCain, although some dems would paint McCain as being just like Bush, does have the reputation as a Maverick. People don't see him as a conservative extremist. He is willing to work for democrats. That may make him more palatable to a lot of Clinton supporters (probably not to Obama supporters, because they are more liberal). Just sayin'.

Posted by: Blink | April 9, 2008 4:55 PM | Report abuse

I'm amazed how many people despise Obama for the terrible crime of running against Hillary Clinton. How dare he compete in a primary! He should have just stayed out of it and let her win!

Nobody's mad at Edwards, Biden, Richardson, etc. for running against Hillary. They had the good grace to not upstage her, and drop out of the race early. But Obama thinks that he deserves to win the Democratic nomination for president. Such nerve!

Seriously, people, it's a primary. Get over it.

Posted by: Blarg | April 9, 2008 4:49 PM | Report abuse

gop had McCain raised $40 or even $20 million this month even as a partisan you know that McCain in all his sanctimony would be doing the exact same thing, but I don't expect honesty and I am not an Obama supporter as you fully know.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 9, 2008 4:37 PM

You and I have disagreed today but not on this statement. The arrogance of the GOP supports is beyond words.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 9, 2008 4:45 PM | Report abuse

Peer pressure! Peer pressure! It is about each individual's principles. There is voting for the lesser of two evils and then there is not voting for someone you find objectionable for whatever reason. Either of those is acceptable and the only one who can determine the line between "hold nose" and "stay home" is each voter. R's have the same type issue with McCain.

Posted by: Dave! | April 9, 2008 4:30 PM
-----------------------
I agree with it is up to each voter, my point was that I can not see anyone who claims to be either a 'true democrat', one who believes in most of the party's principles as I do, or supports either Barak or Hillary, could support even a former moderate GOP like McCain.

Posted by: Patrick NYC | April 9, 2008 4:42 PM | Report abuse

The idea that Obama and his support of a politics of limited lobbying, big business influence peddling (Like supporting Colombian anti labor death squads) and transparency while partnering with Hillary Clinton defeats the purpose of his candidacy.
If Obama were stupid enough to do something like this he would suffer a farther & faster fall then Dean did in 2004.
This nomination struggle is for what remains of the soul of the democratic party after its pandering to the free loading free booting free traders.
Either folks can support Clinton and support the continued exporting of our jobs with a living wage or they can support Obama and his struggle to keep American jobs in America.
These positions are as mutually exclusive and the policies of Hoover & FDR's New deal.

Posted by: paul94611 | April 9, 2008 4:38 PM | Report abuse

gop had McCain raised $40 or even $20 million this month even as a partisan you know that McCain in all his sanctimony would be doing the exact same thing, but I don't expect honesty and I am not an Obama supporter as you fully know.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 9, 2008 4:37 PM | Report abuse

Yeah flip a coin. That's the way Obama apparently makes all his decisions. "Let's see...will I keep my promise to take public financing? heads, I win, tails, you lose. Unless it lands on it's side, in which case I will vote "present"..it seems to happen at a very high statistical rate for me."

Obama is getting ready to backtrack on his promise to accept public financing.

From the moonbat left, we can expect claims that he didn't exactly promise to accept public financing; that he merely suggested he might. The last time there was a flareup over Obama's pledge, his supporters pointed to this New York Times piece from March, 2007, when Obama pledged to "aggressively pursue an agreement" with his Republican opponent. They conveniently forgot his statement to the Midwest Democracy Network:


Q: If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?

Obama: "Yes. In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election..."


Even if Obama's backers forget this clear and definitive promise, they can't claim that Obama has fulfilled the rest of his promise: to aggressively pursue a public-financing agreement with his Republican opponent.

John McCain appears likely to accept public financing; he has even gone the extra mile and criticized third parties who have attacked Obama -- pretty strong evidence of a willingness to make an effort to discourage independent expenditures.

So how can Obama in good conscience go back not only on his promise to accept public financing, but even to negotiate with McCain regarding the same?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Weblogs/TWSFP/TWSFPView.asp#6361


Is this the new kind of politics?

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 9, 2008 4:32 PM | Report abuse

Blink writes: "The candidates need to suck it up, flip a coin (that's fair) and run together on one ticket."

This is irresponsible and, frankly, naive.

Posted by: horizonr | April 9, 2008 4:32 PM | Report abuse

Patrick NYC - "...could have the right wing whispering in his ear on which Supremes to pick, that is something any supporter of Hillary or Obama should fear."

Peer pressure! Peer pressure! It is about each individual's principles. There is voting for the lesser of two evils and then there is not voting for someone you find objectionable for whatever reason. Either of those is acceptable and the only one who can determine the line between "hold nose" and "stay home" is each voter. R's have the same type issue with McCain.

Posted by: Dave! | April 9, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse

The candidates need to suck it up, flip a coin (that's fair) and run together on one ticket.

Posted by: Blink | April 9, 2008 4:21 PM
------------------------
Anyone who thinks that Hillary will take the number two spot, after being in Bill's shadow, even after getting elected to the Senate, is fooling themselves. I don't think she'll even get offered the choice. I do see her offering it to him though. Will he take it? I can't read him at all, he is so over polished that I can't even listen to him.

But I will vote for him over McSame as W.

Posted by: Patrick NYC | April 9, 2008 4:28 PM | Report abuse

You can't lead if you don't win. Right now, the bridge we should be crossing is winning in November. If the candidates have to sacrifice, compromise, and find a way to work with each other, they should. Otherwise, leading the country will be a job for McCain. Do we really want that. The candidates need to suck it up, flip a coin (that's fair) and run together on one ticket.

Posted by: Blink | April 9, 2008 4:21 PM | Report abuse

You can't lead if you don't win. Right now, the bridge we should be crossing is winning in November. If the candidates have to sacrifice, compromise, and find a way to work with each other, they should. Otherwise, leading the country will be a job for McCain. Do we really want that. The candidates need to suck it up, flip a coin (that's fair) and run together on one ticket.

Posted by: Blink | April 9, 2008 4:21 PM | Report abuse

sorry Patrick, but to equate a vote for Nader as the equivalent of not voting for Obama is ridiculous even as much as you and I both detest McCain's policies.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 9, 2008 4:05 PM
----------------
You missed my point. I meant that a vote for Nader, or not voting is helping McSenile. If you dislike Obama more than him I can understand, I grow to dislike him and his supporters more everyday. But I'll be damned if I'm going to let the GOP and Obama haters let McSupreme court choice into office.

Posted by: Patrick NYC | April 9, 2008 4:20 PM | Report abuse

Khyber appears to share Chris's electorally obsessed approach to the VP question. But Khyber 's analysis -- "A party leader like Pelosi should be working to give the party the best chance to win in November, and the dream ticket offers that -- is, like Chris's, both incomplete and counterproductive.

It's not just about winning together in November. It's about leading and governing together for the four -- and, perhaps, eight -- years after that.

Obama's approach to politics and, indeed, his basic worldview are diametrically opposed to Clinton's. Pick whichever hierarchy you wish -- an administration led by the two of them would be an unmitigated disaster for the country.

Anyone who thinks otherwise simply hasn't been paying close enough attention to these two candidates -- and needs to dig a hell of a lot deeper, before offering any further pronouncements about this race.

Posted by: horizonr | April 9, 2008 4:17 PM | Report abuse

What Barry Pierson said. Another vote for McCain.

Posted by: Typical white person | April 9, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse

It doesn't matter whether Obama picks Hillary to be his number two. This life-long Democrat is so thoroughly disgusted with the way in which Hillary has been treated by half the Democratic Party this primary season that he is going to vote McCain in Nov (unless by some miracle Hillary wins the nomination) no matter who the Dem # 2 is.

A significant number of Hillary supporters feel the same way. I don't feel welcome in this year's Democratic Party and that's fine since McCain is so willing to work with Democrats. If the GOP nominee were anyone else, I'd simply stay at home in Nov, but McCain is someone I can hold my nose and vote for as a way to express my displeasure with "this year's" Democratic Party.

Obama supporters really believe that they can win the presidency without any help from the 50% of the Democratic Party who support Clinton. To that I say, great. Go for it, guys. Good luck.

Posted by: Barry Peirson | April 9, 2008 4:12 PM | Report abuse

Leichtman,
I understand. I am not saying that you don't have a right to do what you are doing. You do. I am just saying that in other, less contested elections, people who thought of themselves as dems would simply find it easier to just vote for whomever the democratic nominee was, and this time, this is not going to be such an easy choice for many, because some people really don't like Obama or Clinton and could not get themselves to vote for one of them.

Posted by: Blink | April 9, 2008 4:09 PM | Report abuse

lylepink:

Actually, those numbers are the delegate totals from the 1700 precincts in Iowa. I think I remember the total number of D caucus goers as being estimated at around 250,000. But it's hard to know exactly how many of those voted for BHO or HRC (or the others) since each precinct has a different delegate count.

Posted by: mnteng | April 9, 2008 4:08 PM | Report abuse

sorry Patrick, but to equate a vote for Nader as the equivalent of not voting for Obama is ridiculous even as much as you and I both detest McCain's policies.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 9, 2008 4:05 PM | Report abuse

blink voting for Sen Obama even though I don't like him or trust him would be a positive action that at this time I am not prepared to make and a betrayal of my values. No candidate just b/c he has a D besides his name is entiled to my vote, I gave examples earlier of local candidates who were unqualified to sit on our state Supreme Ct. Are you suggesting that b/c I didn't vote for them,that I was disloyal or somehow approved of their opponent; that is a stretch. But believe me HC supporters if she is not the nominee don't want to be guilted into a candidate we feel is unqualified to be the leader of the free world or somehow disloyal. A vote is an action of support, period. Refusal to do so like dave said in no way reflects support for the opponent. A vote must be earned its not an entitelement, that would be a childish suggestion.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 9, 2008 3:59 PM | Report abuse

jay spartan - "saying if my canidate doesnt win im voting for mccain or sitting out, is childish and stupid."
-------------------
I agree. It's like the idiots who voted for Nader. With a chance that McShame could have the right wing whispering in his ear on which Supremes to pick, that is something any supporter of Hillary or Obama should fear.

Posted by: Patrick NYC | April 9, 2008 3:58 PM | Report abuse

Blarg: Once again you are wrong about the Iowa votes. National Overview has the Primary/Caucus Result totals for all that have been held so far, Iowa has Obama 940--Edwards 744--Clinton 737--Richardson 53--Biden 23--uncomitted 3. I am only asking for ACCURATE reports that can be verified. Opinion is different from FACTS that are easily verified. My Opinion has been verified by FACTS time after time, but it still is an Opinion and should not be considered any other way.

Posted by: lylepink | April 9, 2008 3:56 PM | Report abuse

Ditto - Holding my nose and voting for McCain if it's Obama on the ticket.

Posted by: another lurker | April 9, 2008 3:51 PM | Report abuse

Got it, Leichtman. But this means that you will effectively be voting against the dems for the presidential ticket if Obama gets the nomination -- even if you will vote for the rest of the dems on the lesser tickets. You are making my point -- I think there are many like you.

Posted by: Blink | April 9, 2008 3:49 PM | Report abuse

jay spartan - "saying if my canidate doesnt win im voting for mccain or sitting out, is childish and stupid."

One might say that pressuring someone to vote for a person just because they happen to have a R or D next to their name is childish and stupid.

Posted by: Dave! | April 9, 2008 3:48 PM | Report abuse

I'm holding my nose and voting for McCain if my Obama gets the nomination.

Posted by: lurker | April 9, 2008 3:47 PM | Report abuse

none of the above blink, I will vote for every other Dems, but would never stay home. cavaeat: things may change in the next 210 days blink.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 9, 2008 3:45 PM | Report abuse

jonel my strong statement about not being a McCain supporter was not directed at you sorry my keybd made it sound like that but at others here who have irresponsibly and repeadely made that statement, my apologies.

But I do appreciate that you understand how difficult that vote would be. Curious why the Obama speech to his San francisco supporters yesterday has not been called into question. It certainly did not sound Presidential, imho.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 9, 2008 3:42 PM | Report abuse

So let's take a vote:
If you are a democrat supporting Obama, and Clinton wins, will you vote for Clinton, McCain, or stay home?

If you are a democrat supporting Clinton and Obama wins, will you vote for Obama, McCain, and stay home?

Posted by: Blink | April 9, 2008 3:39 PM | Report abuse

"blink-well once there is a clear nominee, then party will unify around him(or her). saying if my canidate doesnt win im voting for mccain or sitting out, is childish and stupid."

Good luck with that. I don't think it will happen. I hear too many people saying that they won't vote for the person who is not their candidate. Yes, it's childish and stupid, but unfortunately, the campaigns have gotten really nasty, and people feel how they feel. This is not like any other campaign I have ever seen. I don't think a primary has been this contested in decades. And again, it's not about policy. If it were, it would be easy, because Obama and Clinton actually have very similar policies. This is a personality contest, and people are not being very rational about it. They may indeed poke out their own eyes to spite the other candidate.

Posted by: Blink | April 9, 2008 3:34 PM | Report abuse

mnteng: Gibbs was universally disliked since her erruption on City Counsel turning the loss of a local police officer into a tirade against illegal immigrants so she would have been the easier opponent. Lampson is well funded and well organized but as I told mark in Austin if things becomes disruptive in our Presidential campaign that might be problematic. The HC supporters are firmly behind Lampson as do I believe the local Obama supporters. Olson does not have a lot of name id and Lampson has been a rather conservative democrat in his voting that fits the 22nd district but the RNC still plans on spending millions to smear Lampson Iam sure.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 9, 2008 3:34 PM | Report abuse

Blarg: Your 3:22PM is beneath all reasoning, when you can say that the Limbaugh and Colter urging for a Hillary vote was anything but a JOKE.

Posted by: lylepink | April 9, 2008 3:34 PM | Report abuse

A party leader like Pelosi should be working to give the party the best chance to win in November, and the dream ticket offers that.

Posted by: Khyber Jones | April 9, 2008 3:11 PM

-----------------------
Which is why this b!t@h is a horrible leader, as is Reid. I will support either Democrat this fall, but the first order of business come the new term is new leaders.
Check out who's running against Pelosi as an independant in SF this fall.

http://www.cindyforcongress.org/

Posted by: Patrick NYC | April 9, 2008 3:29 PM | Report abuse

blink-well once there is a clear nominee, then party will unify around him(or her). saying if my canidate doesnt win im voting for mccain or sitting out, is childish and stupid.

Posted by: jay spartan | April 9, 2008 3:27 PM | Report abuse

Khyber: Pelosi is, IMHO, among the Elite Dems that are Hell bent on destroying the Dem party solely for the "Envy/Jealous" and "Hatred" Factor of the Clintons. This "Idiot-Ology" has been around for a number of years, and was only broken somewhat by Bubba in his success in winning the POTUS despite them. I can only think of these folks as living in La La Land where nothing anywhere close to what they advocate will happen.

Posted by: lylepink | April 9, 2008 3:27 PM | Report abuse

Leichtman, I never claimed you were a McCain supporter, simply that a "strategery" of not voting probably helps McCain and pushes the policies/laws you believe in further from reality.

It is nice to see that you haven't given up all hope and still understand much time exists between now and November.

Posted by: JNoel002 | April 9, 2008 3:26 PM | Report abuse

Leichtman:

What do you think of Lampson's chances of retaining his seat now that Sekula Gibbs has been defeated by Olson?

Posted by: mnteng | April 9, 2008 3:23 PM | Report abuse

Lyle: You've said for months that Republicans think Obama is a weak candidate, but never offered a shred of proof for that "FACT".

By the way, did you know that Rush Limbaugh told his listeners to vote for Hillary? And Ann Coulter said that she'd support Hillary too. I guess that's evidence of how scared the Republicans are. They "FEAR" Hillary so much that they claim to support her over Obama. Complicated.

Also, if you think that only 1000 voters in Iowa voted for Obama, you're incredibly misinformed. Read a newspaper.

Posted by: Blarg | April 9, 2008 3:22 PM | Report abuse

"its better if the dems retake the white house in 2008 rather than 2012 or possibly 2016"

I agree that this would be better, I just don't see how it will happen now, since the Obama and Clinton camps are so very divided, and now, as you can see from even the conversations on this blog, how each camp is pretty much against the other one. We dems are our own worst enemies. The infighting will give this to McCain.

Posted by: Blink | April 9, 2008 3:20 PM | Report abuse

HOW TO CATAPULT THE PROPAGANDA:

en. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) asked about the violence in Basra. Petraeus blamed the 107mm rockets of the "special groups." Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) asked about the Mahdi Army. Petraeus mentioned the "special groups." Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.) asked about Iran. Crocker invoked the "special groups." Sens. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) and Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) also got the "special group" rate from the witnesses.

Petraeus, after a brief lunch break, went before the Foreign Relations Committee -- and did the whole thing again. "Unchecked, the special groups pose the greatest long-term threat to the viability of a democratic Iraq," Petraeus repeated, one of 17 mentions of the "special groups" in that hearing.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 9, 2008 3:18 PM | Report abuse

Glad to hear that Pelosi continues to throw sand on this disastrous folly. She does so, of course, because she lives in the reality-based world.

You, obviously, are not there yet.

Posted by: horizonr | April 9, 2008 3:17 PM | Report abuse

It's the new Fantasy Enemy -- they're 'special' you see. And it's all a LIE to pave the way for an attack on Iran:


The only difference was that the sequel had a different villain. This time, Iran got 105 mentions before the Armed Services Committee, compared with only 83 for al-Qaeda.

"Iran has fueled the violence," Petraeus said, "in a particularly damaging way through its lethal support to the special groups." The recent "flare-up," Petraeus said, "highlighted the destructive role Iran has played in funding, training, arming and directing the so-called special groups."

Crocker, too, said the "special groups" pose a major threat to the Iraqi government.

Of course, the new focus on the "special groups" also served to highlight the fact that the American presence in Iraq is creating new and special enemies. But McCain adopted the "special groups" phrase, too. "We must press ahead against . . . the Iranian-backed special groups," he said.

The senator asked Petraeus what could be done about attacks on the Green Zone in Baghdad. Petraeus answered that the "Iraqi security forces are going to have to come to grips with . . . the special groups."

Posted by: Anonymous | April 9, 2008 3:17 PM | Report abuse

How cares what Nancy Pelosi have to say!Beside, she needs to focuse on the work that she hasn't done in Congress.

Posted by: Maryam | April 9, 2008 3:15 PM | Report abuse

well i see zouk is now doing the same thing that the others are doing, trolling the thread.

grow up already. and the rickroll wasnt funny.

Posted by: jay spartan | April 9, 2008 3:14 PM | Report abuse

The rapid proliferation of enemies in Iraq, special and otherwise, evidently confused Sen. John McCain, the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee and that party's presumptive presidential nominee. Not for the first time in recent weeks, he confused Sunni Muslims with Shiite Muslims.

"Do you still view al-Qaeda in Iraq as a major threat?" he asked Petraeus.

Petraeus said the group was "not as major a threat as it was."

"Certainly not an obscure sect of the Shiites overall?" McCain persisted.

"No," Petraeus agreed.

Indeed, al-Qaeda is Sunni -- a fact McCain recalled an instant after the word "Shiites" escaped his lips. "Or Sunnis or anybody else," he quickly added.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 9, 2008 3:13 PM | Report abuse

Pelosi's comment is foolish and naive. Any serious look at the numbers clearly indicates that this race is dead even among those who have voted and patterns have emerged demonstrating that each reaches a key group of voters that the other does not. Obama has reach into upscale independents and Republicans. Hillary has reach into rural working class white voters and latinos. Put the two together and you have an unbeatable ticket. Deny the runner-up a spot on the ticket and there will be blowback against the nominee in the fall. It's common sense. This is the closest primary in modern American history and each candidate has made a compelling case to be President. A party leader like Pelosi should be working to give the party the best chance to win in November, and the dream ticket offers that.

Posted by: Khyber Jones | April 9, 2008 3:11 PM | Report abuse

Blarg: I think what most of you supporting Obama is/are missing is the FACT that the Repubs think/believe Obama is the weakest of all the Dems candidates from the beginning. This has been shown throughout the campaign by the numbers of Repubs in the X-Over States voting for him, and the change of Registration in states where X-Overs are not allowed to vote for him as well, I cannot see any way I was inaccurate in my assessment of the Repub strategy of stopping Hillary at any cost/price. Caucus states are another thing that should be considered, like Iowa, where somewhere like one thousand vote for Obama, and in no way can this be an ACCURATE representation of the vast majority of Iowa voters.

Posted by: lylepink | April 9, 2008 3:11 PM | Report abuse

Clintonite Lanny Davis expresses his discomfort with Obama's relationship with Rev. Wright in the Wall Street Journal: Some have suggested that any Clinton supporters who continue to raise this issue are ''playing the race card'' or taking the ''low'' road. (Snip) Could Joe Klein provide any better example of the liberal elitist mindset and how disconnected it is from the real world? Rev. Wright is on tape spewing some pretty vile anti-American stuff from the pulpit, yet Klein accuses Davis of being the one ''spreading the poison''

Posted by: clueless Libs | April 9, 2008 3:10 PM | Report abuse

"and if others were to read your posts constantly insulting those who disagree with you or Sen Obama, those numbers would swell exponentially"

Do you mean the majority of people that have already voted for Obama will swell exponentially, or the minority of bunker dwellers currently at work rearranging deck chairs? (sorry to mix my metaphors)

Exponentially ... hmmm, let's see ... number of people here who refuse to acknowledge that Hillary Clinton didn't want to seat delegates from FL and MI, don't think that caucus participants should count in popular vote totals, and don't think that Clinton's free-trade doubletalk is going to hurt in blue collar PA or IN ... that would be one ... let's raise that to the power of, oh let's be fair, ten million, and the answer is ... one? I don't see an exponential increase!

But then, math is not your strong suit. Do the math.

Posted by: bondjedi | April 9, 2008 3:10 PM | Report abuse

"You can't tell the enemy in Iraq anymore without a scorecard," writes the Washington Post's Dana Milbank of Gen. David Petraeus' and Ambassador Ryan Crocker's discussion yesterday of Iranian-backed "special groups" in Iraq. "Of course, the new focus on the 'special groups' also served to highlight the fact that the American presence in Iraq is creating new and special enemies."

Posted by: Anonymous | April 9, 2008 3:10 PM | Report abuse

From Gen. David Petraeus' opening remarks to the US Senate Armed Services Committee: ''Security in Iraq is better than it was when Ambassador Crocker and I reported to you last September, and it is significantly better than it was 15 months ago when Iraq was on the brink of civil war and the decision was made to deploy additional forces to Iraq.'' (Snip) Democratic Senators -- whose staffs had labored for weeks to develop the ''killer question'' which would embarrass Petraeus -- only served to expose the Senators to be the self-promoting, ill-prepared,

Posted by: trolling for votes | April 9, 2008 3:10 PM | Report abuse

Very strange, but perhaps Obama's candidacy really has transcended race in America (surely this is a first). Or, the campaign may just plan to stage-manage it out of public view.


Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 9, 2008 1:20 PM
--------------------
Staged rallies, sounds like something out of W & Rove's playbook.

Posted by: Patrick NYC | April 9, 2008 3:09 PM | Report abuse

Unlike last September, when General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker first reported to Congress about the progress of the surge strategy in Iraq, Tuesday's testimony to the Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations Committees was decidedly low key. Which is not to say that it was not a media circus; only that the continued success of the surge has had a chilling effect on the antiwar movement.

Posted by: hurry up and lose before we win | April 9, 2008 3:09 PM | Report abuse

IRAN -- THE BIG BAD BOOGYMAN.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 9, 2008 3:08 PM | Report abuse


Writing on CNN's Political Ticker blog, Situation Room host Wolf Blitzer says that while U.S. lawmakers are publicly asking when Iraqi's can "pick up the tab" for Iraq, privately, "several of them" wonder if "U.S. taxpayers" are being played like "suckers":

At a time of economic distress in the United States, including fears of recession, home foreclosures, job losses, infrastructure strains, and health care worries, U.S. lawmakers publicly are asking why the Iraqis themselves can't pick up the tab for their own reconstruction. Privately, several of them are going one step further -- asking whether the Iraqis actually are playing the U.S. taxpayers for suckers.

The AP reports today that "Democrats plan to push legislation this spring that would force the Iraqi government to spend its own surplus in oil revenues to rebuild the country, sparing U.S. dollars." Levin says the legislation may be "part of this year's war spending bill or the 2009 defense authorization bill."

UPDATEThe Crypt reports on today's hearing:
A line Gen. Petraeus just dropped plays right into an argument that anti-war groups and members of Congress have been making, namely that the U.S. presence in Iraq retards the country's progress. "We are keenly aware that there are going to be cases where [Iraqis] say, 'Why should we do it for ourselves if they're going to do it for us?" the general said.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 9, 2008 3:07 PM | Report abuse

Will Nancy Pelosi just STFU???

Posted by: Anonymous | April 9, 2008 3:07 PM | Report abuse

During the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing yesterday featuring Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle complained, according to CNN, that "U.S. taxpayers are carrying a staggering burden right now as Iraq actually rakes in massive amounts of oil revenues, billions and billions of dollars."

"To add insult to injury, in addition to spending $10 billions of U.S. dollars on reconstruction, American taxpayers are also paying three to four dollars a gallon on gas here at home," said Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin (D-MI). "Isn't time for the Iraqis to start bearing more of those expenses, particularly in light of the windfall in revenue due to the high price in oil?" asked Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME).

According to Levin, "Iraq has about $30 billion in surplus funds stored in U.S. banks," and CNN reports that Iraq's oil revenue is "estimated to reach $100 billion dollars by the end of this year."

Posted by: Anonymous | April 9, 2008 3:06 PM | Report abuse

On Tuesday morning, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared that Iran was busily installing 6,000 new centrifuges for development of nuclear material. Further, Ahmadinejad stated, Iran would begin testing a new type of centrifuge that works five times faster than ordinary centrifuges. (Snip) Never mind the unbelievable arrogance of a foreign policy boob like Barack Obama, lecturing the two most knowledgeable on-the-ground figures in Iraq on the best military strategy for Iraq.

Posted by: a boob with nuts | April 9, 2008 3:06 PM | Report abuse

If McCain wins this election, then it will only be for 1 term, and then the losing democrat from 2008 will have a better chance of winning in 2012.

blink, in that time, McCain would have the chance to install more supreme court judges with in that time, also a attack on iran, and the power of the incumbant is very powerful.how many incumbants in the last 30 years have been defeated? 2, Carter in 1980 and George HW bush in 92. its a risk no one cant take.

its better if the dems retake the white house in 2008 rather than 2012 or possibly 2016.

Posted by: jay spartan | April 9, 2008 3:04 PM | Report abuse

bonjedi no I don't speak for all 13 million HC supporters but being integrally involved in the Houston and my precict's HC caucus and campaign I can assure you that I am not alone, and if others were to read your posts constantly insulting those who disagree with you or Sen Obama, those numbers would swell exponentially and it would more likely be a McGovern type election then Mondale type election. We have begged you to tone it down and your insults only get louder.
spectator2 made a very valid point that you will not even open your eyes to.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 9, 2008 3:03 PM | Report abuse


Media Ignore Bipartisan Criticism Of Iraq Policies, Claim 'A Parade Of Democrats' 'Pounced' On Petraeus»

A number of media outlets characterized yesterday's Senate hearings on the situation in Iraq and the future of U.S. policy there as a confrontation between Democrats and Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker.

The headline to the Los Angeles Times's article on the hearings read "Petraeus, Democrats square off," despite the fact that the actual report noted that "Republcans questioned Petraeus' strategy with equal vigor." But others all but ignored Republican criticism of President Bush's Iraq policy and statements from Petraeus and Crocker altogether.

However, statements from a number of Republican senators during yesterday's hearings undermine these characterizations. For example:

- Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH): "The American people have had it up to here" with the war. The U.S. should tell its allies in the Middle East: "Hey guys, we're on our way out."

- Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE): "What are we doing? I don't see Secretary Rice doing any Kissinger-esque flying around. Where is the diplomatic surge?"

- Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN): "Simply appealing for more time to make progress is insufficient."

- Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN): "I'm looking for an articulation as to how we get to the end" [...] "We're at a point in the conflict where an articulation of the endgame needs to be made."

- Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME):"We're continuing to pay for the training and equipping of Iraqi forces. I'm told that we're even continuing to pay for fuel within Iraq. Isn't it time for the Iraqis to start bearing more of those expenses?"

- Sen. John Warner (R-VA): "Is all this sacrifice bringing about a more secure America?"

At some point, the media will realize the American public, Democrats, AND Republicans have all turned sour on the war in Iraq

Posted by: Anonymous | April 9, 2008 3:03 PM | Report abuse

"his worthless healthcare proposal unless maybe you are 25 years old, his 100 year occupation plan, deplorable lack of economic knowldge "

Hear hear. vote for me and I promise to (or maybe al least vote present) raise taxes in a down economy to stimulate growth and demonstrate my massive skill at controlling the economy. I will also offer free health care to everyone and get the rich to pay for it, by the rich I mean the clintons who have slandered and libeled me. i will win the war by immediately retreating and surrendering the field to our enemies. and finally, I promise to get the Democrat congress to pass at least one law during my term, contrary to their history of doing nothing for years on end.

Posted by: Obama | April 9, 2008 3:01 PM | Report abuse

Jay --I agree, but it would have to be someone other than Richardson, who is pretty much damaged goods now.

I have to laugh when people say that they are picking Clinton or Obama, or the other way around, based on policy. That's hogwash. Their policies are very similar. This is a personality contest, which is why some people are threatening to stay at home or vote for McCain. Too bad for the Democrats, but this is where we are -- unless the two candidates can figure out a way to kiss and make up. Highly unlikely though. Looking at their selfish interests, they are both better off staying in the Senate and waiting for years if the other person wins the nomination. If McCain wins this election, then it will only be for 1 term, and then the losing democrat from 2008 will have a better chance of winning in 2012. The democratic party may have to wait another 4 years to get its change, it seems.

Posted by: Blink | April 9, 2008 2:58 PM | Report abuse

I see Clinton's hate mongers are working overtime today.

Posted by: Maryam | April 9, 2008 2:57 PM | Report abuse

thank goodness spectator 2 gets it.

jnoel I fully understand what is it at stake in this election and that is why I will not make any iron clad statements about Nov there is till not a nominee and 210 days before the election.

I will look at how the dnc and Sen Obama finally deals with fla and michigan. I will aso see how the VP selection goes, if its someone like Biden and not Richardson that will effect my decision. I was upset to hear Sen. Obama's statements to his San Francisco fund raisers yesterday if someone like to comment on that unreported story. It is that touch of arrogance and what I sense stubborness, and lack of experience that reminds of someone else and makes me uncomfortable. But I am equally sickened by McCain's being joined at the hip to Lieberman and W, his worthless healthcare proposal unless maybe you are 25 years old, his 100 year occupation plan, deplorable lack of economic knowldge and the frightful thought of his replacing aging Justice Stevens. Does that sound like I am a McCain supporter if so you must be smoking someting but at least spectator2 fully undertstands our dilemna IF Sen Obama is the nominee.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 9, 2008 2:54 PM | Report abuse

"Forget the math. The point is that if Obama is the nominee (which I assume will be the case), you need Leichman's millions or Obama will make Fritz Mondale look good."

"Forget the math" is probably the best distillation yet of leichtman's argument. Bravo.

And while I concede that Obama will need whatever voters he can get come November, you proceed from the false assumption that leichtman (of all people) is speaking for 13 million voters, as dopey a notion as the current Clinton lie her campaign is having a hard time getting people to swallow: that Obama can not win the "big" states in the fall because no one who voted for Clinton in Ohio or Texas (whoops, Obama won that big state) will be voting for Obama in November. This bold assertion is made without a shred of logic or evidence, other than lie-chtman saying he speaks for millions of people he has never met.

We have already seen, just on this topic, that lie-chtman does not know the difference between a flame and spam, or the difference between libel and slander. Believe who you will, though. It is a free country.

Posted by: bondjedi | April 9, 2008 2:53 PM | Report abuse

I have decided not to take Federal funds for my election ,despite saying so earlier. I am also not going to pull out of NAFTA as I proclaimed. the war in Iraq, which I don't support but voted for, on second thought, I won't pull out or maybe I will. ask me again after I'm elected. I am young and still deciding on things.

One thing I know I want is all that clinton money. I don't want to have to wait until I'm 60 though.

Posted by: Obama | April 9, 2008 2:53 PM | Report abuse

OMG!!


Yes Obama "preaches" a good speech, so they say, it's never worked for me. When he speaks he sounds very ordinary to (most) of us.

The media/pundits/Obamaphiles are not (most) of us, not even in the Democratic Party. It's just Latte Liberals, and of course AA's.

They have the false perception that the rest of the country goes along with and "loves" their left winged radical nominee, but it's as false as his "Brilliant Fraud" speech was about race.

But the Brillinat Fraud is not just about that speech, the brilliant fraud is Obama himself....

He's just a slippery Chameleon Lizard, who never says anything of substance, "We" know out here Obamaphiles, sorry, we are not in "Love" and we all know love is blind.

"We" know that he is always slipping and sliding never makes a stand for anything, and then denies the few stands that he makes, saying that even though he did it, it's not what he really meant to do.

Like his 84 out of 85 votes for the war, just *exactly* like Hillary Clinton. THEY HAD ONE VOTE DIFFERENCE OUT OF EIGHTY FIVE VOTES....

Obama is such a fraud, and he is suppressing/oppressing, outright crushing the votes of Michigan and Florida, cheating the voters there. The voters had nothing to do with the "rules" of screaming Dean. Their votes don't count because Obama don't want them to count.... Such a fake slippery Chameleon fraud.

The Democrats have a Brilliant History of electing the fartherest most left winged Nominee, they can find, and then watch in horror as "their baby" loses in the General Election.

"The People" are way out in front of the media/pundits, and the far left leaning Democrtic Elites, on this.... They are not going to elect a race baiting, affirmative action President, who closes his eyes and sits as if in an erotic trance in the Pews of a church, where his "Mentor" talks about what a terrible country this is, how bad whites are, and middle classicism, and white rich people are....

Rev Wright just bought a one and half million dollar retirement home, for his lying hippocrit self. That ain't middle class baby, these people make me want to regurgitate, but the Latte's love this kind of hypocrisy....

Remindes me so much of Obama, after all he is his "mentor" and his wifes hateful attitude toward America,while she lives in her mansion. Seems so appropriate doesn't it....

I have tremendous respect for John McCain, I know he is wealthy, but he don't lie and it and fill his pockets all the while spreading hate and paranoid lies, about America.

I'm looking forward to the Republicans vetting this guy and his mean hateful mouthed wife. With her 300,000.00 plus dollar a year job as a "community relations officer," for the University of Chicago, in good old South Side Chicago.

Yes it needs to be done, looking forward to the Republicans, shining a light on these slippery, Chameleon, reptile lizard politicans.

John McCain is an American hero.... Not some lizard that crawled out of the South Side.

Posted by: Anti Reaganess | April 9, 2008 2:52 PM | Report abuse

blink- point given about you not being a clintonista, but if you really give carville that much creedence then you probably dont need to listen to him anyhoo.

my reasoning is this. obama would have to win the states kerry won in 04 but he would need to knock off 2 or 3 purple states. New Mexico,Colorado,Arizona,or Nevada. so it would make sense to have someone that would put them in play. to be fair i would recommend the gov of AZ(napitino sp?)

Posted by: jay spartan | April 9, 2008 2:49 PM | Report abuse

No way i will vote for Obama .If Hillary doesn't win then McCain gets my vote.I don't even want Obama as a vice president.
His doing drugs in 1999 and gay affairs ..not to mention Wright makes him not fit to be a president .

Posted by: keith | April 9, 2008 2:49 PM | Report abuse

I have decided to not vote for Pres. if its Obama v McCain
Posted by: Leichtman | April 9, 2008 2:20 PM

Isn't a non-vote in fact supporting McCain? Because wouldn't he (and the GOP) love for Democrats to stay home in November?

I still don't understand your position...Obama and Clinton are very close to one another in policy. You have said policy is what matters to you. You are voting (or not voting) on issues. How can you justify a non-vote as it would help to bring about President McCain? Someone whose policies are not what you believe to be in the best interests of the country.

Posted by: JNoel002 | April 9, 2008 2:44 PM | Report abuse

It is very unlikely that Hillary will win the nomination at this point. I think Obama will be better off choosing a VP other than Clinton. My early vote goes for Jim Webb as VP.

Posted by: ErinK | April 9, 2008 2:42 PM | Report abuse

"the clintonistas are getting more delusional by the day."

I'm no Clintonista, but I am hispanic, and I know what a powerful thing it is to label someone as Judas. Carville knew exactly what he was doing. Maybe it will not affect the Southwest, but it certainly does affect hispanics.

Posted by: blink | April 9, 2008 2:41 PM | Report abuse

I don't post here too often, can someone tell me what the deal is with this guy kingofzouk? He appears unhinged, ranting about alleged posters who aren't even here.

Posted by: Sen. Larry "Wide Stance" Craig, R-Uranus | April 9, 2008 2:40 PM | Report abuse

the real truth about obambi

http://youtube.com/watch?v=eBGIQ7ZuuiU

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 9, 2008 2:39 PM | Report abuse

bondjedi: "I can think of a number that trumps your millions by 700,000. Do the math."

Forget the math. The point is that if Obama is the nominee (which I assume will be the case), you need Leichman's millions or Obama will make Fritz Mondale look good.

Posted by: Spectator2 | April 9, 2008 2:38 PM | Report abuse

10 things you should know about John McCain (but probably don't):

1. John McCain voted against establishing a national holiday in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Now he says his position has "evolved," yet he's continued to oppose key civil rights laws.1

2. According to Bloomberg News, McCain is more hawkish than Bush on Iraq, Russia and China. Conservative columnist Pat Buchanan says McCain "will make Cheney look like Gandhi."2

3. His reputation is built on his opposition to torture, but McCain voted against a bill to ban waterboarding, and then applauded President Bush for vetoing that ban.3

4. McCain opposes a woman's right to choose. He said, "I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned."4

5. The Children's Defense Fund rated McCain as the worst senator in Congress for children. He voted against the children's health care bill last year, then defended Bush's veto of the bill.5

6. He's one of the richest people in a Senate filled with millionaires. The Associated Press reports he and his wife own at least eight homes! Yet McCain says the solution to the housing crisis is for people facing foreclosure to get a "second job" and skip their vacations.6

7. Many of McCain's fellow Republican senators say he's too reckless to be commander in chief. One Republican senator said: "The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine. He's erratic. He's hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me."7

8. McCain talks a lot about taking on special interests, but his campaign manager and top advisers are actually lobbyists. The government watchdog group Public Citizen says McCain has 59 lobbyists raising money for his campaign, more than any of the other presidential candidates.8

9. McCain has sought closer ties to the extreme religious right in recent years. The pastor McCain calls his "spiritual guide," Rod Parsley, believes America's founding mission is to destroy Islam, which he calls a "false religion." McCain sought the political support of right-wing preacher John Hagee, who believes Hurricane Katrina was God's punishment for gay rights and called the Catholic Church "the Antichrist" and a "false cult."9

10. He positions himself as pro-environment, but he scored a 0--yes, zero--from the League of Conservation Voters last year.10

Posted by: Anonymous | April 9, 2008 2:35 PM | Report abuse

I agree with Pelosi. Obama/Clinton will never happen.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 9, 2008 2:35 PM | Report abuse

the last few comments were made by LOUD and DUMB, the libs in here are full of hate. i weep for posters like usmc_mike and proud, who are full of pride and always factual in their posts are constantly drowned out by the hate and bile of the left.

im going my other website, and i invite all who are not moonbats to come join me.

www.tmz.com

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 9, 2008 2:31 PM | Report abuse

I listen to Republican radio stations most of the time (just to hear their point of views). As a matter of fact they want Obama as the candidate because they know that they can beat him easily in general election. Even though they say they want Clinton! This is their plan. If you do not agree, just listen to them or at least remember me in fall.

Posted by: Maryam | April 9, 2008 2:30 PM | Report abuse

I see dingbat drindl is back for her usual hate filled screeds and Ignorant coward antics.

you don't need to sign your name old hag. We all know your antics.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 9, 2008 2:29 PM | Report abuse

I think we would all be better off if Nancy Pelosi stopped talking about this and focused on the work that she hasn't done in Congress.

Nancy Pelosi should have long ago endorsed Clinton if she was going to do anything at all. Clinton won her State by 10% and Nancy Pelosi above all should know what it would mean to have a woman in the White House. But then if there was a woman in the White House there would be a little less focus on Nancy Pelosi- and that would hurt who?

I think that people like Pelosi if they want to stay neutral should be pushing to let the people vote and then remain quiet. She has said so many things at this point that most people don't know where she stands and that isn't good for her even in her own caucus.

Whether I agree with her or not is mute. I happen to. I don't believe that Clinton would go on a ticket with Obama as she would rather be in line to be Majarity Leader and as to Obama, he has such a huge ego I am not sure he would ever take the VP slot. In addition it is true that what they would each need on the ticket is someone who could help them win a state they need. Clinton could take Strickland and along with her abiltity to win Arkansas most likely sew up the electoral votes she needs. I haven't figured out yet who can do that for Obama. He could take Rendell and maybe get PA but that is just a keeper from last time and still leaves him missing electoral votes.

Posted by: peterdc | April 9, 2008 2:28 PM | Report abuse

I have this lump in my pants and I don't know what to do with it.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 9, 2008 2:27 PM | Report abuse

Every single argument that the Administration and their lapdogs like John McCain have made or are making break down after that answer. The Ambassdor to Iraq just admitted that Iraq is not the central front in the war on terror. He just admitted that the potential for Al Qaeda to gain a beachhead in Iraq should the United States withdraw is miniscule compared to the already-established beachhead along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. He admitted that the global fight against terror is currently misdirected.

Whether the military is lowering casualties in Iraq or not, or whether political reconciliation is occurring or not, or whether Prime Minister Maliki won in Basra or Muqtada al-Sadr did, none of this is germane given the new information we just received here. We invaded Iraq to attack a group that did not attack us on 9-11, and we are continuing in Iraq and continuing to ignore the group that did attack us. So our policy is being held captive to developments inside Iraq while the terrorist threat that was supposed to be the impetus for this war and occupation in the first place goes on literally unabated.

(Biden's other great achievement was his strong statement that Congressional PERMISSION is needed to make any long-term commitment to Iraq. There were actually cheers in the hearing room after that one.)

You can actually end this hearing right now. We have all the information we need. Joe Biden made the entire Administration policy for 6 years look foolish.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 9, 2008 2:26 PM | Report abuse


That was a very significant moment at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings with Amb. Ryan Crocker and Gen. David Petraeus. Joe Biden asked Amb. Crocker where it would be better for American national security interests to eliminate Al Qaeda in Iraq or Al Qaeda along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. Crocker had nowhere to hide with that question.

Crocker, in an impossible political position -- give the correct answer and humiliate the Bush administration; give the administration's answer and look like a fool -- dodged as much as he could. Then Biden forced him down. Crocker: "I would therefore pick Al Qaeda on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border."

Posted by: Anonymous | April 9, 2008 2:25 PM | Report abuse

The hispanics are certainly not going to vote for a hispanic Judas. As mean as Carville is (and he is mean), he is also brilliant. By branding Richardson as Judas, he has effectively erased any appeal that Richardson may have had to the hispanic population, which is mostly Christian. This was a very shrewd move.

Posted by: blink | April 9, 2008 2:20 PM

sure, i mean the entire southwest is not going to vote for richarson, because some gringo on cable tv called him a judas.

the clintonistas are getting more delusional by the day.

Posted by: jay spartan | April 9, 2008 2:25 PM | Report abuse

The only reason as others are also pointing
out that fruitcake Democrat Liberal Loser
Madame Speaker Nancy Pelosi is running her
big mouth now,is that Nancy Pelosi has made
a deal with that other Democrat loser lying
cocaine user fraud Barack Hussein Obama to
be Obama's Vice President.

Posted by: Ralphinphnx | April 9, 2008 2:24 PM | Report abuse

I see that the Obama supporters are being their usual obnoxious selves. As a Hillary supporter, I think that she can do a lot better than Obama. The republicans are going to crucify him in the fall. Because the media has not done its job, the true vetting will not happen until the fall. Hillary is a tough experienced candidate. As people step away from the Kool-Aid, they will make a more practical decision. A lot of moderate to conservative democrats and independents will either vote for McCain or stay at home. It's not about race. Its about EXPERIENCE.

Posted by: Cassandra | April 9, 2008 2:24 PM | Report abuse

Could *any* ticket that includes Clinton (Hillary officially but also palpably Bill) possibly be a dream rather than a nightmare, or at least a rude awakening -- notably for the non-Clinton component?

Posted by: FirstMouse | April 9, 2008 2:23 PM | Report abuse

CC - the sheer stupidity of the posters called Ignorant cowards have returned to your blog.

they usually go by the names of drindl and LOUD and DUMB. they have so little to add of significance, they instead prefer to post under others names. this brings the quality of this blog down to almost zero.

Can't you morons go back over to Huff and Kos and post your hate there. I am sure there are some sick or dead Republicans you can smear with your bile.

don't you get it that we have only pity for your complete lack of any purpose or contribution to society? and we laugh at your imbecility. but being the fools you are, you think you are funny. Really just childish dummys.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 9, 2008 2:23 PM | Report abuse


The NYT fronts a look at how the Justice Department no longer seems to be that interested in prosecuting companies that are accused of wrongdoing. O

Posted by: Anonymous | April 9, 2008 2:21 PM | Report abuse

badgering gets you nothing. I posted that I have decided to not vote for Pres. if its Obama v McCain and otherwise vote for all local Dems. have said that for 2 weeks but again you post nonsense somehow thinking we can all be badgered by insults to support Sen Obama, good try. You turn that into that I am voting for McCain. Day is night, night is day, whatever is posted gets rewritten with more childish insults.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 9, 2008 2:20 PM | Report abuse

The hispanics are certainly not going to vote for a hispanic Judas. As mean as Carville is (and he is mean), he is also brilliant. By branding Richardson as Judas, he has effectively erased any appeal that Richardson may have had to the hispanic population, which is mostly Christian. This was a very shrewd move.

Posted by: blink | April 9, 2008 2:20 PM | Report abuse

"Most Americans have no clue that in their country since Roe v. Wade, countless babies have survived abortion attempts. An unknown number have been left to die alone on tables, in trash cans, in dark rooms -- no medical care offered."

You hysterical wingers will stoop to any lies, and ridiculous fairy tales to impose your religious beleifs on this country. Just stop the bullsh*t--nobody beleives this crap.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 9, 2008 2:17 PM | Report abuse

Leichtman, I know there are "some" policy differences between Obama and Clinton. But the policy differences between Obama/Clinton and McCain are more stark. And you seem to be very interested in particular policies that are important to you and your family (healthcare is one I seem to remember).
Why would you not vote(or vote for McCain) instead of voting for Obama?

Doesn't that mean you are sacrificing what you believe to be good for you and your family simply to thumb your nose at a candidate (or perhaps their supporters)?

Posted by: JNoel002 | April 9, 2008 2:15 PM | Report abuse

CC-two things, 1)FIX the registration already!!!!!

2) An Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama ticket is about as likely as pigs flying right now. both are from safe blue senate seats, and plus whats the appeal of having two senators on the same ticket.

seriously, if i was obama the one name i would be thinking of right now is Bill Richardson of New Mexico. if anything he needs to shore up the hispanic vote and solidify his forgien experience cred.

Posted by: jay spartan | April 9, 2008 2:15 PM | Report abuse

The Iranian unit known as the Quds Force brokered the cease-fire that ended open warfare between Shiite factions last month in Basra, because Maliki went to Iran and begged them to ask al-Sadr for a ceasefire. Sadr complied because all Shia in Iraq consider the Iranian cleric al-Sistani their spiritual leader, whom they will always obey above the secular Iraqi government.

Last month, Maliki had a huge lavish reception for Abenijihad, and much talk about all the ways Iraq will be investing their oil money in Iran, while Iran helps build the Iraqi infracstructure. In the meantime US taxpayer will continue to billions of dollars a month in Iraq for 'reconstruction' that never happens and spilling buckets of blood for nothing.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 9, 2008 2:15 PM | Report abuse

"So to say that you will vote for McCain because Clinton did not win means that your concerns are not policy based."

This is true. The Clinton/Obama conflict is not policy based, since they both have pretty much the same policy. For some reason, this has turned into a personality issue. Some people like Clinton and hate Obama, and visa versa. In fact, it has gotten so passionate that people are getting very bitter about it, and there is a good chance that come November, many of the supporters of the losing candidate will either not go to the polls at all, or vote for McCain instead. It's called revenge voting, and right, it's not policy based. The one way to avoid this might be to put both Clinton and McCain on the ticket, regardless of who is on top or bottom. Otherwise, McCain might win.

Posted by: sue | April 9, 2008 2:15 PM | Report abuse

obviously the person making this absurd post has not bothered to read anything that I have said today.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 9, 2008 1:55 PM

I have read what you said today and yesterday and the day before. It changes like your candidate's daily spin. "MI and Fl are being ignored...the caucus process is wrong"... ect ect ect. All you do is spout the daily taking points that come out of the Clinton Campaign. Accept the facts. Hillary Clinton is not going to be President.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 9, 2008 2:13 PM | Report abuse

I see that LOUD and DUMB continues to post under other names to amuse itself.

What an utter waste of a life.

seriously, how old are you. don't you have some algebra homework due?

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 9, 2008 2:13 PM | Report abuse

JD, a Richardson selection would be viewed as highly offensive to 13 million HC supporters and that is why I totally agree that that would be the likely selection.
Incidentally his (Richardson) campaign emailed me a few minutes ago(as a FORMER supporeter) and asked for a contribution to pay off his fundraising deficit. I certainly enjoyed responding.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 9, 2008 2:13 PM | Report abuse

The Obama supporters fail to understand that, he is not going to win the general election! Simple is that! His thin resume, the story of uncle of his "Wright", and his relationship with Ayers will do it.

Posted by: Maryam | April 9, 2008 2:12 PM | Report abuse

Is LOUD and DUMB gone? Is it safe to post under my own name?

"Very strange, but perhaps Obama's candidacy really has transcended race in America (surely this is a first). Or, the campaign may just plan to stage-manage it out of public view.


Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 9, 2008 1:20 PM

I heard today about an Obama delegate who has been removed for calling the neighbor kids "monkeys". this is now racist too.

I hope my own kids don't read this and also get offended, I have called them monkeys for years.

BTW, what skin color are monkeys? and while we're at it, I will need to know what skin color gets offended by calling someone a dog or a lizard.

Obama has done quite the opposite of transcending race, he has utilized all the affirmitive action aspects of it, As Ferraro stated, without any of the negative sharpton/Jackson baggage.

Quite brilliant actually, but short-lived I suspect. It will be the extreme liberal views and votes and 'america last' attitude that will due him in. no one cares what color he is. except the Libs of course. Is assuages their guilt over income, envy, success, happiness, obesity, education, etc.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 9, 2008 2:11 PM | Report abuse


"Crocker, the top U.S. diplomat in Iraq, gave the most detailed analysis of Iranian goals in Iraq delivered by a senior U.S. official.

He said that Tehran had links to nearly every Iraqi Shiite faction."

Which means that the US will have to stay in Iraq permanently to protect the Shi'ites from -- themselves.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 9, 2008 2:11 PM | Report abuse

"the math is 10 states have not yet voted and 2 state's who's popular votes have not been counted. I am sure you can scream some kind of response to that."

I think you know the answer, but since you insist, maybe by screaming it at you for the seventieth time it will sink in:

UNLESS ONE BELIEVES THAT IT IS A REASONABLE GUESS THAT HILLARY WILL GRAB TWO-THIRDS OF THE DELEGATES OVER THE REMAINING PRIMARIES, SHE CAN NOT OVERTAKE OBAMA PLEDGED DELEGATES, NOR CAN SHE REASONABLY EXPECTED TO SURPASS THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE IN RAW VOTES! HILLARY CLINTON WOULD HAVE AN OUTSIDE CHANCE AT ACCOMPLISHING BOTH IF SHE AND HER CAMPAIGN HAD NOT TAKEN EVERY STEP LAST YEAR TO ENSURE THAT THE FL AND MI DELEGATIONS WOULD NOT BE SEATED!

Now, you can pick and choose whatever pieces of the alternate reality narratives the Clinton crew has proffered, but to those of us living on planet Earth in 2008, it is pretty much a sure thing that Clinton's slim, slim, slim, slim, SLIM hopes of getting on the Dem ticket lies in chicanery and obfuscating the real issues. Two weeks ago she was busted lying about her campaign experience, this week she has been caught talking out of both sides of her mouth on free trade, the list goes on and on.

There - you have been told.

Posted by: bondjedi | April 9, 2008 2:10 PM | Report abuse

"Similarly, Obama would have to take leave of his senses to think that having Hillary Clinton on the ticket as his VP would be beneficial in the slightest."

A lot of Clinton's supporters will not vote for Obama, so having Clinton on the ticket, even as VP, might be the only way Obama can actually win in November. Clinton will probably not take it, though. If Obama gets the nomination, he will lose in November, McCain will be a one term president, and Clinton can run again in 2012.

Posted by: blink | April 9, 2008 2:09 PM | Report abuse

"Sen. Barack Obama is so extreme on abortion that he has managed to achieve what I once thought impossible: He is to the left of Hillary Clinton on abortion.

How extreme is Obama? His short U.S. Senate record is as Planned Parenthood-perfect as Senator Clinton's and other abortion extremists'. Yet there is one area where he surpasses even the zealots: In the Illinois senate, Obama led the charge against legislation that would have ensured medical care to babies who survived abortions. Let me explain.


Most Americans have no clue that in their country since Roe v. Wade, countless babies have survived abortion attempts. An unknown number have been left to die alone on tables, in trash cans, in dark rooms -- no medical care offered.

Alas, mercifully, the U.S. Congress finally came along in 2002 and unanimously (both houses) passed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. The legislation mandates that born-alive infants be given the full protection of federal laws.

Who could possibly oppose something like this? The answer is Barack Obama, who in Illinois sought to prevent the adoption of similar statewide legislation.

In 2002 and 2003, he voted against such legislation twice, and then blocked the bill as chair of the Health and Human Services Committee. He denounced the bill on the floor of the state senate.

Keep in mind that this is a man who supports government intervention for everything under the sun, particularly in health care -- with the exception of unborn babies, or in this case, born babies.

When it comes to abortion, Barack Obama is to the left of not just Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer, and Ted Kennedy, but even NARAL. Yes, not even NARAL opposed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act."


http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDFlYzk5Y2E3YTBlMjlhZGQ1ZDZkNWM5MjU2ODQxOTk=&w=MQ==

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 9, 2008 2:09 PM | Report abuse

Obama, on the other hand, argued that both Petraeus and Crocker were setting the bar for success too high, making it nearly impossible to ever achieve goals or withdraw troops.

During the afternoon hearing before the Foreign Relations Committee, the Illinois senator argued for consideration of more limited goals: an Iraqi government that could contain if not eradicate Sunni Arab radicals and could hold its own against Iranian influences, if not expel them.

"When you have finite resources, you've got to define your goal tightly and modestly," Obama said.

Several Republicans questioned Petraeus' strategy with equal vigor. They included GOP critics who had made their objections known in the past, such as Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska.

But they were joined Tuesday by Sen. Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, a respected Republican on foreign policy issues, who questioned whether the Bush administration strategy seeks realistic outcomes and suggested the White House needed to reconsider its policy.

"Simply appealing for more time to make progress is insufficient," Lugar said.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 9, 2008 2:07 PM | Report abuse

attention libs, and moonbats. for years i have fought the good fight against your hateful socialist ideals. but now i have finally found a website that fits my agenda and now proud to claim as my new home.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com

i will continue to post here and rail against the hateful drindl and simple simon until finally a true consevative wins the white house.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 9, 2008 2:05 PM | Report abuse

Absolute Truths:

- Obama will never be the 'VVP' (Bill being VP) to HRC. She would probably offer, but Obama is better served going back to Illinois to be Governor (a shoo-in) to build for a run in 2012, after McCain crushes HRC

- I don't think it's as impossible as some do for HRC to stea.., er, garner the nomination. That's the reason you have super delegates: to exercise their judgement and lead the party. If it's just to ratify the popular vote, then they're very superfluous and silly

- Obama's running mate will be Richardson.

Posted by: JD | April 9, 2008 2:05 PM | Report abuse

Mom,

Could you bring me another PBJ and some Mountain Dew?

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 9, 2008 2:05 PM | Report abuse

The whole point of an Obama Presidency is to NOT have four to eight years of drama, dysfunction, crisis and bitter partisan politics. Clinton as a VP is not a dream ticket. Unlike LBJ, she does not reassure the solid south, she does not bring Texas, and she does not magically bring blue-collar white votes. Edwards didn't do it for Kerry, Clinton can't do it for Obama.

A Clinton-Obama ticket obviously misses the point.

Posted by: muD | April 9, 2008 2:03 PM | Report abuse

Apparently Leichtman believes that anything done in support of electing Hillary is okay. She must be elected by any means necessary. Truth, justice, morality, etc. can be thrown out the window; any campaign tactic which leads to the election of Hillary Clinton is defensible, and even admirable. The ends justify the means.

Somehow that attitude isn't winning Hillary the election. I can't imagine why.

Posted by: Blarg | April 9, 2008 2:01 PM | Report abuse

the math is 10 states have not yet voted and 2 state's who's popular votes have not been counted. I am sure you can scream some kind of response to that.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 9, 2008 2:00 PM | Report abuse

"So to say that you will vote for McCain because Clinton did not win means that your concerns are not policy based."

obviously the person making this absurd post has not bothered to read anything that I have said today.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 9, 2008 1:55 PM | Report abuse

Can she just be quite and let the rest of people vote? Oh, I forgot! She can't! She is in Obama's short list for VP and that is why she disagrees with Obama-Clinton or Clinton-Obama ticket.

Posted by: Maryam | April 9, 2008 1:55 PM | Report abuse

"It is precisely that attitude sir that has so turned me away from the Obama campaign, and I am sure millions share that sentiment"

I can think of a number that trumps your millions by 700,000. Do the math.

Posted by: bondjedi | April 9, 2008 1:53 PM | Report abuse

bsimon I am only testy b/c of your comment suggesting that 13 million HC should have zero input in the VP selection basically just suck it up,"don't ask any questions"(your words not mine) and get in line.
I doubt I need to take a back seat to you in work for the Dem Party, having traveled to Denver, Shaker Hts and Richmond to work in the JK/Salazar campaign, with the Ted Strickland and Sherrod Brown campaign managers and helping to organize the virtual call bank for Jim Webb which turned out to change the US Senate.I take pride in the work that I have done for Dems and yes I am testy when Obama supporters question that. Its basically our way or the highway or you are just disloyal. I don't question your loyalty to the Democratic Party by supporting Sen Obama or for its precepts but how dare you challenge mine and label me as an independent or as some have even called me a Repub. Never voted for a Repub in 32 years and never will. However there are races which I truly don't agree with the Dem candidate locally or nationally and have chosen not to vote for them. Locally there has been some jerk who runs each time as a Dem with the name of the reveared Ralph Yarborough, mark knows about him, and someone with a felony criminal conviction(not the equivalent) to the state Supreme Ct, by your standards as a loyal Dem I MUST vote for any Dem regardless of whether I agree with their policies or feel they are qualified to serve. Sorry I don't vote that way and all of the badgering and insults (not by you) won't change that but comments like 'don't ask any questiong' is not only insulting but highly condescending to all those who come here and don't agree with your candidate.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 9, 2008 1:52 PM | Report abuse

A couple of things to remember:

1) The reason why there are so many superdelegates outstanding is that they are waiting for a compromise between the two campaigns.

2) That compromise won't happen until all primaries are completed, or if Clinton takes a loss in PA, a loss that would effectively destroy all of the arguments in favor of her as the nominee.

3) If and when Obama becomes the nominee, his running mate will be a choice that will bring the Clinton supporters into the fold. It will be part of the compromise between Clinton and Obama.

Posted by: JamesCH | April 9, 2008 1:48 PM | Report abuse

According to SNL show, Obama will regret being President on day-one. Obama has left-over ego so he does not want to call Clintons every day on any help he needs to run the US Government.

Rezko will not be close to help him buy his house. I mean run the US Government. His Uncle Wright is also retired, no help their either.

So, Obama will come with a plan to lose Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida but will show-up to win few smaller states like Iowa, Colorado and New Mexico. But in the end, Michelle Obama will say: it was just a dream.

Let's move on to 2012! DNC will introduce winner-take-all primary system and end superdelegates crap.

Posted by: Looking Forward To 2012 | April 9, 2008 1:47 PM | Report abuse


posted by: Leichtman | April 9, 2008 1:08 PM


"If the Obama should take bsimon's attitude of just shut up and support our guy "no questions asked" then plan on the election of John McCain. Apparently the Obama supporters are much more interested in boasting how they can reach out to Repubs then HC supporters. That attitide as patrick and others will agree makeIf the Obama should take bsimon's attitude of just shut up and support our guy "no questions asked" then plan on the election of John McCain. Apparently the Obama supporters are much more interested in boasting how they can reach out to Repubs then HC supporters. That attitide as patrick and others will agree makes me much more determined that we don't have to deal with that 1988 like debacle. It is precisely that attitude sir that has so turned me away from the Obama campaign, and I am sure millions share that sentiment"

Which party's priniciples do you feel best represent you? Is it the Democrat's or the Republican's. If you say it is the Democrats, both Clinton and Obama are very similar. The Repulblicans are on the other end of the spectrum. So to say that you will vote for McCain because Clinton did not win means that your concerns are not policy based. Which means you choice is based strictly on personality. That is truly sad. You have lost all creditbility. Go ahead take your ball and go home until you learn how things work in the ADULT world.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 9, 2008 1:46 PM | Report abuse

Leichtman, you said "Some how we have heard all along that Sen Obama is entitled to the nomination and the h*** with HC and her 13 million supporters."

That is a bald misrepresentation of the situation. If anyone is saying Sen Obama is 'entitled' to the nomination, it is probably because he is ahead in the race & the way the rest of the race looks, it is extremely unlikely that Sen Clinton will make up the difference. That's not 'entitlement' that's winning. I don't think anyone is saying 'to hell with HRC supporters'. My outsider's understanding of how party politics work is that, once a nominee is chosen, you forget all the bickering and coalesce in support of the nominee. That's what HRC would expect, if she were to win the nomination, just like it is BHO's expectation if he wins. Though, frankly, if all HRC supporters are like you, I'd say 'to hell with you' too.

Posted by: bsimon | April 9, 2008 1:41 PM | Report abuse

"try just for once as hard as that seems to actually read what I posted, rather than this is what you slanderously want to twist it to mean:"

Uh, that's libel, not slander. What kind of lawyer are you?

Posted by: bondjedi | April 9, 2008 1:40 PM | Report abuse

try just for once as hard as that seems to actually read what I posted, rather than this is what you slanderously want to twist it to mean:
"do you not also appreciate that 13 million HC supporters will be equally upset?"
I have no desire to get into another circular shouting match with you, my legal time is too valuable, so please take it somewhere else today

Posted by: Leichtman | April 9, 2008 1:34 PM | Report abuse

I think "the dream" ticket would be a bad idea for Dem's; nevermind the fact it is highly unlikely.

The reason Clinton would at least have to offer Obama the VP is to try and keep some of his new voters on-board, because she is going to get pounded by McCain in regards to Independents.

A lot has been made about the potential backlash of either side of Dem supporters; none of which I buy. Everyone talks big about voting for McCain or not voting all together in April... but after the convention happens and as November draws near everyone will make nice and vote for a Democrat...because neither candidate (or their supporters) are so different than the others. In my opinion, Dem's will be Dem's.

Posted by: J~Noel002 | April 9, 2008 1:33 PM | Report abuse

Leichtman, you seem a bit testy today. Isn't the whole point of having a primary to find a candidate to represent the party? If people are claiming to be Dems, but then don't vote for the party's nominee, are they really Dems? Or just independents by another name? As an independent, I don't care what you do, or what you call yourself. But I thought the whole point of being a party member was to get your party elected - even if you don't like the candidates. That's what your asking of Obama supporters, after all. Why is it so hard to do yourself that which you ask of others?

Frankly, seeing how the Repubs are - albeit reluctantly - coalescing around McCain, I wouldn't be surprised if he does better than expected. In true ironic fashion, the HRC supporters accuse Obama supporters of being in some kind of cult - but then demonstrate the same behavior themselves. What a hoot!

Posted by: bsimon | April 9, 2008 1:31 PM | Report abuse

"Is there anything that Hillary Clinton could do which you wouldn't support? Any underhanded trick which you wouldn't cheer? It seems you praise everything she does, ignoring all factors except how it can help your candidate win.'

blarg I am a partisan and feel that HC is the right candidate to be our nominee and the next Pres. and not ashamed of that. I have contributed to, phone banked, traveled for and done legal work for HC because I strongly beleive she is most qualified to be our next President, I believe that I have made that clear here. Politics means you do everything you legally can to persuade voters that your candidate should be succesful. That includes fund raising boring campaign work, blogging and volunteer co-ordination work.

you call everything that our side does as a trick. Are you not aware that Sen Obama has contributed far more money to win over superdelegates than the Clinton campaign; is that a trick, I don't think so but you would call it that if it was reversed. We have seen HC supporters spit on and received bogus robo calls spreading disinformation about our caucus here in Tx.so please don't lecture us about tricks.Obama supporters have trespassed on my front yard and torn up my HC sign, meaningless and childish but certainly politics as usual. Its called politics and most of us have taken sides and are honorably promoting our side and behaved honorably, those are not tricks and niether is persuading superdelegates. Those are the rules and all the complaining in the world won't change that. Your side understand the caucus rules and our side too has a strategy to win the nomination, please don't demean that or our supporters.

We could certainly ask of your campaign the same question but it proves absolutely nothing and is simply a circular argument.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 9, 2008 1:28 PM | Report abuse

The idea of a Clinton/Obama ticket is a patronizing fantasy promulgated by some of Sen. Clinton's supporters. There is no reason, short of total mental collapse, for Sen. Obama to accept the VP position when he is AHEAD of Sen. Clinton in pledged delegates, popular votes, states won, and fund raising.

Similarly, Obama would have to take leave of his senses to think that having Hillary Clinton on the ticket as his VP would be beneficial in the slightest. The dishonesty, hypocrisy, distortions, race-baiting, Wall Street-coddling, and war-supporting that are the hallmarks of her campaign and career would be a disasterous drag on the ticket.

Nancy Pelosi was just trying to be nice in getting the word out about how crazy the idea of this "dream" ticket actually is.

Posted by: dee | April 9, 2008 1:25 PM | Report abuse

The Tartan, Carnegie Mellon's student newspaper, reports on a campaign event featuring Michelle Obama:

http://www.thetartan.org/2008/4/7/news/obama

"While the crowd was indeed diverse, some students at the event questioned the practices of Mrs. Obama's event coordinators, who handpicked the crowd sitting behind Mrs. Obama.

The Tartan's correspondents observed one event coordinator say to another, "Get me more white people, we need more white people." To an Asian girl sitting in the back row, one coordinator said, "We're moving you, sorry. It's going to look so pretty, though."

"I didn't know they would say, 'We need a white person here,' " said attendee and senior psychology major Shayna Watson, who sat in the crowd behind Mrs. Obama. "I understood they would want a show of diversity, but to pick up people and to reseat them, I didn't know it would be so outright."


The Obama campaign discriminates against people of color, and their own supporters no less, in what is presumably a misguided pander to white voters.

Very strange, but perhaps Obama's candidacy really has transcended race in America (surely this is a first). Or, the campaign may just plan to stage-manage it out of public view.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 9, 2008 1:20 PM | Report abuse

lie-chtman at 12:19 p.m., on delegates: "The rules as rotten as they are what the rules are. "

lie-chtman at 12:48 p.m., again on delegates: "If Sen Obama wins and locks out Fla and Michigan delegates and wins primarily on the backs of caucus voters do you not also appreciate that 13 million HC supporters will be equally upset?"

Translation - Obama must abide by rules for nominating presidents, but Hillary may pick and choose the rules to abide by, and it is fair to ignore rules that make FL and MI votes bogus (rules HC endorsed in 2007).

No wonder you have no credibility.

Posted by: bondjedi | April 9, 2008 1:16 PM | Report abuse

with bsimon post that we should just line up like sheep and I repeat "no questions asked" its obvious that he does not yet understand that we as dems also have the constitutional option, to vote straight D which is my inclination and not vote at all in the presidential election. Some how we have heard all along that Sen Obama is entitled to the nomination and the h*** with HC and her 13 million supporters. We owe you and your candidate absolutely nothing sir, what is it about that you simply don't understand. If the Obama should take bsimon's attitude of just shut up and support our guy "no questions asked" then plan on the election of John McCain. Apparently the Obama supporters are much more interested in boasting how they can reach out to Repubs then HC supporters. That attitide as patrick and others will agree makes me much more determined that we don't have to deal with that 1988 like debacle. It is precisely that attitude sir that has so turned me away from the Obama campaign, and I am sure millions share that sentiment.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 9, 2008 1:08 PM | Report abuse

blarg - "If Hillary wins through her husband's political connections, or by convincing pledged Obama delegates to ignore the voters and support her, then that's not fair. And voters have a right to be upset in that situation."

If, at the convention, the supers cast their vote for HRC, regardless of whether they were undecided, previously said they were for HRC or previously said they were for Obama, then HRC wins fairly and legitimately. The only people that Obama supporters should be mad at are the DNC. The Supers and not connected by any rule to voter preference in their state.

Posted by: Dave! | April 9, 2008 1:06 PM | Report abuse

Oh come on now,the real reason that looney
toons Democrat Madame Speaker Nancy Pelosi
keeps poo-pooing a Clinton and Obama 2008
Democrat Presidential Ticket,is simply that
Nancy Pelosi wants to be Vice President
herself! And that since Pelosi and Howard
Dean are trying to steal the Democrat 2008
Presidential Nomination for their stooge
Barack Hussein Obama that means Nutty Nancy
Pelosi has already made a deal with that
sleazy lying phony Obama to be his Veep!
Please vote NO on Pelosi and Obama!

Posted by: Sandra | April 9, 2008 12:58 PM | Report abuse

I never said that superdelegates need to vote for the candidate their state voted for. And don't start whining that some Obama supporters somewhere said that. You're talking to me, not the Platonic ideal of an Obama supporter, and I'm not responsible for anyone's statements but my own.

What I said was that pledged delegates reflect the will of the voters, because they're allocated by contests in which actual voters participate. The popular vote is meaningless, both because that's not how delegates are assigned and because it's often not measured in caucus states. If Hillary wins through her husband's political connections, or by convincing pledged Obama delegates to ignore the voters and support her, then that's not fair. And voters have a right to be upset in that situation.

Is there anything that Hillary Clinton could do which you wouldn't support? Any underhanded trick which you wouldn't cheer? It seems you praise everything she does, ignoring all factors except how it can help your candidate win.

Posted by: Blarg | April 9, 2008 12:57 PM | Report abuse

Actually it would be a "nightmare" ticket for Obama.... Bill in the shadows doing his chaotic best to keep attention focused on Himself.

Obama is waaaaaaay to smart to buy into that scenario!... only in Hillary's dreams.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | April 9, 2008 12:55 PM | Report abuse

Ha ha ha! Check this out in Politico. Obama wants more white people:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0408/Obama_advance_Get_me_more_white_people.html

Posted by: UM | April 9, 2008 12:53 PM | Report abuse

Leichtman writes
"Lets just let this play itself out and see that if your side wins the nomination your nominee is willing to reach across the aisle to the Clinton supporters who you will need in Nov IF you have the nomination."

If they're Dems, they'll presumably vote for the Dem candidate, no questions asked. If they're independents, they'll presumably analyze the remaining candidates in the race & support the one they think will best do the job. All this talk about reach-arounds and special favors is a bit silly.

Posted by: bsimon | April 9, 2008 12:50 PM | Report abuse

Actually, if Obama wins the Democratic nomination,Condi wants to be VP so much that Condi will switch parties and be the VEEP over there, so get your
Obama-Rice bumper stickers while you can, so that the Race for President will come down to

McCain OR

(and then lots of people will think that's an incomplete question)

Posted by: mesondk | April 9, 2008 12:50 PM | Report abuse

blarg the will of the people may also be reflected by the popular vote which has yet to be decided. Again I don't make the rules and neither do you. Delegates include the superdelegates. Note some superdelegates like Edward Kennedy, John Kerry and Bill Richardson support Sen. Obama. Would you then conclude that they are dishonoring the will of the voters of their home states of Mass and New Mexico? I didn't hear the will of the voters argument from your side when they threw their support to Sen Obama. Are you suggesting then that the dnc rules which every Presidnetial Dem nominee since 1984 has had to live by,no longer counts. For instance there are dozens of uncommitted Ca superdelegates including state rep Torress. Are you now suggesting that even though HC won Ca rather convincingly that he and the other Ca uncommitted superdelegates must do what you instruct them to do rather than how the millions of Ca primary voters actually voted? Honestly I would like an answer to that question. HC won New York and Ohio rather convincingly as well, how about their superdelegates by your standards they MUST also support Sen Obama and ignore their constituents. Is that what you mean by the will of the people?

Leichtman: There is no way that Hillary can win the nomination without overturning the will of the voters. (The will of the voters is measured by pledged delegates; Obama has an unbeatable lead among pledged delegates.) Therefore if she wins, many Democratic voters would be legitimately upset. This is not a hard concept to understand."

If Sen Obama wins and locks out Fla and Michigan delegates and wins primarily on the backs of caucus voters do you not also appreciate that 13 million HC supporters will be equally upset?

Posted by: Leichtman | April 9, 2008 12:48 PM | Report abuse

Vote for Change.
Obama has all the ineffective,old boys network on his side.
Vote for HIllary Clinton

Posted by: Trey | April 9, 2008 12:45 PM | Report abuse

blarg - "Therefore if she wins, many Democratic voters would be legitimately upset. This is not a hard concept to understand."

I have to agree with Leichtman on this. They may be upset if she wins (just like HRC supporters if she loses), but it would be legitimate as long as it follows DNC rules. I think the Supers are a condescendingly horrible idea but it is what it is. Such a loss might prompt constructive changes to the DNC process, which does not base nomination only on the "will of the people". 2025 pledged or super delegates is the only thing that matters, not the will of the people.

Posted by: Dave! | April 9, 2008 12:44 PM | Report abuse


kingofzouk was at Greenbriar? This Greenbriar: http://www.greenbriar.net/?

Makes sense.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 9, 2008 12:42 PM | Report abuse

Whoever is making my posts up, I use a small l in my posts. Dummy.

Posted by: leichtman | April 9, 2008 12:39 PM | Report abuse

This would be a "Dream Ticket" - for John McCain. Hillary baggage plus "New kind of politics" and "Change" hypocrit equals a lot of problems for Dems. If Pelosi even gets this, one can be assured it will not happen.

Posted by: Dave! | April 9, 2008 12:33 PM | Report abuse

actually voice of reason my family and millions of Americans including African American households had the highest economic security that I have had and they likely had in their lifetime.
Certainly you can rehash the O'Reily/Limbaugh/Foxx line about how miserable the 90s were, but most Americans remember otherwise. Again remember that Bill Clinton left the whitehouse with a 62% approval rating(W with a 29% approval rating) and a $250 budget surpus that vanished in months after W came to office. While this election is not about Bill or the 90s much as the Obama side has tried, we were in considerably sounder economic condition then 7 years later regardless of the revisionism I now expect to hear from GOP.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 9, 2008 12:33 PM | Report abuse

President Kennedy picked Lyndon Johnson for VP to get him out of the Senate majority leader post where Kennedy felt Johnson would be an impediment and be pulling power plays there. Bobby kennedy agreed with that idea as well if my memory serves me. That was no dream ticket as Ms. Pelosi appears to believe. Not much love lost there back then.

Posted by: stryker | April 9, 2008 12:31 PM | Report abuse

Leichtman: There is no way that Hillary can win the nomination without overturning the will of the voters. (The will of the voters is measured by pledged delegates; Obama has an unbeatable lead among pledged delegates.) Therefore if she wins, many Democratic voters would be legitimately upset. This is not a hard concept to understand.

Think of this way: You'd be upset if Obama won the nomination, because you think his supporters have been rude to you. (It's an asinine way to pick a president, but that's just your style.) Imagine if Obama won the nomination by breaking DNC rules, convincing pledged delegates to switch sides, and relying on his wife's influence over party operatives. Wouldn't you have a problem with that? Isn't that even worse than having impolite supporters?

Posted by: Blarg | April 9, 2008 12:30 PM | Report abuse

I amuse myself

Posted by: Anonymous | April 9, 2008 12:21 PM | Report abuse

Boy, Chris. It's been slow, hasn't it?

You've already stated the reality: Clinton, should she take the nomination, would need to offer the VP slot to Obama. Otherwise there's no way she'll even have the slightest chance of unifying the party to beat McCain.

Obama represents the future and speaks for the those in the party who see the need for change. It's a simple theme that has remained consistent throughout the campaign (unlike Clinton's). Clinton is not a good match for Obama's message. She counters it, which in this case, is not required.

Clinton is a reminder of the 90's -- which we all remember with fondness -- and anxiety, thanks in large part to the scandals and questionable dealings spearheaded by her hubby. There's a trustworthiness problem that Hillary would want to erase with Obama as her running mate. Hillary remains unfortunately saddled with Bill's actions.

Posted by: Voice of Reason | April 9, 2008 12:19 PM | Report abuse

blarg I am sure that you understand that superdelegates are delegates that both candidates will have to have in order to win 2024 delegates and the nomination. That is not breaking the rules but the rules established in 1984 by the dnc. You can't selectively say you like certain rules like caucuses but believe that the dnc nomination requirement of 2,024 delgates is stealing. The rules as rotten as they are what the rules are. Personally I would have preferred a winner take all system but I don't call the shots and neither does Sen. Obama or his supporters here.As much as I have dreamed of a seat on the dnc, that has not happened so I can only express opinions from afar.

Lets just let this play itself out and see that if your side wins the nomination your nominee is willing to reach across the aisle to the Clinton supporters who you will need in Nov IF you have the nomination. To date I have only seen a poke in the eyes of each of the 13 million HC supporters and no indication by their VP discussions they have any intent to reach out either to HC or her 13 million supporters, imho.

blarg said: "She can't win the legitimate way, through delegates. She'd have to win by breaking the rules, convincing pledged delegates to switch sides, etc. That's going to be a problem for a lot of voters, not just African-Americans."

Posted by: Leichtman | April 9, 2008 12:19 PM | Report abuse

"Obama Calls For Talks With Iran"

This is LUNACY!

We should NOT talk with our enemies. We should pretend that they do not even exist. We should pretend all the world is our friend. And that we are actually making progress in Iraq.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 9, 2008 12:14 PM | Report abuse

We, the Peoples' Socialist Worker Party of Zouk, hereby announce that in the absence of our bilious, shortsighted, obese and effeminate tyrant, we have established a single-party workers' state in Zouk. In the grand tradition of the Polynesian seafarers who first settled our island over 2,000 years ago, we intend to cook and eat each and every employer, banker, and supervisor on the island. Our king, when he eventually does return, will be roasted with an apple in his mouth and consumed at a public feast in Zouk Square, henceforth to be known as Pelosi Prospect. BYOB.

Posted by: generalsecretaryofzouk | April 9, 2008 12:13 PM | Report abuse

Jimmy Carter to Meet With Hamas Leader in Syria

Former President Jimmy Carter is reportedly preparing an unprecedented meeting with the leader of Hamas, an organization that the U.S. considers one of the leading terrorist threats in the world.

Obama Calls For Talks With Iran

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on Tuesday called for a "diplomatic surge" including talks with US foe Iran, to help stabilize the situation in Iraq.

Posted by: we surrender | April 9, 2008 12:11 PM | Report abuse

One last thing: from this point forward, all my post must be read in a thick British accent. Starting now!

Did I mention the Falconry? Oh yes, I did.

Anyway, I'm off to the races or the polo ponies, or some such Cavalier thing. Can't remember really. So busy. So popular. So fabulously wealthy am I.

Bye for now all you unwashed masses!

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 9, 2008 12:08 PM | Report abuse

Let's say Obama wins in '08 and again in '12.

Hillary wins in '16 and '20.

Chelsea would be 43 years old for arun in '24.

Ain't that Grand!

Posted by: justthefacts | April 9, 2008 12:03 PM | Report abuse

Spector2: Many times I have Posted that Gore was handed the 2000 Election on "A Silver Platter" and blew it by running away from Bubba and selecting his harshest critic as his VP choice. 2004 was in a similar mode in that Kerry was inept, for want of another word. I am somewhat surprised by the non reporting of Ca. being in play should Obama be the nominee. Any mention of the Dems losing Ca. in 2008 was unthinkable until the possibility of Obama being the nominee. Now with the almost certainty of Obama losing Pa., Ohio, and Fla., should he be the Dem nominee, I am still thinking someway somehow Hillary will be the nominee.

Posted by: lylepink | April 9, 2008 12:01 PM | Report abuse

"This would mean that Hillary could not run for President again until 2016 (in which case she would be 68 years old)!"

uh... McCain is currently 71 years old.

Posted by: GOPlover | April 9, 2008 12:00 PM | Report abuse

Once again, Pelosi undermines her role as a neutral leader or the Democratic party and puts her thumbs on the scales for Obama.

It is all to reminiscent of her failed tenure as Speaker of the House.

Posted by: JoeCHI | April 9, 2008 11:59 AM | Report abuse

I'm continually amazed at the stupidity and immaturity of some of the posters here.

On topic, I take issue with this: "That scenario would create MAJOR problems for the Democratic party in several segments of its base -- particularly among African Americans -- and Clinton would likely feel heavy pressure to heal that rift by offering the veep job to Obama."

I've seen this statement several times, from CC and others. If Hillary Clinton somehow becomes the nominee, that means the entire process is corrupt. She can't win the legitimate way, through delegates. She'd have to win by breaking the rules, convincing pledged delegates to switch sides, etc. That's going to be a problem for a lot of voters, not just African-Americans.

Posted by: Blarg | April 9, 2008 11:59 AM | Report abuse

Yes, Leichtman, I do think all you Libs care -- I KNOW you care. Jealous little babies always whining about "fairness" and "equality" and outdated ideas like that.

Now, I have a polo match to attend to...


Posted by: kingofzouk | April 9, 2008 11:59 AM | Report abuse

Clinton and Johnson can't be compared. Johnson was well known by politicos but outside of Texas he wasn't well known by the public at large and he thus carried no real negatives or positives. Clinton is well known by the everyone under the sun and she carries tremendous negatives. Those negatives will keep her from winning the presidency if she's at the top of the ticket and those negatives would sink an Obama/Clinton ticket. Johnson was a great choice for Kennedy but Clinton would be a disastrous choice for Obama and he knows it. I actually believer that Obama has already picked his VP. It just the organized and planned way he tends to do things.

Posted by: Keith Hood | April 9, 2008 11:59 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: jac13

Good choices. I think if Hillary is to drop out before the convention, if neither gets the 2,025 needed delegates without FL & MI, that would be the only reason for her to do so. She has not come this close to just walk away.

Posted by: Patrick NYC | April 9, 2008 11:57 AM | Report abuse

Chris, Chris, Chris....

Anything is possible in politics but talking about a "dream ticket" in the midst of a historic election is irrelevant at this point.

Hillary at 60 years of age knows that this could be her one and only time to run for President. If Obama is elected President, he has the potential to be there for two Presidential terms. This would mean that Hillary could not run for President again until 2016 (in which case she would be 68 years old)!

I would say that above anything else Americans value fairness and hard work. If Obama is leading after June 3rd in pledged delegates, contests/states won, money raised and total popular vote, is it fair that he would not be selected the nominee of the Democratic party?

Posted by: AJ | April 9, 2008 11:56 AM | Report abuse

I was in court this morning so I am not pleased to see my name spammed here when clearly I was tending to clients.

king: porsche, greenbriar,cape cod do you really think any of us care?

"Obama feels little or no loyalty toward the Clintons -- " say Chris..

and may I ad to her 13 million supporters either. That will certainly be his downfall in the general IF he is the nominee.

Leichtman

Posted by: Leichtman | April 9, 2008 11:55 AM | Report abuse

Patrick,

Ditto. Pelosi and Reid are the pits. Neither of them can make a decent speech, and they are dry as toast on tv. I'd like to see Rahm Emanuel (NOT the outdated Steny Hoyer) as Speaker, and Hillary as Majority Leader (assuming -- ahem -- she is not elected president, that is).

Posted by: jac13 | April 9, 2008 11:52 AM | Report abuse

I don't see an Obama-Clinton (or vise versa) ticket as a dream ticket. Obama and the Clintons have to completely different approaches to living and politics.

The Clinton's exclusive inner-circle suffers from severe group think. They lack the fortitude to lead; instead, the Clintons sink to spiteful behavior to avenge grudges. We have seen these behaviors during the campaign.

The Clinton's public display of nastiness toward Richardson is such an example of this behavior. The Clinton surrogates mean-spirited public behavior toward Richardson is a display of the inner-circle's severe group think.

The in-fighting between Penn, Williams, and Solis-Doyle over who rules the inner-circle resulted in back-stabbing, and private and public denouncements of each other as each tried to get their rivals fired.

Group think and petty, spiteful behavior are obstacles to progress. The Clintons and their inner circle cannot rise to the challenges of getting HRC elected; doubtful they can rise to the challenges facing America.

Posted by: CG Houston, TX | April 9, 2008 11:52 AM | Report abuse

I hate to break it to you, but there won't be a Democratic ticket at all fronted by Hillary.

Chris, for a Wag the Blog idea, how about a contest for naming the third party that Hillary will create to run against Obama and McCain?

Posted by: bondjedi | April 9, 2008 11:50 AM | Report abuse

I don't think so, Ace. LOUD AND DUMB is smart enough to know you would never buy an estate on Cape Cod. Too many Libs there.

Now run along, numbnuts.

Posted by: Sen. Larry "Wide Stance" Craig, R-Uranus | April 9, 2008 11:49 AM | Report abuse

I'm putting my Clinton-Obama '08 bumper sticker on my car today!

Posted by: SW H2Ofront | April 9, 2008 11:45 AM | Report abuse

I see LOUD and DUMB has returned in his role as the "Ignorant Coward" and is going to act juvinile all day long.

Have fun wack job.

Buy Bye

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 9, 2008 11:44 AM | Report abuse

Obama would never want to be tainted with Clinton scandals by sharing a White House with them. Any misstep on Bill's or Hillary's part would forever be his, as well. And Billary looks pretty prone to missteps.

Posted by: rippermccord | April 9, 2008 11:41 AM | Report abuse

Barack Obama likely will be the 2008 Democratic Party nominee for the president. As the nominee, he will be in the position to name his vice president, unless a nucleus of party bosses and super-delegates strong-arms him into accepting Hillary Clinton as his veep, which is not a far-fetched scenario.

Here are some of the leading contenders for the #2 spot on the 2008 Democratic ticket, should Obama actually put his finger through the Big Brass Ring and get the nomination:

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=2059


.

Posted by: Jeff | April 9, 2008 11:41 AM | Report abuse

Disregard that last post -- that was not me. Now, I'll be taking my porsche to my vast estate on Cape Cod.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 9, 2008 11:39 AM | Report abuse

Clinton-Obama won't happen because Clinton won't happen. She will not be nominated.

Obama-Clinton won't happen for the following reasons:

1. Clinton will be too old to run on her own in 8 years. Her best interest is in seeing Obama defeated by McCain--a result she will try hard, albeit surreptitiously, to bring about.

2. Clinton has way too much ego to take the booby prize from the guy who denied her the first prize that was hers by divine right in the first place.

3. Putting Hillary on the ticket means putting Bill on the ticket. The Obama campaign will not be able to control Bill and his mouth as he runs around the country from August to November trying to make the discussion about him and--oh, yes, his wife and that colored boy they put up for president.

4. Obama asking Clinton to be his veep would, indeed, smack of old-style cynical politics and negate his "new generation" message. It's true that other potential veeps (Biden, Richardson) are also old news, but they do not symbolize the 90s as the Clintons do.

5. If Hillary Clinton wants to be veep, her behavior in recent months suggests that the person whose veep she would most like to be is John McCain.

Posted by: Hollie1 | April 9, 2008 11:39 AM | Report abuse

Many things have changed since the start of the campaign, Va. with one Warner leaving and the other likely to replace him in the Senate. My initial pick of him for VP with Hillary is now out of the question. The strongest ticket for the Dems would be Clinton/Obama, but a Obama/Clinton ticket is impossible, IMHO. Bayh seems to be the best pick for Hillary, and Obama is in the position of no matter who he picks, will lose the GE. The Pa. results are extremely important to Hillary and the way I see things, she must win by 6%. This will be hard for her when the Registration change of Repubs to vote for Obama in their effort to stop her, must be taken into consideration.

Posted by: lylepink | April 9, 2008 11:38 AM | Report abuse

The Dream Ticket is anything but. This red herring ignores the fact that neither candidate complements the strengths and weaknesses of the other. In fact they are almost antithetical to each other's candidacy, though they share many policy positions.

As an Obama supporter, I happen to think he would do better off with a Janet Napolitano or Jim Webb. If I were for Hillary at the top of the ticket, yes, I might want Obama but would have to settle for an Evan Bayh or Wesley Clark.

Posted by: rippermccord | April 9, 2008 11:38 AM | Report abuse

Who is it in "high office" are you implying lied to the American people?

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 9, 2008 11:37 AM | Report abuse

kingofzouk is right!

Anyone in high office who lies to the American people about this war should be tried as a traitor.

Posted by: GOPlover | April 9, 2008 11:36 AM | Report abuse

bsimon: Gore had the presidency gift-wrapped for him. He just chose not to accept it.

Being veep definitely gives a leg up, but it's an advantage that can be squandered by inept, timid campaigning. In addition to Gore, see Nixon, 1960, and Humphrey, 1968. Whereas it gave the pretty mediocre GHW Bush enough of an edge over the pathetic Dukakis.

Posted by: Spectator2 | April 9, 2008 11:34 AM | Report abuse

"I've just been involved in politics for a very long time and I just don't think that would be the ticket," Pelosi
-------------------------------
The only thing she got right was being in politics a long time, too long. She was sent to the leadership post with a mandate from her party which she and Reid have ignored. No matter what the out come is in November, those two should go. I hope Cindy Sheehan throws her sorry butt out into the street.

Posted by: Patrick NYC | April 9, 2008 11:30 AM | Report abuse

Where is drindl? It's hard to stalk her when she's not around.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 9, 2008 11:30 AM | Report abuse

Now that all the money is gone and I can not afford a media staff, I am taking this campaign to the streets to make a plea to Fix readers. Please e-mail my Hotmail account (I could not afford to renew the campaign domain, sorry) with what you want me to give you in exchange for your vote. No request is too grandiose.

I also have forty bags of salt for sale, left over from Iowa.

Posted by: Hillary Rodham Clinton | April 9, 2008 11:26 AM | Report abuse

The two on the same ticket would be a nightmare. If you have one Clinton in the Whitehouse ...you have all the Clintons in the Whitehouse. President Obama needs to pick people he trusts and can work with. If his campaign choices are any indicator, he should do pretty well!

Posted by: TJFRMLA | April 9, 2008 11:24 AM | Report abuse

proudtobeGOP writes
"If Clinton offered Obama the chance to be her VP, of course he would say yes! He'd be a fool not to."

The Gore example clearly illustrates this point. Oh, wait...

Posted by: bsimon | April 9, 2008 11:23 AM | Report abuse

I see there is a problem with auto registration again, allowing the Ignorant cowards to spoof.

Oh well - blog ruined by Lib adolescents again.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 9, 2008 11:22 AM | Report abuse

Howdy, yawl. This here Hooters has wireless, so I am taking the time to tell everyone to vote for Barack Obama.

Now I am off to Krispy Kreme. Bye!

Posted by: Bill Clinton | April 9, 2008 11:22 AM | Report abuse

Of course we missed you, zouk, or at least I did.

About the dream ticket...
If Clinton offered Obama the chance to be her VP, of course he would say yes! He'd be a fool not to. oh, ...wait a minute.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 9, 2008 11:18 AM | Report abuse

Quite unlikely in either case. Clinton has been claiming that Obama is unprepared to be president. She can hardly say "Unless, of course, I die or become incapacitated."
And Obama neither wants nor needs theat negativity on the ticket with him.

Posted by: Frank Palmer | April 9, 2008 11:17 AM | Report abuse

yes I am back to ruin yet another board with my sniveling drivel.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 9, 2008 11:16 AM | Report abuse

Hillary's fairy tale is in its wanning moments. Her dream of becoming the first woman president is just a dream.

Going into the nominatin race she was the presumptive winner based on her formidable well oiled campaign machine and huge war chest. No one gave Obama a chance against her and he's proven everyone to be wrong. His strategy and campaign management has proven to be better than Hillary. Given this fact it demonstrates that he would be a better President than Hillary. He has shown better judgment and integrity than she has. A President has to choose his own VP, someone he can trust and who he is comfortable working with. He would not be able to comfortably work with Hillary, plus Bill would be an added distraction.

All Hillary and Bill can hope for is to continue the grooming of Chelsea and maybe they will be able to claim down the road that they are the parents of the first female president.

Posted by: nevadaandy | April 9, 2008 11:15 AM | Report abuse

Shillizza:

There is no hyphen in "Shermanesque." Please read the pages you hyperlink.

Also, it is apparent that you are a Clinton enabler. The first thing her staff hands her in the morning is your latest rah-rah piece, which merely keeps the death march going. Please "keep it real" and stop playing with this lady's mind.

Posted by: bondjedi | April 9, 2008 11:15 AM | Report abuse

Interesting, Leichtman. Do you prefer runny or chewy?

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 9, 2008 11:13 AM | Report abuse

I saw the headline of this post and thought it was about real pooh-pooh, the kind I like to eat. What kind of bait and switch is this?

Posted by: leichtman | April 9, 2008 11:11 AM | Report abuse

sounds more like a nightmare, the kind where you wake up at 3 am screaming. And it isn't because the phone is ringing.

what is it with Libs and hating the military? now Rockefeller displays his complete idiocy. I still can't get over his visit to Iraq before the war when he warned Saddam about the invasion and allowed the escape of the WMDs to syria.

Add him to the list of Lib traitors - Murtha, Kennedy, Durbin, clinton, Carter, Obambi.

I am back from the Greenbriar. this time I did the Falconry. Very cool. Did you miss me?

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 9, 2008 11:00 AM | Report abuse

I hope this scenario does not happen. First, because I would prefer that Obama were president, with a new set of advisors for a new time (i.e. not the '90s), and second, because if Hillary is president, I believe neither the nation nor Obama himself have anything to gain from such a pairing. It would damage any future political aspirations he might have by associating his name with hers, and he would not be given any room (by Bill) to affect policy. So in both cases, no to a shared ticket.

Posted by: bokonon13 | April 9, 2008 11:00 AM | Report abuse

As Peeet noted, the misnamed 'dream' ticket is extremely unlikely because its extremely unlikely that Clinton will win the nomination. Speaker Pelosi is apparently aware of this & rightly dismisses the idea as unlikely and unrealistic. Not to mention that its just plain a bad idea.

Posted by: bsimon | April 9, 2008 11:00 AM | Report abuse

Chris, why are you still contributing to the idea that Hillary has a chance? She simply doesn't!

Posted by: Peeet | April 9, 2008 10:50 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: anthem20042001 | April 9, 2008 10:47 AM | Report abuse

I do not believe that either Obama or Clinton would accept VP position. She would refuse to serve under a younger President, and Obama would be a fool to accept a position on her ticket. His life would be miserable beyond words serving in a White House where Bill Clinton would be wandering around giving advice to evereyone. No one believes that Bill Clinton would go out on his own. He could not resist being at the power summit. I think Obama is far too intelligent to even consider VP to Hillary.

Posted by: beccajo | April 9, 2008 10:42 AM | Report abuse

"Dream" is the perfect word for this idea.

For Obama to pick Clinton would be an abandonment of the core idea of his campaign, i.e., he represents the future, she represents the past (although he will have to pick somebody experienced as his running mate, I just think the symbolism of HRC is deadly).

As for Clinton picking Obama, yeah, she might -- and probably should -- offer it to him. BUT, Obama or anybody else with plans for a political future would be insane to be vice president in an administration that comes with one built-in. Slick Willy would be all over his wife's administration like a bad rash, and anybody who was her VP would be a total irrelevancy.

Posted by: jac13 | April 9, 2008 10:40 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company