Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Battlegrounds Poll: The Bill Clinton 'Problem'

One of the most interesting findings from polls conducted in the battleground states of Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Colorado is the significant number of people -- including a surprising share of Democrats and independents -- who believe that former president Bill Clinton would be a "problem" for Barack Obama if Hillary Rodham Clinton is vice president.

In each of the four states surveyed by Quinnipiac University, at least two-in-ten Democrats and roughly 40 percent of independent voters said Bill Clinton would be a problem for Obama. Here's the full breakout of the numbers:

Respondents were asked: "If Hillary Clinton becomes Vice President, do you think Bill Clinton would be a problem to the Obama administration or not?"

Colorado

Among Democrats

[Chart]

Among Independents

[Chart]

Michigan

Among Democrats

[Chart]

Among Independents

[Chart]

Minnesota

Among Democrats

[Chart]

Among Independents

[Chart]

Wisconsin

Among Democrats

[Chart]

Among Independents

[Chart]

Those numbers -- especially among independents -- are telling. Bill Clinton came into this election riding high in the eyes of the American public, popularity built on his humanitarian work throughout the world and the tendency of voters to pine for the past.

But during the course of the campaign, the former president found himself at the center of a number of controversies -- from insisting that Obama's win in South Carolina's primary was akin to the 1988 victory by the Rev. Jesse Jackson to using the unfortunate phrase "biggest fairy tale" when it came to talking about Obama's positioning on the war.

The backlash -- particularly among some leaders in the black community -- was swift and seemed to take the former president by surprise. In the waning weeks of his wife's campaign, Clinton said that Obama's campaign had "played the race card on me," although he has offered to help the presumptive nominee in any way possible during the general election.

The battleground polls provide tangible evidence that Bill Clinton -- at least among a segment of Democrats and independents -- could be seen as a drag on his wife's quiet campaign to be picked as the running-mate.

In fact, when asked whether they would like to see Obama pick Clinton as his running mate, there was considerable indecision among Democrats in each of the four states.

That tepidness toward the so-called "Dream Ticket" was most pronounced in Minnesota, where 45 percent of Democrats said they supported Obama picking Clinton while 43 percent opposed the idea. The numbers were slightly better in Michigan (56 percent "yes"/29 percent "no"), Minnesota (51/37) and Wisconsin (52/35).

Independents, however, were even less keen on the idea of an Obama-Clinton ticket. In three of the four states, more than 50 percent of independents opposed the idea while in the fourth -- Minnesota -- 47 percent of independents thoughts it was a bad idea.

We'll have more on how these poll numbers impact Clinton's chance at the vice presidential nod when we argue the cast against the New York senator tomorrow in this space. We made the Case for Clinton as the VP nominee earlier this week.

By Chris Cillizza  |  June 26, 2008; 11:32 AM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Obama Leads in Four Battleground States
Next: Analysis: The Politics of the Gun Decision

Comments

Peter Waldman above hit the nail on the head. Bill seems jealous of Obama's success, not happy that someone else also managed to pull himself up by the bootstraps through hard work and ability. He's been acting so childish, petty and thin-skinned, it would make Richard Nixon blush. Bill's reputation has collapsed virtually overnight, and those of us in the *real* base of the Democratic party (who would never threaten to vote for a Republican for President) hope we've seen the last of him, particularly in his current incarnation.

Posted by: anniehall | June 30, 2008 11:37 PM | Report abuse

60 PER CENT OF THE TOTAL PRIMARY VOTES OF

OBAMA CAME FROM AFRICAN AMERICANS.

IN THE GENERAL ELECTION, OBAMA IS A WEAK CANDIDATE.

Posted by: DAR | June 29, 2008 11:01 AM | Report abuse

Bill Clinton is extremely opportunistic manipulative, with an oversized ego to boot. There is no way he would allow his wife Hilary to play second fidd;e to Barack Obama, a man he feels superior to. Therefore her presence if elected would create serious tension at the very head of our government. Jimmy Carter couseled Obama against it so di Sen Edward Kennedy and many others. Obama should simply stay far away from him. He is the real sociopath of the Clinton clan. He's already takink money from the arabs and other sources. If his wife is the VP, he would use the opportunity to enrich himself and tarnish whatever change Obama is trying to create in government.

Posted by: Julio | June 28, 2008 7:30 PM | Report abuse

It continues to amaze me that even when it's not about the Clintons, it's about the Clintons. Their narcissism and resulting self-pity is stupefying. It's astonishing how many people take their self-indulgent, revisionist whining seriously.

Posted by: Brooklyn Democrat | June 28, 2008 8:34 AM | Report abuse

In spite of the fall outs of the primary, Bill Clinton would not lose his mercurial appeal. People who truly love him won't stop overnight. The story of his life has shown him to be undisputedly racially blind. The first "black president" they call him.... Would any one or anything change that because he was helping his wife in the tight primary race. I don't think so. An Obama in future may find himself in the same shoes if he perchance have to "push" his wife to be president. Please give Bill a break. Only a biased form of politics about Obama by Obama enthusiasts is giving the dog a bad name to hang it. Pick Hillary or not, Obama needs every hand on the deck to get him to the white house. It looks easy so far, but by the time the real race starts we don't know what the republicans would be throwing at Obama. Its then the dexterity of Bill Clinton would be appreciated.

Posted by: TUNDE | June 27, 2008 4:28 PM | Report abuse

Hey Gardenlover, even though Obama put out his birth certificate, why dont you tell us how he is CONSTITUTIONALLY INELIGIBILE. It will be idiotically amazing how you may say his birth certificate is fake. Or better yet, judging by the stupidity of your statement, how Hawaii (where his birth certificate says he was born) is not really a state, but an island close to us.

Posted by: qmastertoo | June 27, 2008 3:58 PM | Report abuse

WHO IS GOING TO BREAK THE STORY THAT OBAMA IS CONSTITUTIONALLY INELIGIBILE FOR EITHER THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT OR VP?

Posted by: Gardenlover | June 27, 2008 2:56 PM | Report abuse

I hope he hurries and names his pick so we can move on. I'm tired of hearing about who, when, where, etc. Keep Bill on the sidelines. Don't be phony, he doesn't like Barack anyway and yes Peter, it is jealousy. I don't think he's racist either, just green with envy! LOL Obama 08!

Posted by: demcor | June 27, 2008 12:49 PM | Report abuse

Praddle from Seattle I wish your sentiments about Obama supporters was true and all I this hate is R causing mischief. Unfortunately I have heard these Obama sentiments here from Jan and can assure you these are not Rs. At least you have the good sense to understand how counterproductive that is, perhaps you need to share that with fellow Obama supporters. Here was a post right before you:

Billary needs to just go back to NY

Posted by: Leichtman | June 27, 2008 10:33 AM | Report abuse

More accurately, Bill would be a problem for the interns hired by the Obama White House!

Bill Clinton's racism surfaced during the Democratic primaries. We don't need Billary lurking around the White House.

Posted by: Terlingua | June 27, 2008 10:27 AM | Report abuse

Obama/Edwards--it just makes sense

Posted by: Johnny Eddie | June 27, 2008 10:13 AM | Report abuse


Bill Clinton has somehow gone from respected, positive, political powerhouse, to bitter, testy old kook in a matter of no time. He said some pretty outrageous stuff during the primaries and contributed to Hillarys loss in many ways. I don't think for a second that Clinton is racist, as some said during the campaign. However, he has some issues when it comes to Obama...one word comes to mind: JEALOUSY.

Posted by: Peter Waldman | June 27, 2008 10:10 AM | Report abuse


Bill Clinton has somwhow gone from respected, positive, political powerhouse, to bitter, testy old kook in a matter of no time. He said some pretty outrageous stuff during the primaries and contributed to Hillarys loss in many ways. I don't think for a second that Clinton is racist, as some said during the campaign. However, he has some issues when it comes to Obama...one word comes to mind: JEALOUSY.

Posted by: Peter Waldman | June 27, 2008 10:10 AM | Report abuse

I loved President Clinton, until this past primary season when Bill Clinton took-off his mask and showed us that he is racist. He will hurt Obama and he doesn't everthing he can to make sure he losses.

Posted by: Texasboy | June 27, 2008 9:38 AM | Report abuse

What chance Barack Obama choosing Nancy Polasi as running partner?

Zero to none if Obama has a brain. Pelosi, Reid and Hoyer all need to be removed from their Bush dog leadership roles and replaced with "Democrats from the Democratic wing of the party".

Posted by: oakland | June 27, 2008 8:44 AM | Report abuse

What chance Barack Obama choosing Nancy Polasi as running partner?

Posted by: Gary | June 27, 2008 8:02 AM | Report abuse

Why is the title of your article The Bill Clintons Problem. Bill Clinton isn't running for President. How about the Mccain Problem: Here's a list of problems, Mccain is having now and will haunt him during a general election:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Y395Tftgz0E

http://youtube.com/watch?v=u-R5Vh5tOWk

http://youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp4c

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2008 2:23 AM | Report abuse

There is no case for Clinton as VP. The idea of Obama picking her (or really, THEM) is preposterous. But go ahead and make your case for both sides of a false argument anyway.

Posted by: Justin | June 27, 2008 2:17 AM | Report abuse

Slow news day? Smart Dems have moved on.

Posted by: Jeanie | June 27, 2008 1:47 AM | Report abuse

The Slimy Fish Obama flip flopping again on the issue - how could that happen ???


Really ???


I really do not believe that the Slimy Fish Obama would attempt to flip-flop again on a major issue.


What is this 3 times in one week ????

Chris are you paying attention or are we just playing games here and pretending not to notice ???? The media has to call Obama on this. This is one major reason the press has met its downfall - when something like this happens, the press LOVES to ignore solid stories like the Slimy Fish Obama flip flopping again.

.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | June 27, 2008 12:22 AM | Report abuse

Bill never wanted Hillary Soprano to run. He did everything he could to make sure she lost. The very last thing he wants is Hillary Soprano as the VP choice. He wants to go out and MAKE MONEY.

"Bills monsters of the ID" will make sure Obama loses. Bill still wants to be number one. So that means McCain needs to WIN. So BIll will do everything in his power to make that happen

Just watch him in action. He did in Hilary ond he will do in Obama

VJ Machiavelli
http://www.vjmachiavelli.blogspot.com

Posted by: VJ Machiavelli | June 27, 2008 12:18 AM | Report abuse

Quinnipiac means "Wacko" in Cherokee, right?

.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | June 26, 2008 11:51 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD is speaking for the Obama Campaign which is completely out of touch with America - why dont you attempt to deceive your way out of this issue too - ask David the Deceiver Axelrod.

Obama has already insulted small town people who cling to guns and religion this year.


So why in the world would Obama attempt to put out a press release indicating that Obama was clinging to guns ???


OH Obama did do that today !!!


Thank you very much.


.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | June 26, 2008 11:48 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD is speaking for the Obama Campaign which is completely out of touch with America - why dont you attempt to deceive your way out of this issue too - ask David the Deceiver Axelrod.

Obama has already insulted small town people who cling to guns and religion this year.


So why in the world would Obama attempt to put out a press release indicating that Obama was clinging to guns ???


OH Obama did do that today !!!


Thank you very much.


.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | June 26, 2008 11:47 PM | Report abuse

Gosh I'm sick of these silly popularity contests.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 26, 2008 9:28 PM | Report abuse

Thank you Lindy King for trying to get us back to reality. Now let's talk about real VP choices like Webb and Biden.

Posted by: freeDom | June 26, 2008 9:08 PM | Report abuse

well I love the Clintons, but I am still not happy about national healthcare...so maybe it is good that the primary was fixed and Obama was given the nomination. Now, even as a Democrat, I have no problem voting for McCain. I think folks should foot the bill for eating hamburgers, clog up their arteries their whole life and then needing an $80,000 triple bypass procedure...and they want tax payers to foot the bill ??? ---NO WAY. Americans are obese and diseased...why should those of us who eat and live healthy have to pay for such ignorance?

Posted by: Hmmmmm | June 26, 2008 8:54 PM | Report abuse

Since he is not going to pick her, and everyone (except the writer) seems to know this, the point of the article is moot.

Posted by: Lindy King | June 26, 2008 8:34 PM | Report abuse

"Barack will be shown to all, as some have commented, as a weak leader if he succumbs to widespread demands Clinton be the vice-presidential nominee. - Posted by: Independent"

You mean barack isn't being viewed as a weak leader for having succumbed to the expediency of the FISA bill, his reneging on his campaign finance principle, his reluctance to debate John McCain, his allergic reaction to women with head-scarves, his on-again smoking "habit", ...

BTW, has the great Barack explained why it took him, a man of "judgment", twenty years to find out that the pastor is not what he thought of him to be?

Posted by: Krishna | June 26, 2008 8:21 PM | Report abuse

The hard core apologists for the Clintons are in the same league as the hard core apologists for the Bush-Cheney regime. They have in common a naive guilibity, whereby they sheepishly accept what the leader tells them. They are in a state of denial about the obvious flaws of their heroes.

The Clintons, Bush and Cheney have in common, an unwillingness to acknowledge mistakes in judgment or actions, being power driven as their primary value, believing they are entitled to be in the White house as president or virtual co-president.

Democrats who belive Bill would not be "a problem" if Hillary was the vice-president, are as naive as those Republicans who still think Bush and Cheney were completely truthful about their rationale for the invasion of Iraq. The Clintons are desperate to get back into the White House and believe their current best chance is by Hillary becoming vice-president.

Barack will be shown to all, as some have commented, as a weak leader if he succumbs to widespread demands Clinton be the vice-presidential nominee.

Posted by: Independent | June 26, 2008 8:08 PM | Report abuse

CLINTONS SHOULD NOT BE ANYWHERE NEAR THE OVAL OFFICE. PERIOD. Their corrupt political matrix may have been the catalyst to the "fierce urgency of now" that sounded the clarion call to Obama. Any good the Clintons managed to do was either *REQUIRED* as part of their job, or most likely designed with self-serving agendas. We've had enough of them ... it's a new day with uplifted ideals and a promise for better politics.
Why in the world would we want to go backwards??

Next we need to get rid of the ugliest man alive, and I mean that in every sense of the word ... Joe Lieberman.

Posted by: SANDY | June 26, 2008 7:48 PM | Report abuse

"the Clinton's have a $109 million fortune - Posted by: radical_moderate"

Clinton's don't have a $100+ million family fortune.
Their combined income over the last 8 years added up to that figure.
That doesn't mean each year's income adds directly to their "fortune".

I am looking at their tax returns for 2001-2006. Their return for 2007 was released, but Google didn't come up with a link for that.

For the 6 years, 2001-2006, the summary is (in million dollars):

Total Income - 88.4
Federal Tax - 28.6
Charitable Contributions - 7.2

The state and any other tax information is not available. But State of New York Income tax rate is about 7+%
Subtracting that, the 88.4 million drops to 46.4 million

Granted, it is still a lot of money, but it doesn't take into account other (real estate?) taxes, and their expenses, which are bound to be considerable. So, what's left after all that is still in millions of dollars, but it would be incorrect to say that they have a $100+ million dollar fortune.

Posted by: Krishna | June 26, 2008 7:43 PM | Report abuse

Oh gee look the very liberal leaning Washington post is trying to foment bad blood arguments 3 weeks after the primary ended...
Do I detect a little jealousy & fear???
Ironic that Obama & Clinton started campaigning together today huh??? I'm sure it's just a coincidence...
Hey I know...
Let's see if we can piss Bill off a little more. Maybe he'll pop a cork & make Hillary stop campaigning with Barack.
Pathetic...

Posted by: Chapman | June 26, 2008 7:32 PM | Report abuse

I believe Hillary would be a problem if Obama took her as a VP. Obama is about change, Hillary is about the same old politics. And Hillary has a very close relationship with John McCain -- they are old vodka drinking buddies. I wouldn't be surprised if McCain took her as his VP!

Posted by: Azoff | June 26, 2008 7:26 PM | Report abuse

Curious to see what the response to an Obama Gore ticket would be.

Alas, Gore would not be interested...

Posted by: NYC | June 26, 2008 7:13 PM | Report abuse

"For those still slamming Clinton supporters claiming we make comments like that, I strongly urge you to read some of the continuing ugly sentiments from so called Obama supporters here. Amazing, it continues even today.

Posted by: Leichtman | June 26, 2008 4:30 PM"

And what makes you think that the repugnocons stopped Operation Chaos after the primaries ended? I would not be the least bit surprised if the fast majority of the comments slamming the Clintons from supposed Obama supporters are not in reality a continuing part of, in Hillary's own words, the Vast Right Wing Conspiricy. Just because somebody clains to be something on a blog doesn't mean they really are what they claim.

I'm an Obama supporter, but the last thing on my mind has been to go out and slam the Clintons. Why would I? We want the Clinton supporters on board for the general election. So who has a motive to stir up bad feelings?

Something smells. I sense Rush Limburger Cheese in the closet. A page out of Karl Rove's playbook.

Posted by: Prattle from Seattle | June 26, 2008 7:05 PM | Report abuse

Gore lost mainly because he was too dumb not to use Clinton and Obama can be too arrogant to beg for help from Bill.If he does not say hello to President Mccain in Jan,09.With Hillary on the ticket BHO has a chance.

Posted by: chaya08 | June 26, 2008 6:33 PM | Report abuse

Hillary back to the Senate and Bill Cliton, back to whatever he is good at...no I take take that back. He doesn't want another blue dress mess.Bill can go back to Arkansas to talk to tourists in his museum.

Posted by: Michael | June 26, 2008 6:20 PM | Report abuse

Billary needs to just go back to NY.
They do not represent anything Obama and could only be a detriment.
Personally, I wouldn't trust them. They're still in disbelief that they didn't win and angry that Obama denied them their legacy.

Posted by: RJII in DC | June 26, 2008 6:05 PM | Report abuse

looks like queenie beanie got herself served up a great big plate of buttsausages

Posted by: oldsmitty | June 26, 2008 4:59 PM | Report abuse

Obama/Biden

Sen. Clinton for Sec/State, Bill for UN Sec Gen.

Posted by: Soonerthought | June 26, 2008 4:53 PM | Report abuse

Obama/Biden

Sen. Clinton for Sec/State, Bill for UN Sec Gen.

Posted by: Soonerthought | June 26, 2008 4:52 PM | Report abuse

$4 million is not that much money, in who's world is that? $300-$400,000 in yearly income is no big deal and justification for giving a paultry sum to charities. And the chutzpah to hear that the Clintons are selfish people in comparison to the new messiah? OK so he doenn't have experience and now we should judge him on his generous character. Just don't see it no matter how much you implore. What would we be hearing had the Clintons given 1% of their income to charity? I am sure you know the answer to that rhetorical question.

Good Luck with that.

Posted by: Leichtman | June 26, 2008 4:40 PM | Report abuse

The Repubs are completely out of step with the vast majority of the American People.

We want the occupation of Iraq to end.

We want healthcare for the 48,000,000 Americans who have no health insurance.

We want to see fairness restored and the tax break for the Top 2% of Americans rescinded.

So... the Repubs are going to do everything they can to DISTRACT you.

They will talk about lapel pins, gay-marriage, gay-anything, "patriotism" as defined by Sean Hannity, strong potential First Ladies, etc

Do NOT be Distracted. We have an obligation to our children and our grandchildren to do the right thing.

Get rid of the Cheney-Bush-McCain crowd and bring restore our inalienable Rights as Americans and our international prestige.

Focus on the issues -- do not be distracted.

Posted by: AdrickHenry | June 26, 2008 4:32 PM | Report abuse

I can not get over the hate people dish at the Clintons. As disgusting as it is having McNasty and his biotch wife in the White House is much worse.

Posted by: Patrick NYC | June 26, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse

queenie? And this is the level of maturity we hear from Obama supporters?

For those still slamming Clinton supporters claiming we make comments like that, I strongly urge you to read some of the continuing ugly sentiments from so called Obama supporters here. Amazing, it continues even today.

Posted by: Leichtman | June 26, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse

Leichtman, Leichtman; the Clinton's have a $109 million fortune to be generous with while the Obama's have recently started making big money (his books have been best sellers), and have young dependents to boot. $4 Million is not that much money considering that they had loans to pay off and two households to maintain. I also hear that the Obama's are prudent savers; strangely enough, it is the McCain's that carry huge balances on their credit cards (per financial statements recently released.) The whole Rony Resko mess was related to the Obama's asking for his help to buy a House and adjacent lot. I would argue, percentage of Household income wise, that their charitable contributions are generous as relative to the Clintons (who have no dependents.)

Why are you harping on these extraneous details? Why are you so concerned with what a few mean spirited idiots have to say about the Clintons. WHY aren't you focused on defeating a man, John McCain, that will maintain the dangerous status-quo if elected?

Posted by: radical_moderate | June 26, 2008 4:29 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Cillizza, YOU PREACH NONSENSE. I WILL NEVER CONSIDER THE INDEPENDENTS AS TOO MUCH OF A THREAT DURING THIS PARTICULAR RACE. THE ECONOMY SUCKS AND OBAMA LEADS BY 8% IN POLLS. So far, IT LOOKS LIKE BUSH IS GOING TO PULL A JIMMY CARTER.

Posted by: Kevin | June 26, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

Clinton WAS ONLY TELLING THE TRUTH IN HIS SPEECH ABOUT JESSE JACKSON. NO RACISM FOR JUST TELLING THE TRUTH ABOUT HOW AFRICAN AMERICANS VOTE.

Posted by: Kevin | June 26, 2008 4:23 PM | Report abuse

there is no way queenie is going to be vp. this would ensure defeat. screw you clintie smearheads

Posted by: smearhead | June 26, 2008 4:21 PM | Report abuse

___________curious why this anonymous poster has such hate for Bill Clinton? Never got an answer incidentally about what % of their income did the Obama's contribute b/w 2000 and 2008 to charity. Around 1% and yet you anonymously insult the Clintons b/c there are administrative costs in running a very generous charity which is doing good for the world? And these folks wonder why the Clinton supporters are so reluctant to join you in your nastiness?

Posted by: Leichtman | June 26, 2008 4:18 PM | Report abuse

Bill Clinton sounds like he's going to be a big time problem. He has open my eyes a lot with some of the bull he's been saying lately in this year's democratic primary...I wonder if he would have ever been president if these remarks were made durning his campaign

Posted by: Travon | June 26, 2008 4:15 PM | Report abuse

They funnel the money back to themselves in salaries and expense accounts.

+++++++++
and exactly what in the world do you think his foundation has done with that money? Perhaps given it to treat AIDS, childhood hunger or to end gang violence. There you go again, nothing the Clintons do is ever enough for this crowd. Are you back claiming that you don't like their charitable contributions either? have you bothered to consider the paltry sums the Obamas have claimed in their tax returns towards charity?

Posted by: | June 26, 2008 2:01 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | June 26, 2008 4:10 PM | Report abuse

Since John McCain continously insists that Obama would be soft on the war on terror, having Jim Webb as Obama's running mate would certainly level the playing field. Obama being soft on terrorists seems to be McCain's only argument lately, but with Webb on the ticket, McCain will need to find another issue to hang on to.

Posted by: JC | June 26, 2008 4:09 PM | Report abuse

I don't care about INDEPENDENTS. They are unimportant to the Democrat cause. Some of the pro-Obama idiots in the media have tried to persuade gullible fools to think Clinton is an equivilant to Bush. NONSENSE. Look at their policies. They are about the same as night is from day. The media has also led many idiots out their to think Clinton is "a racist." EVEN MORE NONSENSE.

Posted by: Kevin | June 26, 2008 3:59 PM | Report abuse

make steretopying comments to Jewish voters is the worst type of anti semitism which I would hope that you would condemn. My Fla relatives certainly saw it that way. It was uncalled for and demeaning.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 26, 2008 3:59 PM | Report abuse

"His comments to Florida jews to look past his race, was as insulting and stereotyping as I have ever heard. I presume you would go along with such anti semetic comments? I don't."
====================
You presume too much. Are you saying that there aren't Jews who are racists?

Posted by: radical_moderate | June 26, 2008 3:53 PM | Report abuse

Just exactly what are the qualifications for becoming the President? Years and years in Washington? I don't think so. You say experience? Look at all the posters explaining how things should be done and how it shouldn't. How much experience does this take? Look at Obamas campaign, it was brilliant and implemented so smoothly. Where were any new ideas when all the experience in Washington was campaigning? Not one had such a clue. Obamas choice for VP will be someone with the same type of individualism as his own. I hope Jim Webb!

Posted by: Anonymous | June 26, 2008 3:48 PM | Report abuse

I don't know which demographic Bill appeals to. I thought he was a good president (rare are those that are great) and I would have voted for a 3rd time.

But now I've developed a real GOP-like loathing of the Clown! He has lost ALL standing in my eyes now.

His claim that "Obama's campaign had 'played the race card on me,'" is... I don't have a word that I can use here that expresses my totally disgust. Just take my word for it, I won't vote for Bill for dog-catcher nowadays.

Bill can't stand that the vaunted Clinton machine was out maneuvered. He's a miserable, petulant so-and-so. Go help McShame, Bill!

AAAARRrrrrrrrrrrrrGGGgggggHHHhhhhhhh!

Posted by: Roofelstoon | June 26, 2008 3:48 PM | Report abuse

"You can't deny that Hillary's support of giving that nimcompoop Bush the power to go to War"

as did John Kerry, Dodd, Feinstein and almost every other D. As I recall Obama was not in the Senate at the time and has said he would have voted exactly like Kerry and HC. When he had a chance to vote for Kerry's bill to end the war he voted no,contrary to Senator Durbin, not exactly a profile in courage.

I have read that Obama is JFK, MLK, Jesus and Lincoln all wrapped up. I differ and see him as a Chicago poll that smokes and uses his Senate Experience and a great 2004 speech to the Democratic Convention as his raison d'etre. I am not a buyer. His comments to Florida jews to look past his race, was as insulting and stereotyping as I have ever heard. I presume you would go along with such anti semetic comments? I don't.

As a D I will work and contribute to local Ds only, I feel no obligation to vote for or support Obama and will not be guilted into doing so.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 26, 2008 3:36 PM | Report abuse

The "Dream Ticket" never was no matter which of them got top billing. The other really needs to stay in the Senate, and work to pass the PARTY's platform. Hillary, especially doesn't fit on the ticket, precisely because there is little doubt that the Party will now need to find a place to park Bill where he can do the most good and the least harm. Permanent Delegate to the United Nations (where the Dems parked Eleanor Roosevelt) might be right, or Ambassador to the Court of St James. Bill, Al, John E, and other unattached Dem Big Wigs are all going to need to be stashed somewhere so that they pull with the party, and not pull at a conflicting vector.

Predicting VP candidates is only a little fun. Speculating on who John or Barack will name to which Cabinet, Court, or Diplomatic post is more entertaining, and more enlightening as well.

Posted by: ceflynline@msn.com | June 26, 2008 3:36 PM | Report abuse

Bill Clinton could be an anchor. Duh!

It is not because of any particular position, I just dare you to find someone who doesn't think Bill would use his position of VP spouse to use his mouth in an inappropriate manner.

Posted by: muD | June 26, 2008 3:32 PM | Report abuse

CC: Why do you keep writing articles that focus on HRC as potential VP. I don't think there are many people, whether pundits or in the public, that see her as even being in Obama's top 5 at this point. I'd say Biden, Edwards, Nunn, and Richardson are even ahead of her at this point. Am I wrong?

Posted by: CDC | June 26, 2008 3:30 PM | Report abuse

Nobody can be ready to be commander and cheif unless they have done the job before.Who ever gets the job will have plenty of people making choices for them. It's not like anybody would have enough experience to be President.It's a learning experience just like any other new job position.Who are we to say who has enough experience.

Posted by: Kathy Johnson | June 26, 2008 3:23 PM | Report abuse

Nobody can be ready to be commander and cheif unless they have done the job before.Who ever gets the job will have plenty of people making choices for them. It's not like anybody would have enough experience to be President.It's a learning experience just like any other new job position.Who are we to say who has enough experience.

Posted by: Kathy | June 26, 2008 3:22 PM | Report abuse

Nobody can be ready to be commander and cheif unless they have done the job before.Who ever gets the job will have plenty of people making choices for them. It's not like anybody would have enough experience to be President.It's a learning experience just like any other new job position.Who are we to say who has enough experience.

Posted by: Kathy | June 26, 2008 3:22 PM | Report abuse

"I have no personal antipathy towards Obama, my major beef is that he is the least qualified candidate of all those running."
================
Yet he is the Democrat's nominee. As a member of the Party I would expect you to get over the Clinton loss and work for the PARTY if not the individual.

I accept that Obama has good judgement and will surround himself with reasonable advisors. Experience can be overrated you know; Washington, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, had little Political experience, but were effective Presidents. Intelligence and judgement can go a long way to make up for a lack of Political experience. Remember that Bill Clinton was only a 2 term Governor from lil' old Arkansas when he took office; what separated Clinton from the herd was that keen intelligence which Obama shares I believe.

You can't deny that Hillary's support of giving that nimcompoop Bush the power to go to War to, as it ultimately has come out, insinuate the neo-con's brand of "coersive democracy" in the region was her fatal mistake.

BTW, I'm sure that you weren't impressed by Obama's speech at AIPAC, but I thought he expressed his support for our staunchest ally in the region, Israel, very well. Hey how about Robert Wexler as VEEP?

Posted by: radical_moderate | June 26, 2008 3:21 PM | Report abuse

and with comments like your's, why should he?

Posted by: Leichtman | June 26, 2008 3:14 PM | Report abuse

Barack is doing just fine without Hillary he does not need her. If he puts her on his ticket he will loose Bill Clinton will make sure of it. Bill was stumping for himself he is all about himself. He was not helping his wife he was trying to get himself reelected like a third term. Look at him now making excuses for not backing Barack.He is not going to.

Posted by: Judy Pauling | June 26, 2008 3:10 PM | Report abuse

The latest congressional news should not be overlooked because it shows just how dismal the situation is for the GOP right now. Most notable is that the New York Republican Party continues to think, with its THIRD TIER candidates now declining to run in NY-13 in what is now sure to be a Democratic pick-up: http://campaigndiaries.com/2008/06/26/down-ballot-nys-gop-sinks-further-and-gordon-smith-hugs-obama-tight/

Posted by: Dan | June 26, 2008 2:57 PM | Report abuse

Can someone explain to me why Minnesota is continually mentioned as a battleground state? Perhaps because the media wants to make this race into a closer race than it actually is?

Minnesota has not voted for a Republican since 1972. No other state can boast such a claim. Any rumor thatit was trending purple, was put to rest in the 2006 cycle when Amy Klobuchar was elected Senator by double digits and the Democrats won local races, statewide. More than one poll has Obama up in double digits, including this one which has him up by 17.

So what could it be that makes Minnesota a battleground state? Perhaps it is Republicans playing up the fact that our beloved T-Paw, is in fact, a Republican. But I would challenge someone to tell me what significant conservative legislation has he pushed through the state? A statewide smoking ban? A tax-raising transportation bill? He was elected as a liberal Republican and still is one. It's the only way he survives.

So, Chris, how is Minnesota a battleground state? I think it is something that the Beltway is misinterpreting. Let me know, I'd appreciate it.

Posted by: Aaron, St. Paul, MN | June 26, 2008 2:44 PM | Report abuse

fairfax your comments were spot on. While I abhore Lieberman, to now blame him for Gore's loss is preposterous in fact he was responsible for making it close in Fla.

Posted by: Leichtman | June 26, 2008 2:26 PM | Report abuse

Dead, I say, dead! This horse has evaporated from deadness. Why Chris and the pollsters continue to pump for the possibility of an Obama/Clinton ticket is incomprehensible.

Bill Clinton would be a disaster, Hillary Clinton would energize the flagging GOP base, and most importantly Obama does not want it. So it is not going to happen, no matter how many times Chris and others raise this question.

Although I guess I prefer this silly line of questioning to the equally ridiculous dead horse of Michelle Obama as liability.

The current polls show that Obama is significantly ahead of McCain. The Gallop poll with them tied seems now to be an outlier. This is the important story and will continue to be so throughout the summer.

Posted by: dee | June 26, 2008 2:25 PM | Report abuse

no radical haven't read the Jerusalem Post for years.
I have no personal antipathy towards Obama, my major beef is that he is the least qualified candidate of all those running.Seven years as a state senator would be a joke in any other political year, and you know that. Biden, Dodd even Kusinich would have been preferable. They have actually done more than being a community organizer pretty much the only contribution he has made in his very brief career.

So what they had student loans. Who cares. Do you know anyone who went to lawschool that doesn't. And how many families have 2 breadwinner pulling in high $100,000 salaries, and we should feel sorry for them paying for child care? That is really an elitist attitude. In 2004 they earned 1.2 million dollars and my family which earned a small % of that gave considerably more to charity. I just don't see him as a messiah or 'beyond politics" actually his politics are very old school Chicago style, but yet he was given a free ride by the media.
I tell you what did tick me off about Obama. He went to my cousins Fla synagogogue last month and pronounced that they need to get over the color of his skin when deciding who to vote for. They were totally outraged.

Posted by: Leichtman | June 26, 2008 2:22 PM | Report abuse

Someone has now posted this here re Al Gore in 2000:
"In a race that turned out to be that close you can look at anything and say that was the factor. I would say if he didn't select a Jew as a running mate he would have won. Like it or not, it is probably true."

Gee, I knew we were missing one toxic element of public discourse in these Comments sections -- hello, anti-Semitism!

"Like it or not," as you put it, there is ZERO evidence to support that notion, other than your own preconceptions about how other Americans vote. Show us the polling data that shows how Lieberman hurt Gore and lost the election. As I recall, the unconventional choice of a Jewish running mate added just about the only "pizzazz" that ticket had, and I'm speaking as someone who volunteered for it. It was pretty much the Jewish VP choice, plus the big Tipper-Al kiss at the convention.

You may dislike him now on policy grounds, but at the time, one of our national newsmagazines that showcased his smiling face with Gore's along with the approving headline, "Chutzpah!"

I'm not Jewish, but I recall the great puzzlement by the media that American voters who had literally never met a Jew in their lives were, if anything, rather excited by this "exotic" pick. (I hate to say it but quite a few also told reporters, on the record, that they thought it was a good idea because they had heard that these Jews were good with money issues, and that would help with the economy. Sigh.) With his religiosity, which extended to the point that he could not campaign or travel on the Sabbath, Lieberman was the perfect anti-Monica component of the ticket.

The proof that Lieberman's religion per se was not a fatal error for Gore is that Ed Rendell and Michael Bloomberg are constantly on VP lists today, and Bloomberg is on the speculative list for BOTH McCain and Obama. Whatever you may feel about Lieberman's views and behavior now, he truly was a trailblazer, making Jewish identity far less of an issue today in picking a potential VP than it was just eight years ago. How far we've come.

Posted by: Fairfax Voter | June 26, 2008 2:17 PM | Report abuse

MarkInAustin writes
"I would not be surprised to see CC blog tomorrow that the most negative aspect of an HRC VP presence would be the irrepressible WJC, for four years."

Do you agree that the WJC factor is independant of his comments during the primary? Certainly, the comments don't help, but even without them WJC is a significant negative to selecting HRC as running-mate.

Posted by: bsimon | June 26, 2008 2:12 PM | Report abuse

I have heard Clark in person deliver a speech and was totally uninspired. Maybe as a Secy of Defense but in no way is he ready to lead this country beyond the military.
As a former Clinton supporter are you not just a little fed up with the Clintons still being trashed here. What the heck have they done to these Obama supporters other than to challenge their candidate? Is that no longer allowed in the D party? Are we all told by the O supporters, The D party, moveon, DFA, dailykod etc to just shut up and get in line? And now they have the audacity to criticize their generous charitable contributions, what is next. They have said ugly things not only to Bill and Hillary but to Chelsea and then they say why don't you love our guy. What did Chelsea do to deserve such abuse?

Posted by: Leichtman | June 26, 2008 2:08 PM | Report abuse

What's really hilarious in all this Bill Clinton being a drag on Obama bit if Hillary is his VP, is the fact that the new Democratic Party god has replaced the old Democratic Party gods Bill and Hillary Clinton. When Bill and Hillary Clinton where in the Democratic Party driving seat, they could and did get away with every slimy, sleazy and illegal scam with not a peep from any of them. Every time a new Clinton-scam came to light then, every Democrat in the country circled the wagons and defended them no matter what. The Democratic Party--controlled Main Stream Media back then acted more like the 3 monkeys--hear no evil, see no evil, and speak no evil--rather than doing their job of being the watchdog for the people. Now however with their new god Barack Obama, who they all believe can walk on water, the Clintons are suddenly being treated like Republicans. Blacks, who once loved the Clintons and called Bill the first black president, now hate the Clintons for opposing their 'black-like-me' candidate Obama. White liberals who have always had a guilt-trip mind-set about the black slavery thing and who once defended the Clintons for anything and everything, are suddenly the Clinton's worst nightmare. The Democratic Party--controlled MSM's talking heads and newspaper/magazines journalists have now suddenly woken up and seen the light and have only now STARTED to see the Clintons for what they have always been. The Clintons chickens, it seems, have finally come home to roost. Now they're being treated like Republicans.

Posted by: madhatter | June 26, 2008 2:08 PM | Report abuse

Obama supporters are so hateful towards the Clintons that no matter what they do no matter how much they help your campaign (which by your comment I find to be insane) they are insulted by your side. Why should they bother since they are such horrible, flawed people?=================
Are you saying that certain Clinton supporters aren't as hateful toward Obama and his wife? Or do the insults only register with you when they are directed at the Clintons?
=================
The Clintons gave 10% to charity the Obamas often less than 1%
===============
And the Clintons have many times over the income of the Obamas who just paid off their Student Loans and have 2 young daughters to plan futures for as well.
================
"In otherwords, no matter what they do, no matter how much they raise for Sen Obama, they will be demonized by 'most' of his supporters"
===============
again I will challenge you on the Clintons being demonized by "most" of Obama's supporters; are you talking about the "real" world or the blogsphere? In the real world many Democrats look back with nostalgia to the Clinton era, and many have come to respect Hillary Clinton.

Leichtman...are you a reader of The Jerusalem Post? Is this where your anitpathy toward Obama springs?

Posted by: radical_moderate | June 26, 2008 2:07 PM | Report abuse

Anon writes
"I would say if he didn't select a Jew as a running mate he would have won. Like it or not, it is probably true"

I disagree. I agree that Lieberman was a bad choice, but for his Liebermanishness, not for his Jewishness.

Posted by: bsimon | June 26, 2008 2:06 PM | Report abuse

and exactly what in the world do you think his foundation has done with that money? Perhaps given it to treat AIDS, childhood hunger or to end gang violence. There you go again, nothing the Clintons do is ever enough for this crowd. Are you back claiming that you don't like their charitable contributions either? have you bothered to consider the paltry sums the Obamas have claimed in their tax returns towards charity?

Posted by: Anonymous | June 26, 2008 2:01 PM | Report abuse

Leichtman I disagree on Clark, he is very strong on military and can be a forceful speaker. I agree on Webb though. I like Biden but he has a habit of putting his foot in his mouth.

Posted by: Patrick NYC | June 26, 2008 1:52 PM | Report abuse

That 10% the Clintons gave to charity, went to Bills foundations. He gave the money to himself.

+++++++++++
Of course Bill is flawed otherwise we would have had Al as Pres. He was also an enormously succesfull 2 term Pres. that did a lot for our society and our economy, for instance reducing natl poverty. Yet many here have called them scum and worse(not you). The Clintons gave 10% to charity the Obamas often less than 1% and yet they are declared the second coming. Hillary has also contributed a great deal to children's rights and been a sucesfull bipartisan Senator, yet she is constantly portrayed as evil and unworthy of respect. They are all god's children, none of them perfect (O smokes) and many of us are more than fed up with the way they are treated and portrayed(as racists which is insane), I am not alone in that view, even when they are out there working to elect your guy. In otherwords, no matter what they do, no matter how much they raise for Sen Obama, they will be demonized by 'most' of his supporters. Unless that stops don't expect us to get behind what we feel is your unqualified candidate no matter how many insults are thrown our way.

Posted by: Leichtman | June 26, 2008 1:31 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | June 26, 2008 1:49 PM | Report abuse

In a race that turned out to be that close you can look at anything and say that was the factor. I would say if he didn't select a Jew as a running mate he would have won. Like it or not, it is probably true

)))))))))))))))
Leichtman I agree that Bill played a part in Gore losing but Al was the one who thought it was smart to distance himself from him. If he asked for his help it might have made a difference, that and fighting the dirty tricks in FL. Gore takes more of the blame over all.

Posted by: | June 26, 2008 1:36 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | June 26, 2008 1:47 PM | Report abuse

Mark I have not heard much since she bowed out, the little chater has been about the two I mentioned. I don't see her giving up the Senate for a cabniet positon that may only be for one term. She'll have much more clout in the Senate, despite being the junior Senator she has more star power than any other, especially with Teddy's unfortunate exit.

Posted by: Patrick NYC | June 26, 2008 1:47 PM | Report abuse

We all know that Bill put Al in a no win position that I doubt anyone would doubt would have turned out differently had Bill acted otherwise.

My ong point thoug that even with his flawed personal behavior that he was a succesful POTUS and likely history will judge him that way.

patrick I know that Obama has no intention to even consider Hillary but it would show courage and send a strong message to the neysayers that post here that he is strong enough to have a strong opinionated woman as his VP. I really don't care for clark and think he has proven that he is a weak politician, and i doubt the Ds would be williing to likely cede Webb's seat to a R. Why the heck not Biden, he has the gravitas and world respect that a VP should have? Isn't that the test of a good VP choice, or is it all about smart political posturing? Is he or she qualified to step in?

Posted by: Leichtman | June 26, 2008 1:46 PM | Report abuse

HRC will be a force in the D Party for years to come. She is no longer in WJC's shadow.
Patrick, do you have any knowledge of what her own leaning might be? Any rumors? GuvNY? Senate career a/la Teddy? Cabinet office?

Leichtman, if your contacts have been speculating on this, what do they say?

Posted by: MarkInAustin | June 26, 2008 1:40 PM | Report abuse

Leichtman I agree that Bill played a part in Gore losing but Al was the one who thought it was smart to distance himself from him. If he asked for his help it might have made a difference, that and fighting the dirty tricks in FL. Gore takes more of the blame over all.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 26, 2008 1:36 PM | Report abuse

Mark I agree about Bill, which is one of the reasons for her negatives. I voted for her three times, and still am a fan. I just don't see Obama picking her with all the bad blood, which is clear on sites like this.

Here in NY State she had much higher negatives until she campaigned around the state when she first ran for the Senate. The more people got to see her, and not the cartoon the MSM and idiots like Rush and Faux news made, the more they liked her.

I think she has a long career ahead of her, I'd like to see her either as Senate leader, get rid of that idiot Reid, or on the Supreme Court.

Posted by: Patrick NYC | June 26, 2008 1:32 PM | Report abuse

Crossposted from previous thread:

Great news Tarheel - I was able to find a a contemporary citation form the Washington Post no less, of the Newsweek-Gallup poll at taken after the Dem Convention. I gotta admit, it shows Mondale with a lead....of two points, and an MOE of 4.

http://www.poliblogger.com/?p=2724

IN any event, the sole point I was trying to make is that one outlier poll from that time, even if it really happened, was not indicative of the electorate, even at that time. I'm sure you'll never go to this site http://www.fivethirtyeight.com, but it has all the polls by state and aggregated. It's definitely Obama by about 5-7 right now, but more importantly, the EV count right now is strongly in his favor so the point in my 11;03 post stands - McCain has to play defense right now, it's depressing his base, and the media narrative is changing in a way not to his advantage. I am neither a fan, nor a supporter of Obama, although I admit I find McCain duplicitous and arrogant, to be upfront about my personal feelings.

Posted by: spike | June 26, 2008 1:32 PM | Report abuse

Of course Bill is flawed otherwise we would have had Al as Pres. He was also an enormously succesfull 2 term Pres. that did a lot for our society and our economy, for instance reducing natl poverty. Yet many here have called them scum and worse(not you). The Clintons gave 10% to charity the Obamas often less than 1% and yet they are declared the second coming. Hillary has also contributed a great deal to children's rights and been a sucesfull bipartisan Senator, yet she is constantly portrayed as evil and unworthy of respect. They are all god's children, none of them perfect (O smokes) and many of us are more than fed up with the way they are treated and portrayed(as racists which is insane), I am not alone in that view, even when they are out there working to elect your guy. In otherwords, no matter what they do, no matter how much they raise for Sen Obama, they will be demonized by 'most' of his supporters. Unless that stops don't expect us to get behind what we feel is your unqualified candidate no matter how many insults are thrown our way.

Posted by: Leichtman | June 26, 2008 1:31 PM | Report abuse

Patrick, Just for clarity; did you mean that HRC's negatives outweigh her positives?

By May, I think HRC was a far better candidate, and WJC was a far lesser force, than when the primaries began. I would not be surprised to see CC blog tomorrow that the most negative aspect of an HRC VP presence would be the irrepressible WJC, for four years.

Posted by: MarkInAustin | June 26, 2008 1:27 PM | Report abuse

So this is what you write about from these polls showing Obama with leads in these 4 "battleground" states, two of which are substantial leads? Given these polls in conjunction with Newsweek and LATimes/Bloomberg, when can we expect to see a trend story and questions about whether McCain is in serious trouble. Given the average of a 7.3% lead from all the polls, maybe its the Gallop daily tracking poll that is the "outlier" that we keep hearing about the Newsweek poll? I know it is the sworn duty of the MSM to try and keep the race close through "conventional wisdom perceptions", but I would love to see someone other than Olbermann telling it like it is from the left against the Fox Noise machine that seems to set the agenda for news coverage across the board

Posted by: rbt | June 26, 2008 1:26 PM | Report abuse

The negatives in Picking Hillary are out weighted by any positives she may bring, and I voted for her. I do not see her playing second fiddle or Obama wanting her looking over his shoulder.

I think the smart move is to pick either Webb or Clark.

Posted by: Patrick NYC | June 26, 2008 1:17 PM | Report abuse

Obama is in between a rock and a hard place. Either help Hillary pay off her debt or get two people perporting to support you but without great enthusiasm that will be picked up by the general public. In fact the Clintons may revive their theme song with one adjustment" Don`t stop thinking about us tomorrow"

Posted by: musing | June 26, 2008 1:02 PM | Report abuse

Obama is in between a rock and a hard place. Either help Hillary pay off her debt or get two people perporting to support you but without great enthusiasm that will be picked up by the general public. In fact the Clintons may revive their theme song with one adjustment" Don`t stop thinking about us tomorrow"

Posted by: musing | June 26, 2008 1:01 PM | Report abuse

Leichtman, is it your intention to argue that Bill & Hillary are both flawless? That seems like a radical position to take. I can understand that you think GtG's comments are a bit harsh, but there is a valid point to be made. In any case, neither McCain nor Obama are flawless either. But both are less flawed than the guy we're stuck with right now...

Posted by: bsimon | June 26, 2008 1:00 PM | Report abuse

So Chris stop trying to shill for your pal
Barack Hussein Obama long enough to wake
up and realize the Do Nothing Democrats
have a Huge Problem in Barack Hussein Obama
that will even cost the Democrats and the
young Obamafools and Old Democrat Liberal
Obamabots the control of Congress and loss
of the White House as well. NOBAMA!

Posted by: Sandy5274 | June 26, 2008 1:00 PM | Report abuse

Hillary will be nowhere near the ticket. So Bill is a non-problem. I think...

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: matt | June 26, 2008 12:55 PM | Report abuse

Clinton will not be the VP candidate, so this polling is unimportant

Posted by: corinthian | June 26, 2008 12:48 PM | Report abuse

gandalf you claim that Hillary and Bill are flawed candidates. You do realize that Bill was the first D POTUS since FDR to win re-election, right?
And do you understand that Hillary is out fundraising for Obama and vows to raise $50 million for your guy. Oh how selfish and flawed that is of her.
You comment proves my point. Obama supporters are so hateful towards the Clintons that no matter what they do no matter how much they help your campaign (which by your comment I find to be insane) they are insulted by your side. Why should they bother since they are such horrible, flawed people?

Posted by: Leichtman | June 26, 2008 12:47 PM | Report abuse

I wonder if its reasonable to conclude that Pres Clinton's remarks during the primary are the cause of respondents' perception that he'd be a 'problem' on the imaginary Obama-Clinton ticket.

For instance, lets imagine a McCain - Laura Bush ticket. If you're McCain, what do you do with W? You can't ask him to just shut up. You can't really ask him to stick to campaign talking points.

I can't imagine that any candidate would want an ex-president as their running-mate's spouse.

Posted by: bsimon | June 26, 2008 12:31 PM | Report abuse

Chris:

Hillary lost her nomination campaign for a host of reasons - one was the negative impact her husband had on her appeal to Democrats and Independents. Want evidence - just read the comments to your own columns over the past 6 months.

Bill Clinton should never be allowed back in the White House - except as an honored guest. We have learned about Bill. And, in so doing we have now learned about Hillary.

They are both deeply flawed human beings who also possess great strength and commitment to the causes they embrace.

Both FLAWED --- you ask, your voice shaking with righteous indignation - our former President? Hillary?

How?

They are both deeply flawed because they have demonstrated that the CAUSE to which they are MOST committed is their grasp for political power.

They will do anything - or say anything -- if their careful calculations suggest they should do so. They practice what we know as "situational ethics."

Their moral compass might better be described as "calculated ethics."

We do not need the Clinton's back in the White House except as reception guests.

Posted by: GandalftheGrey | June 26, 2008 12:29 PM | Report abuse

Chris, we know by now the result of November election: a landslide vitory for Republicans with the McCain-Romney ticket.

I thought David Axelrod was way smart. As I declared, the game is over.

Posted by: peace4world | June 26, 2008 12:06 PM | Report abuse

Come on, Chris...

The Obama/Clinton "dream" ticket was never a dream. The Obama/Clinton ticket would only intensify the interest of the media and some Hillary supporters. The Democratic electorate is already energize and enthusiatic this election cycle thanks to both Obama and Hillary, but mostly by Obama.

The ability to win the general election and to effectively govern is severely comprised with an Obama/"Clinton" ticket. Which Clinton would really be Obama's running mate? Hillary in body, but when it is time to govern will it be Obama and Bill?

Posted by: Obama-Junkie | June 26, 2008 12:06 PM | Report abuse

"Some advocacy groups have called for Davis's ouster because his lobbying firm in 2006 represented a Ukrainian politician opposed by the U.S. government. "Why would a candidate for president hire a lobbyist whose firm worked against our national interests?" asked David Donnelly, director of Campaign Money Watch."

Good question - why is McCain's chief strategist an agent of a foreign enemy?

Posted by: Anonymous | June 26, 2008 11:50 AM | Report abuse

Those numbers confirm what I believe many in the Obama camp already suspected. The "dream ticket" idea is terrible for Obama. He needs to keep independents in his corner. Particularly this cycle, because independents are normally a McCain strength. I believe Obama's current lead among independents is why McCain currently finds himself backed into corner against Obama. McCain can't draw conservatives (the normal republican base) and is losing independents (the way McCain is supposed to expand the field so that he doesn't need as many conservative votes). Obama selecting Clinton, by either choice or force, would provide McCain with the opening he needs to tighten this race.

Posted by: JNoel002 | June 26, 2008 11:49 AM | Report abuse


Top McCain Adviser Has Found Success Mixing Money, Politics

In the eight years since Davis first managed a McCain campaign, his relationship with the senator has been a lucrative commodity. He and his lobbying firm, Davis Manafort, have earned handsome fees representing clients who need McCain's help in the Senate. He also has made money from a panoply of McCain-related entities, some of which have operated from the upscale riverfront office space that houses his lobbying shop.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 26, 2008 11:41 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company