Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Wag the Blog: Does Obama Need Clinton on Ticket?

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton

Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton appear together at a Women For Obama fundraiser breakfast in New York on July 10, 2008. (Timothy A. Clary/AFP/Getty Images)

From the moment that Barack Obama secured his party's presidential nomination, we have been very skeptical about the prospect of the Illinois senator choosing Hilary Rodham Clinton as his vice presidential ticket mate.

And, we remain nearly certain that when Obama sees fit to let the world know who he has picked -- please make it soon Senator! -- it won't be Clinton standing by his side.

But, should it be?

A new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll provides startling evidence of a continued reluctance of a significant chunk of Clinton backers to line up behind their party's soon-to-be-formal nominee.

Just 52 percent of self-identifying Clinton supporters say they are backing Obama while 21 percent are siding with John McCain and 27 percent are undecided or are looking for some other candidate to support.

That tepid support from a significant chunk of the Democratic base is as responsible as any other factor for the fact that Obama and McCain are essentially deadlocked -- 45 percent for Obama, 42 percent for McCain -- in the general election head-to-head matchup.

For today's Wag the Blog question, we want to know whether you think those poll numbers are overwhelming evidence that Obama needs to pick Clinton as his vice president in order to win the White House in the fall. Why or why not? (Don't forget to revisit our "Case For" and "Case Against" Clinton as veep pieces from earlier this summer.)

The most thoughtful/insightful comments will be featured in their own post later this week.

By Chris Cillizza  |  August 21, 2008; 12:40 PM ET
Categories:  Wag The Blog  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: GOP Veepstakes: Political Positioning or a Fundamental Rebranding?
Next: Analysis: Why the Home Debate Matters

Comments

Obama does't need anything, only to disappear... Unqualified at all for the Presidency, having served only 146 days in the Federal government, a beautiful talker-- saying nothing that hasn't been said countless times before, a true "spoiler"--using someone else's ideas and presenting them as his own, he is a true find! The Democrats must have been looking a long time for someone like him.

But they only succeeded in shooting themselves in the foot. Because all the cards have been stacked for a Democratic victory this November. Now, I and all my many friends will vote Republican, because we cannot stomach him. We will still remain Democrats, but not Obama-Democrats. We tried make this known as early and as much as possible, but to no avail--we were drowned out by the "Obama crazies". is atrue "find "

Posted by: elm | August 26, 2008 6:41 PM | Report abuse

I am so angry with my Democratic Party right now. They have sold the women of this country down the drain. Naming Joe Biden as VP has me livid. THE WOMEN OF THIS COUNTRY CAN DELIVER THIS ELECTION TO THE DEMOCRATS if only they would stop the "good old boy" mentality that continues in to run our Party. How dare they snub their noses at what we can deliver, the wealth we control, and the support we can provide. Hillary, with all her faults, is the best VP choice this Party has going to ensure VICTORY. I am so disappointed in Obama and his "just like you" approach to all of this and then pick Biden. It's time this Party realizes and remembers the strengths and the numbers the women of this country can deliver. Believe me, WE'LL REMEMBER!

Posted by: Angry in Florida | August 26, 2008 6:08 PM | Report abuse

I am so angry with my Democratic Party right now. They have sold the women of this country down the drain. Naming Joe Biden as VP has me livid. THE WOMEN OF THIS COUNTRY CAN DELIVER THIS ELECTION TO THE DEMOCRATS if only they would stop the "good old boy" mentality that continues in to run our Party. How dare they snub their noses at what we can deliver, the wealth we control, and the support we can provide. Hillary, with all her faults, is the best VP choice this Party has going to ensure VICTORY. I am so disappointed in Obama and his "just like you" approach to all of this and then pick Biden. It's time this Party realizes and remembers the strengths and the numbers the women of this country can deliver. Believe me, WE'LL REMEMBER!

Posted by: PO'd in Florida | August 26, 2008 6:03 PM | Report abuse

I am so angry with my Democratic Party right now. They have sold the women of this country down the drain. Naming Joe Biden as VP has me livid. THE WOMEN OF THIS COUNTRY CAN DELIVER THIS ELECTION TO THE DEMOCRATS if only they would stop the "good old boy" mentality that continues in to run our Party. How dare they snub their noses at what we can deliver, the wealth we control, and the support we can provide. Hillary, with all her faults, is the best VP choice this Party has going to ensure VICTORY. I am so disappointed in Obama and his "just like you" approach to all of this and then pick Biden. It's time this Party realizes and remembers the strengths and the numbers the women of this country can deliver. Believe me, WE'LL REMEMBER!

Posted by: PO'd in Florida | August 26, 2008 6:02 PM | Report abuse

Adults are so stupid! any of the Hilary supporters that are going to vote for McCain.
Thanks for ruining our great country a whole bunch more!

Obama for President!

Posted by: kid | August 24, 2008 8:25 AM | Report abuse

Obama would not only seriously damage his chances with Hellary on the ticket, but he needs to be aware that she is like a coiled snake waiting to strike at the DNC.

Thank goodness, Obama has chosen Joe Biden as his VP. Not my choice, but so much better than Hellary.

Posted by: Vampirella | August 23, 2008 11:29 AM | Report abuse

I recently attended a meeting (in one of the midwest toss-up states) of women who had maxed out for Hillary. A key speaker had recently returned from having dinner with Hillary in NY and gave an impassioned plea on behalf of Hillary to join the Obama campaign. The speaker said Hillary clearly was asking us to join her efforts to elect Obama. All the rational arguments were given and the response was mostly an overwhelming slence. The women in the room are veteran Democratic party activists who together represent the potential to raise a minimum of $500,000 for their chosen candidate and they have done so many times in the past for their second or even third choice top of the ticket candidate. Nearly all said they probably, reluctantly, would eventually vote for Obama but just couldn't get excited about contributing or fundraising or actively supporting him. The reasons given centered on Obama's attitude toward Hillary during the debates, a perception of Obama's post-primary sense of entitlement for former Hillary campaigners' automatic and uncritical support, and arrogance on the part of his supporters. I can only imagine how the news tonight that Obama didn't grant Hillary the courtesy of a formal "vet" for Veep will impact their already weak support. I predict a lot of polite public posturing to avoid charges from the Obama campaign that Hillary supporters are "sore losers" and quiet votes for other candidates or voting for the down ballot Democratic candidates while leaving the top of the ticket blank.

Posted by: Lyn | August 22, 2008 11:15 PM | Report abuse

Possible correction: Olbermann's "Countdown" is saying Bayh's not the guy. Nor is it Kaine, so says KO. So who knows. I'd like Chet Edwards as veep, sort of a Jim Webb type.... Off subject, a tip to Rachel Maddow for getting her own cable show. This former Rhodes scholar is far and away the best analyst in a business full of bloviation.

Posted by: Broadway Joe | August 22, 2008 8:08 PM | Report abuse

Drudge is reporting it's Bayh for veep.

In desperate times, our heroes sometimes come with strange names (BHO) and, in Bayh's case, with unfortunate "hair systems." But it's done, so says Drudge, so all the base, the Obamacans (let's get vocal, Colin), independents, progressives, the hip and the hep, the young people, and yes the lost tribe of Hillaria (including the harpies) need to come together as one in support of BO/Bayh. For the environment, sustainable energy, the economy, and...World Peace.

Posted by: Broadway Joe | August 22, 2008 7:58 PM | Report abuse

"Real Clear Politics. com shows that all but two polls show BO ahead and more importantly he is pulling ahead in key battleground states."

Real Clear Politics has an electoral vote count that awards all states to whoever is ahead in their state poll averages. BO had been ahead 304 electoral votes to 234. He is losing today 264 to 274. McCain now leads in OH, CO, IN & VA by approximately 1 point each. This is a real, not bogus, negative trend that has to be addressed.

Posted by: bj123 | August 22, 2008 7:45 PM | Report abuse

What a day of hype!! Waiting to hear Senator Obama's choice for VP has certainly been the news of the day!! Great lead in for the convention next week! Unfortunately, for this once loyal supporter, I have had to step back and ask, is this the way he would run my country; all hype, bells and whistles - with a good dose of intrigue? Is this a sign of things to come for the next four years? Hollywood antics belong in California not Washington, and today's side show lost Obama my vote.

Posted by: Glenna | August 22, 2008 7:43 PM | Report abuse

"Bruce Kenney," I couldn't agree with you more. Will you join me for some gritty tasting rice? We are alike, you and I.
A syrup entrepreneur may be coming by, too.

U.B.

Posted by: Uncle Ben | August 22, 2008 7:22 PM | Report abuse

Obama and his supporters needs to think about winning the election. Period. Nothing that he, or his supporters want, can happen if he does not WIN.

Many supporters probably are feeling that this election is the democrats to lose. Therefore, Obama's camp and his supporters felt that they had the luxury and moral authority to shape the ticket according to their "vision" and preferences, without regards to political considerations.... Well, the new numbers should make his supporters swallow hard and realize (i.e. wake-up) that they need to be pragmatic and pick a VP that will get them the most votes-or the giving of all their hard earn time and large sums of money would have gone to waste.

Remember, because of Obama's race (and because people don't like to say that they are not going to vote for an African American), IF Obama and McCain are tied that probably means that in reality Obama is LOSING!

I believe that Hillary gives Obama the best chance to gain the most votes in KEY states. Remember, if you win California by 5 million votes it does not matter. You need to GAIN votes were it counts (i.e.in states that you are losing)!

Posted by: David M | August 22, 2008 7:21 PM | Report abuse

News reports today suggest all of the prior BO veep "long" lists (few of which ranked Mrs. Wm. J. Clinton higher than No. 300,000,000, or above Richard Speck or Diana Nyad) were wrong.

It turns out HRC wasn't on the BO "short" list, long list, Schindler's list, or his grocery list. So No. 300,000,000 was actually too high for her. Because of her ongoing mean, destructive, narcissistic antics, BO (according to Drudge) did not waste any resources vetting her at all. Didn't collect one scrap of paper from her.

Also the NY Times reports today, she is providing little or no support for BO, never has. She also is making no effort to quell the crazed semi-violent anti-Obama antics planned for next week. Despite all that, surrogates are complaining publicly BO has a obligation to pay off her $25 million, which they said he could do in 10 days. What planet are they from? Hillaria? No losing candidate in modern history has ever demanded the winner pay off their debt particularly where, as here, it was amassed after she had mathematically lost the race. Another HRC historic first I guess (like playing the RFK a-card).

As for the anti-BO rants of intcamd1, scrivener, AsperGirl, the harpies, the mentals, and trolls, the Reuters poll was bogus. Real Clear Politics. com shows that all but two polls show BO ahead and more importantly he is pulling ahead in key battleground states.

Look, the North Pole has no ice cap; gas is unaffordable; the world is in crisis. Nobody has time anymore for Hillarian personal drama; it can't always be about HRC Inc. That's why this race is the most important since Johnson/Goldwater. World Peace.

Posted by: Broadway Joe | August 22, 2008 7:16 PM | Report abuse

There are a bunch of idiots (er, Nobama supporting gutter rats; anyway, is there a difference between the two) thinking that there are 18 mil supporters of HRC out there, and if roughly half of them don't support Nob, that means he is just missing out on 9 million voters, so what?

Well, such is the math of these Nob doting buffoons. HRC has the support of 1/2 of all dems, as did Nob. If as these idiots think, HRC had the support of 18 million voters, then that is the same number of voters supporting Nob.

There is no evidence out there that HRC's supporters turned out in greater #s in the primaries than did Nob's. On the contrary, Non's supporters are very proud of the "enthusiasm factor" in their group, so, if anything, it is likely that the 18 million that voted for Nob in the primaries were overly representative, and that Nob really does not have support of even half the dem party.

So, with roughly 1/2 of HRC supporters now saying they will sit out or vote Mac, Nob is missing out on at least 1/4 of all democrats in Nov. Good luck winning the general E, w/o the support of 1/4 of all democrats.

Posted by: intcamd1 | August 22, 2008 6:21 PM | Report abuse

The sleazy NObama is now using Bill Clinton years as a testament to how he will govern? Did n't he compare Clinton to Nixon and held up his admiration for Reagan when he ran against HRC? Does this guy have no shame?

Well I take that last question back.

I can only hope and pray that the Nob somehow did not settle on HRC. That would be a disaster.

The best part of my day was when I opened my copy of the Journal and saw that 52% of all CLinton supporters don't support Nob, and will either sit home or vote Mac. Bravo! The rest of my fellow CLinton supporters, don't be shy, don't be browbeaten by the thugs of the Dem party (yes, the same thugs that blithely looked the other way as the Nob campaign and his prostitute media pals piled on HRC using all kinds of dirty race and sex cards) that somehow you need to unite and vote the Nob, and forget all that happened.

Nothing has changed; just read the daily column of the media prostitute Mo Dowd; she is still spouting anti-Clinton venom till today, even as the Nob is praising HRC for her trail blazing campaign. You know who is sincere and who is not between them; the venom is real. This is how all the gutter rat groupies of Nob feel towards the CLintons. As soon as the Nob is elected, he will throw CLinton under the bus (heck, he did that to his fine grandma and his beloved pastor of 20 years).

Posted by: intcamd1 | August 22, 2008 6:11 PM | Report abuse

I happen to be a black male senior democrat who strongly supports Hillary Clinton. If Obama does not select the one person who would make certain that he would be president of the United States, then he obviously does not have the judgment necessary for the position.

I can live with McCain for four years. I will not be voting for a rhetorically talented, inexperienced, third of a term senator to run this country at this crucial time.

As for the Clintons, most people, especially young ones, have no clue the outstanding job Bill did for all minorities, while at the same time benefiting all Americans.

It was "the economy stupid", and guess what, it still is.

Posted by: Bruce Kenney | August 22, 2008 6:10 PM | Report abuse

Why is it that there are people who assume that a no-vote for Obama is a racist vote?
It would be smarter for them to realize that there thinking people out there who do not follow the media's lead, who think for themselves, who do research, & who find Obama to be a non-entity, a person of poor character, & of not having the qualificatons to lead this country. There are blacks who would fill the bill. I especially like Donna Brazille. I also admired Stephanie Tubbs Jones but, sadly, she is no longer able to achieve a greater role in serving our nation. But Obama? Ugh!

Posted by: afed27 | August 22, 2008 5:37 PM | Report abuse

The poll numbers indicate that Obama needs something, if not someone. He could certainly use her 18 million supporters but he could count me out, my husband & the rest of the family, too. I would imagine that most of the the other 17 million plus feel as we do. It would be better if the Dems in charge & the delegates changed their choices before they lose this important election. Time is running out.

Posted by: afed27 | August 22, 2008 5:25 PM | Report abuse

The democrats have so much white guilt -

they want to nominate a black so badly -


that they jumped at Obama who has no experience, no economic experience except buying cocaine -


AND the democrats have not noticed yet that Obama is a Black Muslim whose father was a Socialist and Obama is probably a great deal closer to being a Socialist himself than most people imagine.

.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 22, 2008 4:12 PM | Report abuse

"People who say they will not vote for him unless she is on the ticket, obviously are not Democrats and are politically stupid or totally racist. "

Wow, so more than 4.5 million Clinton supporters (per article, 27% would vote for McCain, & Clinton won 17+million votes) are not Democrats who are either politically stupid, totally racist or both. You may have total disdain for her supporters but any one of their votes carries the same weight as yours and, like it or not, Obama will need some of their votes to become President.

Posted by: bj123 | August 22, 2008 4:10 PM | Report abuse

how about jallison that many of us feel that he is not fit to be President and believe that he is the wrong person for the most important job in the country. Is that sane enough for you pal, or are you proud to label everyone who opposes Senator Obama a racist, should we belabor that point or perhaps many are tired of hearing that tired reframe.

Posted by: Leichtman | August 22, 2008 3:50 PM | Report abuse

Obama should pick the person he thinks is right for him.

People who say they will not vote for him unless she is on the ticket, obviously are not Democrats and are politically stupid or totally racist. I have listened to and watched them on TV and they cannot give a sane reason for their stand. So who do they want on the Supreme Court? Do they all have adequate,affordable health care? Need I belabor the point?

Posted by: jallison | August 22, 2008 3:36 PM | Report abuse

Obama can win without choosing HRC but he needs make a compelling case to her supporters. It's a big mistake to assume that those supporters will come around because he better represents their interests. That's an intellectual approach to what became an emotional issue. Obama, or any candidate, has to directly ask for votes and explain why. Simple, pointed and with some emotion.

Posted by: bj123 | August 22, 2008 1:43 PM | Report abuse

Obama better wake up before it is to late, or he will still be in the senate Jan 21,09
I am one of those Hillary supporters and if he wants my vote he better pick Hillary as his VP. Otherwise it's going to be President McCain.

Posted by: Ruth | August 22, 2008 1:42 PM | Report abuse

if he wants to lose, he will put queenie on the ticket. guaranteed loser. she has the stench of loserhood around her

Posted by: dick cabesa | August 22, 2008 1:18 PM | Report abuse

Curious what message the Obama campaign thinks it is sending to HC, her supporters, and delegates on the floor of the Convention next week, by announcing that HC was not even worthy of being vetted and how her delegates will respond to such a slight at the Convention.

Posted by: Leichtman | August 22, 2008 1:11 PM | Report abuse

I have not been a Clinton supporter, but maybe Obama should pick her as his VEEP. This election is going to be a referendum on the American electorate. This election is going to tell us if the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are practicing documents or just hollow. I have said that when it gets closer to the election the polls will narrow. This is because racism is alive and well in America. There are many blue collar whites who will not vote for an African-American no matter who is running against him. Many supported Clinton. Will they still support her if she is on the ticket? Will they say one thing to the pollsters, and then go into the voting both and vote for McCain? I
would like to see what happens.

Posted by: dwerder1 | August 22, 2008 1:02 PM | Report abuse

Ralph Nader told him what to do, but, of course, Obama knows better. Ralph Nader is offering Obama policy positions which could
turn the election in his favor if he picks them up. But, of course, that would anger
his advisors who get paid whether or not he wins or loses. And so it goes.

Posted by: steve conn | August 22, 2008 12:54 PM | Report abuse

"If you don't want our support, FINE, you wont get our support."


I second that comment. When his supporters brag how Michelle kept HC out of even being vetted that speaks volumes.

Posted by: Leichtman | August 22, 2008 12:48 PM | Report abuse

Byron some how your campaign naively thinks this is all about hurt feelings. Unfortunately many of us do not care for Senator Obama and feel he is woefully unqualified. Yea its difficult to then say you will vote against your own party but I have not seen or heard anything whatsoever from him to inspire me to vote for him. Nothing. And not even vetting HC. Why in Obamaworld would he think that she is less qualified for VP then 2 one raw governors?

Posted by: Leichtman | August 22, 2008 12:45 PM | Report abuse

The reason why Obama will not win in November is his and his campaign's attitude towards Clinton and their supporters.


If you don't want our support, FINE, you wont get our support.


It's not like Bush is on the ticket.

Posted by: Toby | August 22, 2008 12:42 PM | Report abuse

Welcome back from Argentina.

Yes, he should pick Clinton. Her unsuitability is far overstated in my opinion, reflecting the rancorous divide in the party. With both on the ticket, the rank and file and chattering class could put aside questions about whether the Democrats were going into this election united. Of newly registered Democrats... the standout demographic was younger female voters. It would be tragic to lose their enthusiasm just as the nomination contest was decided.

Posted by: JR Terrell | August 22, 2008 12:42 PM | Report abuse

THe simple question is, how does Obama not pick Hillary Clinton? If you are a Clinton supporter FOR PRESIDENT. then you obviously believe that she is more qualified than Biden or Bayh or Kaine.

So how does Obama justify passing over the most qualified person (from the Clinton supporters viewpoint) for the job?

I don't care what the pundits say about strategy, if Obama passes up Senator Clinton fro a less qualified MAN, he will permanently lose the support of a large number of Clinton supporters.

If Clinton had won, do you think she could have gotten away with not selecting Obama. Surely HIS SUPPORTERS think he is the best qualified out of Biden and Bayh and Kaine. What would Obamaa's supporters do if Hilary had won a close primary fight and then NOT CHOSEN him as her VP.

Do the math.

Posted by: PK | August 22, 2008 12:38 PM | Report abuse

I can't understand how somebody could support Hillary and then say they will vote for McBush now b/c she isn't the nominee. Hillary and Obama have very similar policy plans. It goes beyond the person -- it's how you think, it's what you believe. McBush is the complete opposite of these people and these beliefs. So somebody explain how you can do a 180 and vote McBush and totally abandon your values and beliefs. I will never understand it. And I supported Hillary until Obama got the nomination. We need a Democrat in the White House and now I will support him in this endeavor.

Posted by: MaryR in Houston | August 22, 2008 12:38 PM | Report abuse

Wow, what a plethora of comments!

I cannot understand how Hillary supporters could possibly vote for McCain or vote Republican. Have they forgot what the GOP said/did to Bill and to her? Have they forgot about who chooses the Supreme Court judges and become pro-life? Have they forgot about health care? Who do they blame for the economy and the Iraq war?

Even if Obama is imperfect, why is not he clearly their choice over McCain (and just not voting is, of course, a vote for McCain)? If they believe an Obama loss helps Hillary in a future election they need to check election history to see when such a selfish, peeved, get-even position ever has helped a loser come back in four years and been victorious.

I see no "win" for the Clinton faction in a McCain victory except to achieve a feeling of "We told you so" or having got back at Obama for having the gall to have won the Democratic nomination. I understand it hurts to lose (1) after you were beforehand thought to be unbeatable, (2) when FINALLY "our" time had seemed to have come, and (3) when the loss is to someone who is such a newcomer with such little experience. But, come on, a loss is a loss; do not compound it by turning your back on everything you believed in and leaving our country in the hands of Republicans who are hardly different at all from the Bush crowd.

Posted by: Byron | August 22, 2008 12:29 PM | Report abuse

vwcat: We have and it is precisely your attitude and your campaign's that has compelled many us to now support John McCain. Not even vetted. That shows the absolute disdain your campaign has for her, her family and supporters. Suck that up. See how that works for you in November.

Posted by: Leichtman | August 22, 2008 12:07 PM | Report abuse

Politico and the page are reporting that Clinton was NEVER vetted.
She was not on the short list at all.
So, she is not going to be a pick for veep.
Hillbots, suck it up!

Posted by: vwcat | August 22, 2008 12:02 PM | Report abuse

Why in the world would he listen to the advise of David Gergen over Michelle Obama?

Posted by: Leichtman | August 22, 2008 12:01 PM | Report abuse

All you die hard Clinton supporters. She lost. Get over it. It's called political primaries. Afterall, McCain lost in 2000 and then turned around and supported his party. That's why it's called the primaries. Jeez!!

Posted by: Indyman | August 22, 2008 12:00 PM | Report abuse

Gergen, who has advised 4 presidents, thinks the v.p. should be Hillary, so do many, many political pundits on cnn & msnbc. Obama chose the staff of his unnamed v.p. Obama should be miles ahead of McCain but the trend is towards McCain. Obama looks too arrogant to take advice. He says he wants someone who will stand up to him, but I see no evidence. It is so obvious that Clinton could help, but he seems to be afraid that he will be weak compared to her. How can he stand up to world leaders when he can't accomodate to a fellow democrat? He can appoint Bill Clinton as an international advocate if he's afraid to have him around.Although he is an incredible speaker, his judgement is in question.

Posted by: florence Shader | August 22, 2008 11:55 AM | Report abuse

Honorable Senator Obama:
Cement to Party's foundation with the appointment of Hillary as VP in charge of reforming Health care in America. Joe Biden will make a good Secretary of State. These two crucial appointments will restore America's desire for normalcy in our elected Government. Now find someone to dismantel the horrific un-constitutional Patriot Act. Do this and I may vote your ticket.

Posted by: Timothy in Texas | August 22, 2008 11:53 AM | Report abuse

Only if he is more serious about winning an election rather than listening to his wife's pettiness.
Man Up and select her or get ready to feel the same sting of defeat that your friend John Kerry felt 4 years ago. Its called a No Brainer. Question is whether he has the brains and the guts to do the right thing. JFK did, but Senator Obama is no JFK, far from it. I say not. Once again the Democratic Party will snatch the jaws of a certain victory and turn it into a narrow Presidential loss. The Obama campaign still after all of these months simply doesn't get it. No Hillary, No Whitehouse. Continue to laugh and smirk at the Clinton supporters. Underestimate their anger with your campaign at your own peril.

Posted by: Leichtman | August 22, 2008 11:39 AM | Report abuse

She would boost the ticket significantly. He could say he wantd a VP who would challenge him & not be a yes-man or -woman. And she has he experience credentials. Failing HRC, Biden is the best pick.

Posted by: Bernie in VA | August 22, 2008 11:19 AM | Report abuse

Miss Red,

>>>We cannot afford to waste almost $400 billion dollars a year simply paying the interest on the national debt.<<<

So, you will trust a man who can not buy his own house (in hist case Chicago mansion) without help from his dearest friend Tony Rezko.

Other fellow (McCain) is not better either.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 22, 2008 11:17 AM | Report abuse

Simple fact: Obama will loose without Clinton supporters. This is simply an IQ test for Obama.

Posted by: God Father | August 22, 2008 11:13 AM | Report abuse

Hey folks, the Democrats lost me when Obama was picked as the parties runner. I'm not sure I can vote for McCain but I sure will NOT give my vote to a person who has the record this guy has in Chicago and ILL party politics!

If Hillary were the VP pick I would have to give it some thought but all things being equal right now I will not vote for Obama, even leaving aside the situations in ILL, this man has NO experience to recommend him. One term in ILL senate, less than one term in U.S. senate. He is on some good committees to gain the needed experience (Senate Foreign Relations), (Veterans Affairs), (Health Education Labor & Pension), (Homeland Security and Government Affairs) but looking at the subcommittees on which he serves I am not overly impressed.

All these things taken together along with his prior associations and associates give me the feeling that this is NOT the man to lead our country in these troubling times.

Posted by: older man | August 22, 2008 11:13 AM | Report abuse

If I were in the McCain camp I would be salivating over HRC as VP because it would be very easy to portray her as the Dick Cheney of an Obama administration. Her knowledge and connections would allow her to undermine initiatives that she did not approve of or that did not further her political aspirations, all from behind the curtain of the OVP.

Posted by: Arki | August 22, 2008 11:13 AM | Report abuse

Will this year never end?

Posted by: Hillary Clinton | August 22, 2008 10:53 AM | Report abuse

Hillary as VP?

This is a tough call. It may bring some Hillary supporters over to the Obama camp but I suspect that many will accept nothing less than the top spot for her and so they will vote republican or not vote at all. And for every single Hillary supporter who is swayed to vote for Obama if she is the VP candidate, there will be at least a matching number if current Obama supporters whose support he will loose.

This is all really sad. They are both charismatic, relatively inexperienced but creative politicians. I don't really see Hillary as having a substantial edge in terms of experience (unless you count living in the white house as a prerequisite to being the president (strangely similar to the charge that you need to have been a POW).

Posted by: concerned | August 22, 2008 10:50 AM | Report abuse

HRC doesn't bring anything to the table but drama, as displayed in her campaign. Her effect on Obama's campaign would be both positive and negative, and would have little effect in the end. But then he'd have both Clinton's, and their cast of supporters, in the White House with him. If he wins, he needs to start with a clean(er) slate.

Posted by: J Barksdale | August 22, 2008 10:40 AM | Report abuse

I hope it's Clinton. Biden does not get me excited at all. I would question Obama's decision making if he were to go with Biden.

Posted by: Elon | August 22, 2008 10:39 AM | Report abuse

Obama would do this country a disservice if he selected Clinton to be his running mate. Obama will select a VP who compliments his strengths and can be a strong advisor when he needs one. I'm voting for Obama because I cannot stand the thought of another white haired man increasing the burden the baby boomers are placing on the younger generation. We cannot afford to waste almost $400 billion dollars a year simply paying the interest on the national debt. We don't spend that much on education, health care, and social services combined. If you want your children to have any hope of having an American dream we need to elect someone who will help us spend within our means and pay off our debt. Clinton and McCain do not know how to do that. Someone like Obama, who has lived paycheck to paycheck can and is smart enough to do it at the federal level.

p.s. do our country a favor and pay off your debt. Actually own your house, your car, your T.V., your new wardrobe. We all need to become fiscally responsible.

Posted by: Miss Red | August 22, 2008 10:35 AM | Report abuse

No, I think it's evidence that the Democratic party is collectively unable to get its crap together to win national elections. And I consider myself a Democrat! If Obama loses this election in part because of the reluctance of Clinton supporter to vote for him, then I think they should all be taken out and shot. I'm sick of this stuff - they're more concerned with their personal petty issues than with the state of the nation. Do they really want four more years of Republican rule? Are they nuts? Maybe we just don't deserve to win.

Posted by: Wayne Witherell | August 22, 2008 10:31 AM | Report abuse

This election is for the Democrats to lose.

The question is: Do the Democrats want to win this election? If yes, it's a no brainer: Obama/Clinton will result in a landslide. Any other pick, well, is a gamble. I wouldn't risk it.
I'd go with the sure thing. All bad blood, character flaws and other incidentals aside.

Posted by: kmldc | August 22, 2008 10:30 AM | Report abuse

I think Obama is confident that he is going to win. He's not going to pick his VP on the basis of what's best over the next three months, but rather he'll choose someone he wants to work with over the next eight years. If he chooses Hillary that will be the reason why, and I think that's the reason why he won't choose her. I could be wrong, she is a very hard worker, and that's one of the things he's looking for in a VP.

Posted by: Lucas | August 22, 2008 10:23 AM | Report abuse

I have never believed that Obama and Clinton really hate each other. I have always thought it was largely a media myth. I believe that Obama's reluctance to choose her has more to do with the fact that the Clintons cannot help but be the story, no matter what they do. She doesn't exactly fit under his shadow the way a VP should. And I've always thought she probably thinks there are better reasons for her to stay in the Senate than to be VP and that he probably knows that.

But I have to admit, even though I want her to have what is best for her career (and I am not remotely convinced VP is it), I think it would probably be better for the country for her to be on the ticket. The very idea of her being on the ticket brings an excitement for me that this race is otherwise lacking. I would vote for him in any case but I would do a lot more to make it happen if he chooses her.

Posted by: Stephanie | August 22, 2008 10:19 AM | Report abuse

Obama needs HRC more than HRC needs Obama? I don't think so. Obama, after all IS the Democratic nominee for president, and as such holds all the cards, despite what HRC's most strident supporters believe. I think if Obama publicly promises HRC a prominent future role in his administration, or, even better, the next vacant seat on the Supreme Court, he will appease HRC supporters enough to gain most of their vote in the general. As far as the current close poll numbers go, the Obama camp should not be concerned. When undecided voters tune in to the fall Presidential debates they will see a young, tall, handsome and elequent Obama and an old, short, curmudgeonly and sometimes confused McCain. Obama will gain more than enough undecideds during the course of the debates to prevail by a comfortable margin, regardless of who he picks as VP.

Posted by: rcupps | August 22, 2008 10:16 AM | Report abuse

If Obama wants to win, he should select Sentor Clinton as his running mate. He needs her more than she needs him. She is a fighter, has experience, and 18 million people voted for her. She can carry states that are crucial in this election.
He needs to get his head out of the clouds,put aside his ego, and accept the fact he will not win without her. Ignoring the polls will be a big mistake.

Posted by: angryfenmale | August 22, 2008 10:10 AM | Report abuse

When Barack and Hillary were the last Dems standing in the primaries, state polls began showing up with each one pitted against McCain. They showed which candidate ran strongest against McCain in that particular state. From that point until the last primary, Hillary had more electoral votes than Obama. Her number was more than enough above the 270 minimum to defeat McCain. Obama's count was never enough to win over McCain.

During the primaries, polls among Dems showed Obama favored over Hillary. Yet she kept winning primaries, but fell only 100 to 200 delegate short. However, polls of the whole electorate had Hill running stronger than Barack against McCain. Were the Dems on the road to defeat because they didn't look at the big picture?

After the primaries, when state polls surveyed the standing of Obama and McCain, Obama had more electoral votes. This went as high as 100 votes more than McCain at one point. The position of each candidate today is even or with McCain slightly ahead. Obama couldn't close the deal against Hill in the primaries and now it looks as if he may not be able to close the deal vs. McCain.

Which potential VP nominee can shake up the campaign enough to vault Obama ahead again? With polls showing some of Hill's supporters still holding back or going for McCain, only Senator Clinton has the strength and gravitas to do it.

Posted by: Acorn Blogger | August 22, 2008 10:08 AM | Report abuse

Why should Hillary be on the ticket? I am a 68 year old white male from New Mexico, and I won't vote for Obama unless I know the Clinton expertise is there to help him out. I have only voted for one Republican since 1960--I hope BO doesn't force me to vote for the second one.

Posted by: James Linney | August 22, 2008 10:04 AM | Report abuse

It absurd to think that Democrat Barack Obama is going to fix that Republican George Bush messed up. Barack Obama owes much to George Bush. Barack is an inextricable part of George. I am so amazed that people in the media don’t seem to see that. They say the obvious. American media is so bankrupt they can’t provide Americans with fresh insight and thoughtful analysis. For that reason our country is lurching from crisis to crisis. Even the New York Times is very lame. So is the Washington Post. These organizations are so incompetent, staffed by same old same old people for years, these individuals must be half asleep when they write. Same is true about ABC, NBC, NPR, PBS, CNN and the woefully empty, but self congratulating American media. These people gave high praise and high marks for Sen. Barack Obama. But I think Sen. Obama’s meteoric political rise is caused primarily by the devastation cause by George Bush. I think both of them are politically interconnected like twins much more so than John McCain’s Republican connection to George Bush. Our image worshiping media has now endowed us with terrible inexperienced candidate like Sen. Obama, who has very little political experience both domestically and internationally. If you think our troubles are going to be over with George Bush you sadly mistaken. With Sen. Barack Obama will continue the Bush legacy. What I really mean is that inexperienced Barack Obama is another George Bush. The striking similarity between them is in their successful campaigns. As president inexperienced Barack Obama would be an equal disaster. I think only Sen. Hillary Clinton would have made a real difference; saving us from disaster and further decline of our country, just like president Bill Clinton did.

Posted by: elytis | August 22, 2008 10:00 AM | Report abuse

I've not ever been a "fan" of Sir Hillary. I'm a registered Independent Voter. Obama however has been my choice from day one versus other candidates...he's a smart guy. My wife jokes that if he were entirely white...the election would be over by now. Hmm, she's got something there.

Still, as a VP, relatively do-nothing position, she'd at least seal the election and finish off the RepubliCONs and John McBush by bringing in more positive voters for the Obama camp than she'd take away. Right now, many of these "Clintonistas" are, for whatever reason, leaning toward the RepubliCONs, even though it means they are basically signing over their bodily rights on the PERSONAL decision if they want to reproduce, or not. The point I'm making is that McBush would overturn Roe-Wade, if he won,even though 64% of Americans compared to 45% are for the law as it is.

Another added benefit is that Sir Hillary is a fighter...and she might enjoy the endless hours spent investigating the RepubliCONs and Bush for 8 years of lies, deceit and treason to Americans. Cheney, and the other dirt-bags as well (we won't name them here as there are simply too many). It would be a perfect job for her. Make them squirm as subpoena, after subpoena, after subpoena, and every other tactic to make them miserable would bring tears of joy to about 70% of most Americans. Destroy them financially using the power of her office, and, oh, yes, put some of them in jail...just like the 400 indictments against RepubliCONs that ensued immediately after Nixon (Bush, Nixon...what's the difference?). With her instructing the Justice Dept to go after the Bushies every which way, to make their lives miserable, would be worth it alone. It would certainly be entertaining. Well, perhaps not for the GOP...but they've had it their way for 8 years, ramming their one-sided policies down us independents' throats, so now it's time to pay...

God Bless the Grand Old Pedophile party (GOP)!! I say, let her play...

Posted by: GAC | August 22, 2008 9:52 AM | Report abuse

Love her or hate her, Hillary is exactly what Obama and the Democratic Party need right now -- a knife-wielding political street fighter who can climb right down into the gutter with the best of them, and the worst. It's all very well for Obama to exhort Democrats and Republicans to link arms and sing Kumbaya (and we've seen how well that turned out) but Americans respect balls, and Hillary's got the biggest pair on the current political scene. The lady clamks when she walks.

Posted by: Kuyper | August 22, 2008 9:50 AM | Report abuse

Obama needs Clinton more than Clinton needs Obama... Dems don't have a chance in November (and perhaps beyond) without her as Obama's running mate. Obama's magic pixie dust that worked during the primaries no longer works and the poll numbers are showing him to be no more than a flash in the pan. The Obamabots who were so vocal and supportive seem to have disappeared into the ether - depending on the "youth" vote was foolish they're never there when it counts. Don't be stupid drop the ego and pick Clinton as your VP!

Posted by: Richard | August 22, 2008 9:47 AM | Report abuse

I've been a staunch Obama supporter since Day 1, and was convinced that Hillary was poison for the ticket. I've come around to believe that's wrong. The reality is that Obama won the nomination based on a brilliant strategy focused on winning the caucuses. His failure to win big primaries was a warning about his team's ability to win primaries, and his failure to separate from McCain this summer has enhanced those concerns. I've come to believe that a safe pick (Biden, Kaine, Bayh) won't be enough. He doesn't have a lead to preserve, he doesn't have a lead at all. I think he needs Hillary and her people.

Posted by: Caphillresident | August 22, 2008 9:46 AM | Report abuse

I would lose all respect for Obama if he chose Hillary. It would be the same as admitting failure. His choosing her would show me that he doesn't believe he can win it on his own. He knows he can and I know he can. Plus, I wouldn't put it past her to have him assassinated so she could be President.

Posted by: Black Elephant | August 22, 2008 9:40 AM | Report abuse

Dear Mr. Obama (from a Clinton supporter)

Keep the change.

We don't need a politician who talks to us about bringing change... this decade and the next will force unimaginable change upon this country, whether we want it or not. Some of that change will be happy, some will be tough. We need true, expert and experienced leadership to deal with the unprecedented dislocations of our globalizing markets and societies.

In the next decade, we'll need hardworking leadership, and not inspiration from a charismatic-cool freshman senator. We don't need to look to a politician, moreover, for personal self-realization and transcendence: take that quasi-religious message to young kids in college and the hopeless who suffer in despair, mired in the thinking of that preached at Trinity Church.

Keep your change, and leave the Clintons out of your train wreck. You've already done enough damage to these precious, gifted leaders who have so much to offer us as we make our way through the next decade. Really, you've done enough damage to indulge your cult-like drive to the White House now, as you were too impatient to acquire some real street cred first.

You'll get your nomination. Make your general election bid with some offbeat white guy who won't get too damaged in a general election train wreck. And then go away. You've done enough damage.

You're like Pac-man, eating up the Clintons, voracious for any angle of advantage you can suck from them. Leave them alone, already.

Posted by: AsperGirl | August 22, 2008 9:34 AM | Report abuse

The Clintons post-primary behavior, especially Bill's, has been reprehensible. Should Obama lose, Hillary will find a huge backlash in 2012 that will cost her any further chance at the presidency.

Posted by: Ken Cady | August 22, 2008 9:29 AM | Report abuse

We need to elect a Democrat. If Obama wants to ensure a win he will name Hillary.

But that is clearly his choice and I will support him whoever he names- well maybe not whoever, Sam Nunn would be a reason not to support him.

Seriously the choice of a VP should be the nominees and Obama has the right to pick who he is comfortable running with.

This will be a tough campaign but I think he will win.

Posted by: peter DC | August 22, 2008 9:27 AM | Report abuse

Obama might win without clinton, but picking clinton would deliver an easy victory and the help of 2 of our most capable in governing. No other vp candiadate offers so much to either side.we are about to learn a lot about obama's judgement. Picking anyone but clinton demonstrates his lack of judgement.

Posted by: commish | August 22, 2008 9:16 AM | Report abuse

Charlie--as a Clinton supporter at one time, for the same reasons you mentioned, I have come around to Obama precisely because organization is exactly what you need to govern. It is not ALL you need however, and I look forward to hearing more debate between the candidates about their POSITIONS.

To my mind, being President means being able to get the public behind you; to move the public and the Congress to where you want to go. There are a huge number of things that I'm sure we all agree need to be done in this country, BUT, picking and choosing--prioritizing, if you will, is the key to having a successful outcome. Strong organization might just help break the logjam. I'm willing to take a chance on that possibility.

Posted by: dch | August 22, 2008 9:16 AM | Report abuse

I think David Gergen is right, selecting Clinton would instantly galvanize 18 million people, it would put a real political fighter with experience at his side, and balance his relative inexperience. He NEEDS her. His campaign is stumbling, it needs to do something.

Posted by: WassabiCracka | August 22, 2008 9:09 AM | Report abuse

Obama seems to me to be "Jimmy Carter Lite". Yes he's a nice guy and a smart person, but I don't think he has a handle on the big picture. Iran was the downfall of Mr. Jimmy and if Obama is elected it will be his as well. If you think the economy is bad now, wait until the Obama administration...

Posted by: TrekkieGT | August 22, 2008 9:06 AM | Report abuse

Obama doesn't seem to be that convicted to change that he is above Washington politics and changing his mind to be that much of an alternative to the "old Washington". High hopes have become more like the hangover the next morning. Seems to me that on some level he even needs to have those insiders to get anything accomplished. I don't see anything "new" about Biden, Nunn, Kaine, or Bayh that there isn't already too much of already represented in our bloated self serving government. While I was a HRC supporter, I would hate to see her squander away her political potential serving as a VP. For Obama to win, however, I feel that this would be the ticket to victory. She was very close to beating him and held the other block of voters that represent the dems.

Posted by: rose, chapel hill nc | August 22, 2008 8:54 AM | Report abuse

I am a Clinton suppporter who has not decided yet. To me Obama lacks that depth of knowledge that Mrs. Clinton has in too many areas. He is the ultimate organizer realizing (Clinton's weakness) that the fight would be in all states and out organized and therefore out delegated her in those small states where caucases were attended by very few and he won by a wide margin. Obama is an organizer - maybe from his Chicago days but organization doesn't lead to goverance.

Posted by: Charlie | August 22, 2008 8:48 AM | Report abuse

I voted for Billy C twice and worked on his campaigns. I did not support either Obama or Clinton in the primaries. However after seeing how HRC has handled her losing and her inabliity to accept it (maybe talk with Al Gore who lost with class) I will never vote for HRC for anything let alone President. Her rabid psycho Obama cheated is crazy. HRC abandonded half the country. She is a pore loser and America hates people who lose with a total lack of class. HRC and all of her minions vote for McCain. When abortion is outlawed I don't want to hear a peep about it. You got everything you wanted. Now for the love of all that is holy please SHUT UP!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Anonymous | August 22, 2008 8:44 AM | Report abuse

Obama's the loser candidate. He squeaked through the primaries with some delegate skullduggery in FL and MI issues, and an unbelievable media advantage.

And that was just in the Democratic primaries with heavy black representation. Obama won't see that kind of black advantage in the general election on account of how most voting blacks are Democrats, so his base dilutes considerably moving into the general electorate.

What advantage Obama did have was mainly due to media blasts of misinformation and stonewalling.

A new study is out, implying the effect of the media advantage Obama enjoyed:

(http://townhall.com/Columnists/BrentBozellIII/2008/08/22/bracing_for_the_goo)

Hillary Clinton was the real general election winner of the Democratic primaries. Obama's an artifact.

The polling numbers don't yet reflect how badly Obama will do. The Clintons should steer clear of the train wreck.

Obama should stay away from the Clintons and not do more damage to their legacy and the potential of what they can do for us in the future.

The guy is like Pac-man, destroying everything in pursuit of his personality cult.

Posted by: AsperGirl | August 22, 2008 8:31 AM | Report abuse

If there's a risk the President and VP will end up fighting each other during a term it makes sense Obama picks another candidate. It does not help him win votes though and none of the VP names leaked thus far make an exciting team that strengthens his ability to win over McCain. With Clinton on his ticket, Obama has my vote locked in. As it is, I am undecided and likely to not vote unless he wins my vote between now and election day. He is not convincing that he can actually bring the changes that I care about, healthcare reform being at the top of the list, yet do it in a way that is safe for our economy and security. He must run a different campaign than what he's doing so far, and focus on the issues and his program. Hillary had my vote when she layed out her healthcare plan. With her on the ticket I have no doubt there'd be the health care reform that is needed and that can work, and the experience / team to handle economy, world and security issues. For those who care about demographics this is the opinion of a 44 year old married female, graduate education.

Posted by: CJ | August 22, 2008 8:25 AM | Report abuse

Obama should pick whoever he feels he can work well with and someone he feels has the qualities to be a president if they need to step in. This election will not be decided by the respective VP picks.

Posted by: Opie | August 22, 2008 8:17 AM | Report abuse

>>Captain America wrote: "In a column today titled "Hillary's Hellions," Kristen Powers details in the NY Post.com all the crazed junk the Hillarian harpies and mentals have in store for Barry at the convention. Scary. You have to read it. It is the scorched-earth politics of personal destruction taken to the nth degree, HRC style."

Ha Ha. He deserves it. So do his bullying, lie-spinning, attack dog supporters who trashed the better candidate all Spring so the lesser candidate who will lose the general election gets nominated.

The press deserves most of the credit for getting a loser nominated. But it will benefit most from a disruption at the convention. It's too late for Clinton to put together a winning run now for the general election right now.

Posted by: AsperGirl | August 22, 2008 8:17 AM | Report abuse

Win or lose Obama would be sorry if he picked Hillary for his VP. I am sure if he could choose her and win then was able to get rid of her afterwards he would do it in a heartbeat but the next 4 years would be a nightmare for him if he had the Clinton's back in the WH. They would undermine him every step of the way. Having said this I don't understand why everyone just assumes that Obama/Hillary ticket would win. The polls that I have seen show that if she was on the ticket it would be a wash. Obama would lose a lot of supporters that are voting for him because they don't want the Clinton's. This is another story that the media pushes so if Obama does lose they can say it was because he didn't have Hillary. NY Times just had a story today that Hillary was in FL on behalf of Obama and her support for him was very tepid and this came from her supporters that were there and thought that she should have done more. I don't believe that either of the Clinton's are going to put their hearts into supporting Obama but will more or less mouth the words.

Posted by: RL | August 22, 2008 8:15 AM | Report abuse

To get back to the main point of the question, after having been distracted by AsperGirl, I am not sure that Obama needs Clinton on the ticket, but the advantages are beginning to outweigh to negatives.

Posted by: nkclark | August 22, 2008 8:12 AM | Report abuse

Well, this Hillary voter is getting a little upset at how the media keeps pushing this storyline. Neither I nor any other Hillary suppoters I know will vote for John McCain, especially given his campaign thusfar, which has been devoid of ideas and full to the brim with Rovian attacks, insinuations, and just plain hypocritical nonsense.

I regret that Hillary is not the nominee, and think she would be a great VP if that were the case, but regardless, I will vote for Obama because 1) He is also an amazing candidate, and 2) I have lost what little respect I had for John McCain, who has morphed into the worst type of political opportunist.

Posted by: Lina | August 22, 2008 8:12 AM | Report abuse

AspenGirl, producing the longest list of lies ever seen in this blog does not make any of them true.

Posted by: nkclark | August 22, 2008 8:10 AM | Report abuse

Obama will lose without the Clintons.

But he might not win even with them.

Making a radical move like reaching out for the Clintons right now after weeks of holding his nose, will make him look desperate and weak. Picking Clinton as VP would undermine whatever is left of his attempt to claim to be a "new politics" guy after he clearly turned out to be a cynical, poll-driven flip flopper this Summer.

Obama's going to lose in a big bloody train wreck. The Clintons will only get to own part of the failure and take even more damage, if they get on board.

Obama should stay clear of the Clintons and the Clintons should stay clear of Obama.

He's a shallow narcissist, and is too stupid (he has the inherent narcissist's inability to focus on the implicit substance of another person) to use the Clintons properly. At no cognitive behavioral, social psychological, cultural or political level is it possible for him to understand how to use the Clintons. Narcissists have an intrinsic resistance to true working merit, versus their belief in the power of glamour, charisma and affectations of authenticity.

The kind of true talent, substance and brilliance that the Clintons represent and the kind of brilliant social-power-of-affectation charismatic religion leadership Obama represents are grounded in cognitive and social leadership universes that are inherently at odds. Like matter and anti-matter. If they were religions leaders, the Clintons would be like wealthy, powerful, but blue-collar-and-serving-the-community focused Catholics. Obama would be a charismatic cult leader with a happy, mainstream following like Bhagwan Dass. The two are inherently incompatible at a fundamental level.

Obama can't pick Clinton, it would be just a dysfunctional, obviously desperate move.

Posted by: AsperGirl | August 22, 2008 8:08 AM | Report abuse

McCain is an empty suit who has no ideas for addressing the most serious issues this country faces, and so he continues to spout the same talking points as George Bush to get elected. So who cares who Obama picks? Democrats will vote for Obama, and there will be more Democrats than last time around.

Posted by: LG | August 22, 2008 8:07 AM | Report abuse

I think we should be comparing Obama and John McCain on the basis of their issues, and not be spending so much time on VP picks, elitism, white rural swing voters, marital histories, blahblahblah. It's amazing how difficult it is to find an intelligent columnist or pundit these days whose willing to take an issue, point out the candidates differences and, instead of merely seeing how those positions play against the latest polls or political scene, do some critical thinking and make the call as to which candidate's policies will likely be more effective. But they don't for fear of being called biased. And we end up talking about Paris Hilton.

Posted by: ESther | August 22, 2008 8:03 AM | Report abuse

THE POST HAS NOW PUT UP 12 ARTICLES ON MCCAIN'S TRIVIAL HOUSE GAFFE

Number of articles on:

Obama saying he's visited America's 57 states: ZERO
Obama's Tony Rezko ties: ZERO
Obama's Annenburg project failure: ZERO
Obama's flat out lies about Born Alive Bill: ZERO
Obama's "losing" the forum at Saddleback: ZERO
Obama said the Kansas tornadoes killed 10,000: ZERO
Obama's claim his parents met at Selma civil rights march, which took place 4 years after he was born: ZERO
Obama's claim that Iraqi translators are needed in Afghanistan when they speak different languages: ZERO
Obama says stating a personal opinion on abortion is "above his pay grade": ZERO
Obamas' charity donations were less than 1% until his presidential campaign started: ZERO
Obama's claims he'll slow the rise of oceans: ZERO
Obama's claims he'll heal the planet: ZERO
Obama's claims he'll end poverty: ZERO
Obama's claim of there being "arugula" price inflation was in fact false: ZERO
Obama's position "[Iran] doesn't pose a serious threat to us": ZERO
Obama says he didn't know what Rev. Wright preached despite being a 20-year Trinity Church member: ZERO
Obama claims Rev. Wright never before acted like he did when preaching Afrocentric conspiracy theories in DC last Spring, even though videos exist: ZERO
Obama claims his grandmother is a "typical white person": ZERO
Obama claims Rev. Wright is family like his uncle: ZERO
Obama's Rev. Wright published Hamas manifesto in Trinity Church newsletter: ZERO
Obama was actually endorsed by Hamas: ZERO
Obama registered as a Muslim in Catholic school: ZERO
Michelle Obama says in stump speeches that Americans are "downright mean, lazy, selfish": ZERO

The Washington Post admits to carrying 3 times more Obama coverage than McCain coverage, good or bad. What it fails to admit is that its McCain coverage is almost all negative while its Obama coverage is almost all positive or discussing strategies Obama can use to win. Numbers aside, what you do see in the Post is pounded out on the keyboards of passionate Obama cheerleaders.

BUT IT'S NOT JUST PRINT MEDIA

"Overall, the three broadcast networks gave Obama nearly seven times more good press than bad press. There have been 462 positive stories (34 percent of the total) compared to just 70 stories (or five percent) that were negative. The rest were classified as neutral. "NBC Nightly News" was the most aggressive, with 179 Obama-boosting stories, compared to just 17 negative ones, a 10-to-one margin. "CBS Evening News" was almost as bad, with a 156-to-21 gap between positive stories and negative ones."

(http://townhall.com/Columnists/BrentBozellIII/2008/08/22/bracing_for_the_goo)

Mark Twain said that if you don't read news you're uninformed and if you do read news you're misinformed. If you read the Washington Post, you can be BOTH uninformed AND misinformed.

To really get well-rounded coverage, read the article listings at realclearpolitics.com and news.google.com. The regional and special-interest news sites carry the information and stories that liberal mainstream media stonewalls and spins.

Posted by: AsperGirl | August 22, 2008 7:58 AM | Report abuse

THE POST HAS NOW PUT UP 12 ARTICLES ON MCCAIN'S TRIVIAL HOUSE GAFFE

Number of articles on:

Obama saying he's visited America's 57 states: ZERO
Obama's Tony Rezko ties: ZERO
Obama's Annenburg project failure: ZERO
Obama's flat out lies about Born Alive Bill: ZERO
Obama's "losing" the forum at Saddleback: ZERO
Obama said the Kansas tornadoes killed 10,000: ZERO
Obama's claim his parents met at Selma civil rights march, which took place 4 years after he was born: ZERO
Obama's claim that Iraqi translators are needed in Afghanistan when they speak different languages: ZERO
Obama says stating a personal opinion on abortion is "above his pay grade": ZERO
Obamas' charity donations were elections. The regional and special-interest news sites carry the information and stories that liberal mainstream media stonewalls and spins.

Posted by: AsperGirl | August 22, 2008 7:57 AM | Report abuse

THE POST HAS NOW PUT UP 12 ARTICLES ON MCCAIN'S TRIVIAL HOUSE GAFFE

Number of articles on:

Obama saying he's visited America's 57 states: ZERO
Obama's Tony Rezko ties: ZERO
Obama's Annenburg project failure: ZERO
Obama's flat out lies about Born Alive Bill: ZERO
Obama's "losing" the forum at Saddleback: ZERO
Obama said the Kansas tornadoes killed 10,000: ZERO
Obama's claim his parents met at Selma civil rights march, which took place 4 years after he was born: ZERO
Obama's claim that Iraqi translators are needed in Afghanistan when they speak different languages: ZERO
Obama says stating a personal opinion on abortion is "above his pay grade": ZERO
Obamas' charity donations were elections. The regional and special-interest news sites carry the information and stories that liberal mainstream media stonewalls and spins.

Posted by: AsperGirl | August 22, 2008 7:56 AM | Report abuse

Yes, yes, yes! Obama is sunk without her because he allowed himself to be defined by the Republican smear machine while he was playing nice with McCain ("John McCain is an honorable man", Obama always prefaces his speeches with this idiocy while McCain and his surrogates are out there smearing him.)
The Clintons have fought off the worst of these smears and know how to fight. "Fight, fight, fight" should become the Democratic mantra as "drill, drill, drill" has become McCain's. Obama needs Hillary's "women voters". He can make Bill the U.S. rep to the United Nations, keep him in New York (out of his hair), and give Hillary what she wants. Duh! Gov. Kaine - - LOL!

Posted by: Marilyn Delson | August 22, 2008 7:55 AM | Report abuse

If Obama picks Clinton, fine. If he doesn't, also fine. Democrats will be voting for their candidate in record numbers this fall to save this country from the GOP.

Posted by: Warlock | August 22, 2008 7:54 AM | Report abuse

CLINTON MUST BE the Vice President. Obama has still not solidified his support in the Democratic base and by selecting Clinton as a VP, he could do so. With Democrats outnumbering Republicans by so much this cycle, I drool at the thought of a solid, unified and energized Democratic base trouncing the Republicans in the fall.
without her he comes up short and can join that elite dem club of the ALMOST WONS like gore and kerry.. it would electrify the dem base.. suck the oxygen out of mccain campign and be the big story thru BOTH the dem and repub convention.. mccain is formidable and Hillary even know beats him in head to head matchup.. i am for hillary will vote for obama in NOV BUT if hillary is on the ticket i will also work my tail off to get this ticket elected.. that is the difference...

Posted by: Anonymous | August 22, 2008 7:53 AM | Report abuse

Any poll that indicates a significant number of Clinton supporters will support McCain is the result of Rush's project chaos along with those who probably wouldn't have turned out to vote for Hillary anyway. Real Hillary supporters, like myself, are also real democrats, and we will be voting for the Democratic candidate, Sen. Obama. We will do what's necessary to keep John McCain out of the White House. Period.

Posted by: GRT | August 22, 2008 7:52 AM | Report abuse

Dear All Young brother and all young Sister
This my last mesege post on here I am please need all young Brother and young sister still go school remember no one can give you have focus that you must need focus Public
Mrs: hilary clinton 1 time she bring issue talking about Business management from all my young brother and young sister
Now she have trouble debt why she dont show all young brother and young sister how she fix ..See tell the true
Mr: Obama ready say Political that play game but she ready play game with public and all young brother and young sister
Today my lat bring Issue at this time Mr: Obama need Focus need strong Vice President He can handle oversea keep strong Country and Public that Mr: Joe Bidden No one much beter

Thanks you every one take care
God Bless America i am say good bye every one removed my name davidMua Nguyen our Public today

Sincerely yours


DavidMua Nguyen

Posted by: DavidMua Nguyen | August 22, 2008 7:44 AM | Report abuse

Well, duh. He can't win without her.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 22, 2008 7:28 AM | Report abuse

Of course he needs Hillary--he just doesn't need her (and Bill) hanging their hats again in the White House. I believe that the Clintons' political skills will be in demand and I believe they will help greatly--Hillary does not need to be on the ticket for that to happen and it is my hope that, when the convention is over, the Clinton's will have helped bring the party back together.

Posted by: dch | August 22, 2008 7:03 AM | Report abuse

Question is more "does HRC need Obama?"

The Clintons will always be around the scene. If Obama doesn't win this, there's no point to his even finishing his term in the senate. He's done. If he's president he'll have a primary challenge after he's life and death to pass each budget and if things don't improve instantly, he's vulnerable.

He's kind of a tossup right now against McCain, anyway. Why should she go through all the bother just to be brushed off again. if they win a presidency that's no certainty to get a 2nd term.

When you look back at his campaign, you will see just how costly Saddleback was. That was the moment Obama stopped being a Democrat.

The mainstream press encourages Obama always to "move to the center" and "connect with the values voters" and yada yada.

That's fine for the press but it's not fine for Obama because all of his serious money comes from sources that are more progressive on most issues than Obama is. And VERY serious on economic issues which Obama for some reason refuses to deal with.

Big time Democratic donors were always willing to tolerate the "Jesus" noise from the Clintons because they won elections and were economic pragmatists. What people in the press are missing or don't particularly want to write is that Democratic money is not students putting up $10 on the internet. It's the entertainment industry and financial services industry.

I really want someone to tell me that Bob Rubin doesn't squirm everytime Obama natters on about "his lord and savior Jesus Christ."

The way that "savior" jazz is interpreted in Bush post-9/11 America means that Obama's a rapturist and he's telling every Jew and atheist that he believes they have to convert or face damnation.

This stuff has been slammed in peoples' faces for years now and there's no mistaking the meaning.

Had Obama shown some give elsewhere and not treated his nomination as his bid for the THRONE which would allow him to eviscerate the Clintons, Dean, Jesse Jackson, Rendell, and the party structure, perhaps his recent move not to the center but to the far right plus the religious palaver wouldn't be so costly.

He could also have spent his summer hitting the books on economics and foreign policy. Instead, it was about treating McCain as his opponent and the Democratic Party as his enemy.

I know there's this American image that you're all brothers under the skin and this and that, but reality is very different. I have no idea how much time anybody here have spent around financiers but most of them are Jewish, Roman Catholic, Hindu or non-affiliated. They don't care about how much Obama loves Jesus. They don't care about how much Obama loves America and has been convinced to support the war. That stuff is either culturally unpleasant or irrelevant to them. They want to be told that responsible fiscal and monetary policy will be the new order of the day. That's what they bundled all that money for Obama to get.

If he keeps ignoring economics, running a lame campaign and answering every question with "Jesus," do you really think the money will be there for him in 2012?

I'd like Obama to win, but I have to say this campaign is just like Gore 2000 and Kerry 2004 but more so. There was SOME discussion of policy in those campaigns. This is about Oprah Winfrey and Rambo as much as it's about the economy and iternational affairs.

If I were HRC, quite frankly, I'd take my one floor vote and tell Obama to p**s up a rope with his VP slot.

Not my country, though, and not my candidates. I got all the economics I can handle in our campaign. The issues are clear and they all relate to practical matters.

Posted by: DexterManley | August 22, 2008 6:57 AM | Report abuse

The supporters of Senator Clinton's primary failures are making this election harder on no one but themselves. If Barack had lost, I would not be trying to make a name for my group by publicly denouncing Hillary.

Those who claim to be remnants of Hillary's campaign are free to NOT vote for our party's nominee. But they should not tout themselves as Hillary "supporters" and it is now time for the Senator to put a stop to them doing so if she, or her daughter, have future political ambitions.

Barack and his camp have "bent over" unneccessarily in a effort to bring this party together. As a staunch Democrat, its difficult for me to understand such resistence. But I am not angry.

My hope is that for every "Clinton democrat" who refuses to "get on board" the rest of us will do our best to garner 3 or 4 Republicans to strongly consider voting Democratic, at least for president.

The meanness of these people definately "smells" of the infiltration of Republicans within the ranks.

In any event, Democrats are going on to victory in November with or without the "Clinton supporters."

Posted by: Reggie Boykins | August 22, 2008 6:02 AM | Report abuse

Barack has his own political capital now, (the millions of Americans supporting his campaign).

No! He doesn't need the Clinton's any more than they need him, both now and in the future.

Posted by: Reggie Boykins | August 22, 2008 4:12 AM | Report abuse

Lest we forget, it was former Pres. Bill Clinton who said during the primary, more or less, "If Hillary were the nominee, she and John McCain would have the most civil campaign anyone has ever seen because they are such good friends." Well, besides another Clinton fabrication, it is evident from what has HAPPENED in REALITY, that neither Hillary nor McCain is capable of civility. I am aghast at the twists, falsehoods, lies and shamelessness perpetrated by both Hillary during the primary and McCain during the general. Both represent politics as usual, in the sense that their Machiavellian tactics supercede integrity, honesty, decency and civility. Such win-at-any-cost, steamroll the truth campaigns are shams. The American people deserve better from their "leaders," especially because few spend the time to dig deeper than the 6 o'clock "news."

This election season has been fraught with fake punditry, fake facts, fake allegiances, fake analyses, fake recollections and fake information. It's 3 a.m. and McCain will pull the trigger on Russia, after he gets an update on the aggression of Czarina Merkel.

Does Obama need Hillary Clinton? Hillary Clinton is the one person who could ensure a Republican return to the White House in November. To quote her husband, "Give me a break." How insulting, how absolutely ugly, to have a group of Hillary supporters form PUMA (Party Unity My Ass). I'm sorry, but if Obama were to name Hillary as his V.P. choice, he has lost my vote--and I've been supporting him since he announced, as a donor, precinct captain and campaign GOTV volunteer. I would NEVER consider McCain presidential material. He, like George Bush, has some bug up his ass to prove himself, given that they both were the black sheep of their illustrious families. How shameful to kill more American soldiers and God-knows-who from other countries because McCain has a personal score to settle. How shallow. How despicable. How immoral.

P.S. I am not a Democrat and am an upper-middle-age white woman.

Posted by: RJ Kruger | August 22, 2008 2:45 AM | Report abuse

Obama definitely needs Hillary. The campaign has gotten boring without her. Bring back Hillary! He will lose in the end anyway, and if he has Hillary, she can take the heat for him.

Posted by: sdb | August 22, 2008 1:48 AM | Report abuse

The Washing Post has been known to push a story to death. Chandra Levy on page one.

Posted by: Crempole Stalwart | August 22, 2008 1:20 AM | Report abuse

Aspergirl,

you had the primary election all figured out too remember? Obama could not win. As a analyst you are not brilliant. Lets see what you have to say in Nov. I can't wait.

Posted by: UnitedweStand3 | August 22, 2008 12:09 AM | Report abuse

Technically, no. He may be able go win without her. That said it is difficult to see how another running mate could increase Obama's chances of winning more. Clinton will help Obama in several key swing states including Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida and Michigan. Who else could provide such a critical, multi-state boost? Obama continues to lag with older white women -- a key demographic in a general election. Given how weak McCain is on the economy and the economic problems which have occurred on Bush's watch, I am very concerned to see polls which show McCain running even with Obama on that issue. It suggests Obama has not communicated his economic message effectively. Clinton proved her skill at articulating economic policy to middle-class voters in the primaries. Finally, in spite of a political environment favorable for Democrats, Obama has not yet united the party. The clearest way to get her voters is to pick her.

Posted by: Ogre Mage | August 21, 2008 11:56 PM | Report abuse

Chris,

I would not put a lot of credence in those poll results, given Barack's narrow lead in most national polls. Certainly the vast majority of Democrats who voted for Senator Clinton because they agreed with her positions on most issues are or will support Barack, given there are few major differences in their proposed policies.

On the other hand, some Democrats who voted for her, as well as some independents and Republicans, will not vote for Barack for president because of his race. Most of these people are not going to vote for Barack for president, even if he chooses Senator Clinton as the vice-presidential nominee. There also may be a relatively small group of women who wanted a female president and are embittered Senator Clinton lost.

Barack will alienate some of his supporters, especially among independents, and rally Republicans more strongly for John McCain, if he were to choose Senator Clinton as his running mate. The majority of independents and Republicans, as well as at least a significant minority of Democrats are tired of the Clintons, especially their sense of entitlement at being presidents.

Barack will also send a message he is a weak leader if he appeases the hard-core Clinton camp and chooses her. He can hardly offer the promise of strong leadership on the world stage or national level if he can not assert his leadership over the Clintons, who have tried to undermine his candidacy.

Posted by: Independent | August 21, 2008 11:53 PM | Report abuse

Yo Broadway Joe - I do like Maureen Dowd, especially her piece comparing Obama to Mr. Darcy, but wasn't in the mood for this one. Do notice I misspelled Cheney and moved the last RC convention up by 2 1/2 years. Probably because I was Kerry supporter working in an office where the only non Republican vote any of them ever cast was for George Wallace and Kerry's defeat seems like yesterday. My French wasn't good enough to move to Paris and Quebec was too cold. From 8AM til noon there was a standing chant for Kerry to concede. Also my state was one that fired people if they didn't support Bush or at least made their lives miserable. I so want a win and it will take unity. Forgive me if I've lost my sense of humor.

Posted by: txajohnson | August 21, 2008 11:38 PM | Report abuse

No. Most on here who said "no" gave good reasons. I would add this. Clinton voters (PUMAs, whatever) want her on the ticket. So if you want her on the ticket, what do you tell the pollster? You say you won't vote for Obama otherwise, the numbers spike, and then a blog entry like this one gets written and we all sit around and talk about it.

But the Clinton supporters don't really mean it. They'll get on board. Remember, these numbers were a lot higher during the primaries. The number of Clinton supporters threatening not to support Obama is dropping steadily. They're making one last push by gaming the pollsters. But come November, when Obama/Biden wins, nobody will remember this conversation.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 21, 2008 11:25 PM | Report abuse

Lassair wrote:
Obama shouldn't be POTUS, period.

Actually it is any clinton that should not be president.
As for Obama, he is a brilliant man who is deeply talented and possesses the ability to see and understand the most complex problems and how to solve them.
he was greeted happily by world leaders because they saw a man who is able to deal with any problem and understand the differing sides and how to approach them.
While Hillary failed her bar exam Obama was the president of the Harvard Law Review and graduated at the top of his class.
Look at how Clinton ran her dysfuncational campaign and how obama ran a perfect one.
He is clearly superior to Clinton.
clinton is the one who should never be allowed near the white house.

And a year after obama is sworn in I wonder how many of the Hillbots will be eating crow?

Posted by: vwcat | August 21, 2008 11:15 PM | Report abuse

In the 90s the Clintons managed to cause such a deep divide between democrats and republicans that the riff never healed and we are more polarized then ever.
In 2008 the Clintons managed to cause a deep riff in the democratic party and drive a deep wedge and polarization between people who basically agree with each other on policy.
the Clintons are a poisonous couple that cause division and polarization where ever they go.
If her supporters would look at what the Clinton did to their own party in the never ending need for their own glory and power they would see a pattern with the Clintons.
considering the problems that this country faces and the need to bring people together rather then apart can anyone actually feel this country can afford any more of them.
They cause problems. They are not good for politics or the country.
anyone who thinks that it's Hillary's gender that people are so against need to review the past year.
the big drive against the clintons was not Hillary's gender. that was never the problem.
it was the clintons themselves and the fact that for 20 years they have caused polarization and division. That they cause disruption and anger. that they are insidious people.
the only way this country can heal and come together to solve these problems is to reject the clintons and be done with them.
And the press needs to be on a 10 step program to cure their addiction to the Clintons.
they cannot live without the drama, the upheval and the problems the Clintons cause so they keep bringing them up and dredging up the bad feelings most people have for this very unsightly pair.

Posted by: vwccat | August 21, 2008 11:10 PM | Report abuse

Actually, according to the NYT it is McCain who's vetting is raising eyebrows:


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/17/opinion/17rich.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin
"“McCain’s personal fortune traces back to organized crime in Arizona.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Hensley#Early_business_career.2C_legal_issues
http://www.girlinshortshorts.blogspot.com/2008/02/john-mccain-and-mob.html

Posted by: Corruption Anon | August 21, 2008 10:47 PM | Report abuse

There are too many good reasons not to vote for Obama at all. The Obamabots can say what they like, as can the Republicans. But the fact remains that the MSM did nothing to vet Obama until after the primaries were over, or he would never have gotten this far. Another fact is that he bought a lot of superdelegates, representatives of states that VOTED for Clinton.

http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=pLPoV4diMjk

Obama shouldn't be POTUS, period.

Posted by: Lassair | August 21, 2008 10:35 PM | Report abuse

The people of this country just spent 8 years with a man who had no experience. The very fabric of this country has been almost totally destroyed. We do NOT need ANOTHER person in the White House who has no experience. Just like GWB, Obama pretends he is many, many things, when in fact, he really has NO EXPERIENCE. He is all smoke and mirrors, just like GWB on the battleship of mission accomplished fame. Someone who needs 300 foreign advisors ad Obama does, does not have any experience. Someone who cannot speak without a teleprompter has NO EXPERIENCE. This is EXACTLY how GWB was and is!!!


Write In Hillary 2008 - the TRUE legitimate Democratic nominee by HISTORIC POPULAR VOTE - 18+ MILLION!!!!

With the numbers continuing to show as they are showing, clearly EVERYONE is seeing the same thing.....NO EXPERIENCE. We don't need this again, and people know that!

Posted by: librairie | August 21, 2008 9:54 PM | Report abuse

There is nothing new about this. The key support group for Hillary has always been women over 50 who know the sting of past discrimination and know,further, that it hasn't been eliminated. The upstart Obama folks have disrespected their leader by arguing she is the past and not relevant. The Hillary ladies are angry and only the Hillary bandaid will suffice to make it better. They will show their relevance in November if not provided an outlet for their anger before that time.

Posted by: joephl | August 21, 2008 9:08 PM | Report abuse

In a column today titled "Hillary's Hellions," Kristen Powers details in the NY Post.com all the crazed junk the Hillarian harpies and mentals have in store for Barry at the convention. Scary. You have to read it. It is the scorched-earth politics of personal destruction taken to the nth degree, HRC style.

Having incited these 1960's losers and relics to engage in extreme semi-violent mayhem, HRC, it turns out, can't turn them off. Realizing that, it has been reported her people, not BO's, have hired 40, yes, 40 bouncers to control these nutcases. So there is no telling what they have planned if HRC thinks she needs 40 bouncers to stop "it." (Whatever "it" is.)

Sadly, picking Mrs. Wm. Clinton as veep may not be enough to stop whatever madness and mischief the harpies and mentals have lined up next week.

Posted by: Captain America | August 21, 2008 8:54 PM | Report abuse

Barach Hussein Obama''s latest question addressed to John Mc Cain concerning how many houses he owns was similiar to how many grains of sand are there in the in a dessert?John should respond "Iwill let you know if you tell us how many babies servived their mothers aborted abortion and for how long and what pain and misery did they endure because of Barach Hussein''s self centered and miserable attitude toward partial birth abortions.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by: John's Son | August 21, 2008 8:49 PM | Report abuse

txajohnson, let me share some knowledge. The NYT column about Mac and Ms. Wm. Jefferson Clinton teaming up unfairly on BO was titled "Two against the One." It was written by Pulitzer Prize-winner Maureen Dowd. It was a brilliant piece that, while tongue-in-cheek, described what is actually going here. Picking Ms. W. J. Clinton as veep would break up the little game they have going against BO. This way if he loses, she loses. It will also call the bluff of all the Hillarian harpies and mentals who claim they will only vote for BO if their leader is on the ticket.

Posted by: Broadway Joe | August 21, 2008 8:28 PM | Report abuse

I am convinced that Democrats who are currently struggling to back Obama will come roundas November nears. The choice between Obama & McCain is one which loyal Democrats will find easy. The problem for Clinton supporters at the moment is that they hold out hope for Clinton to be VP (or even POTUS!). Once that hope is gone, most will view the choice rationally.

Obama doesn't need Clinton. He needs someone experienced (politically & militarily) & who reinforces his message of change, convinces independents to vote for his ticket.

Clinton undermines his message of change. She is the Democratic embodiment of Washington (along with Biden, Byrd, and other long standing senators).

I'm picking a military leader for VP. Someone with executive experience (as a General) but who hasn't been "corrupted by Washington". Zinni or Clark.

Posted by: JayPe | August 21, 2008 8:21 PM | Report abuse

Biden would be a great Secy of State. Hilary needs to stay in the Senate. As VP choice, she energizes republicans, and alienates the the people who won't vote for her under any condition and even some Obama supporters. This could cancel out those who want her. I can't believe that democrats, no matter what they think of Obama, would prefer McCain, a conservative Supreme Court and 4 years of potential wars. If that's the case perhaps the party should be the dumbocrats. Biden would make a great Secy of State. Richardson or Rendell or could be a VP choice.

Posted by: jemma | August 21, 2008 8:16 PM | Report abuse

I hear all of these whiney Clinton supporters. They tell us every day about how many millions of fanatical supporters Ms. Clnton has, how they will vote for her and no one else. Now, I suspect that most of these twits are Republican's bent on creating mischief or they are a very few shrill feminist nutcases that got left over from the 1960's. ALl of this begs one question - how is, with all this fanatical support, that Hillary Cltin is still more than 25 million dollars in debt? How is it that, since she abandoned her campaign, what was it, two months ago, she has only managed to raise a bit more than $1 million and most fo that from corporatye donors? Hummm?

Posted by: mibrooks27 | August 21, 2008 8:05 PM | Report abuse

No more "long" lists, time's up. But there is a change in the BO veep "short" list. After dropping lower than J. Wayne Gacy, Richard Speck, Charles Manson, and "Mrs." Billie Jean King on previous lists, even lower than No. 300,000,000 on some, one candidate has had a dramatic change in fortune (driven perhaps by today's column by bloviator-in-chief David Gergen demanding BO choose a "game-changer"). Extreme times require extreme measures -- even it means rewarding very bad acts and very bad actors.

At the top of the list: yes, the most polarizing, divisive, dangerous, unhinged, narcissistic politician in modern American history, perhaps since George Corley Wallace, maybe even Wm. Jennings Bryan. Yeah, I barely have the strength to type the name (with sincere apologies to V. Foster, Dolly Kyle Browning, et al):

1. Mrs. William Jefferson Clinton
2. Albert Arnold Gore, Jr. (BO to AG: your country needs you)
3. Timothy Michael Kaine

Heaven help us...

Posted by: Broadway Joe | August 21, 2008 7:31 PM | Report abuse


"The Last 100 Days"
Hon. James David Manning, PhD.

www.atlah.org/broadcast/ndnr07-28-08.html

Posted by: Anonymous | August 21, 2008 7:19 PM | Report abuse

The thing with Hillary is this: she helps bring on board the blue collar voters and suburban women who like her and are suspicious of Obama, but she hurts with independent voters in states such as Colorado and Virginia. So, if it's not a net plus for Obama, then why deal with the chemistry issues between them and the "what to do with Bill?" issues?

Now, is it only me or does it seem like Obama is having fun with the media on this veepstakes stuff - so much so that I'm becoming convinced he's going to make a surprise pick.

Have you noticed that Obama plans to be in Montana next Wednesday, the day of the VP speech at the convention? Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but why hasn't there been more focus on Brian Schweitzer as a possible choice?

- He would double down on the message of bringing change to Washington.

- He would bring loads of "regular guy" credibility and help to balance Obama perceptually.

- He is considered somewhat of an expert on energy issues, which has emerged as a key topic in this year's election

- He is a popular Dem governor of a red state, so brings the same post-partisanship argument as someone like Sebelius or Kaine.

AND - Obama wants to expand the electoral map and, outside of Virginia, many of his targets are in the West. What better spokesperson for this than Schweitzer?

Just some thoughts, as I await the selection along with the rest of the country.

Posted by: Bob | August 21, 2008 7:12 PM | Report abuse

Is anyone else tired of this VP talk? I'll be glad when the VP's are announced & we move back to talking about issues & what politicians stand for what & why. I'll be glad when the VP's are announced already!

Posted by: reason | August 21, 2008 7:03 PM | Report abuse

I think one of the problems with CLinton was how hard she was pushing the race issue. There are plenty of black people that she turned off to her and plenty of white people she turned off to Obama. Just because she is on the ticket, doesn't mean the strange looking guy with the funny name who is a secret muslim and is butt-buddies with Louis Farrakhan and hates America is gone.

Obama is one of the more pragmatic (calculating) candidates I've seen. I think they will come to a decision as to whether they need Clinton. If so, then she will be on the ticket.

But remember, it took a week of Obama being absent for McCain to come close in the polls. Now Obama's machine is just getting geared up. Also, McCain needs to spend all of his money before his primary. Then he is stuck with his $85 million. Obama has his $60 million in the bank now and is free to spend it whenever he wishes.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 21, 2008 7:02 PM | Report abuse

I really feel if Obama ads Hillary he will surley lose. She is not very popular. Oh yes to the ladies and not all of them she might get those votes but not the male votes.

Posted by: Barrack_007 | August 21, 2008 6:55 PM | Report abuse

I worked for and contributed financially to Senator Obama in the primaries. I remain convinced he is the best person for president. As many Obama supporters, I was frequently irritated by things Hillary said or did in the primaries. Still, I understand that both were trying to win a political election and feelings of supporters do get hurt.

I would have supported her after the primaries were over had she won. I recognize and respect all of the votes she received and how close she came to winning. I respect how deeply a particular segment of the Democratic Party backed her and saw in her "their" chance. I, of course, refer to the many women, particularly middle age and older, who felt every bit as committed to her as the vast majority of African Americans and youth did to Obama.

I believe that Senator Clinton's very close race and her supporters' efforts and commitment should be recognized and respected by the winner and by the party by offering her the vice presidency. In no way should anyone hope for or fear a "co-presidency" because that is not possible.

Way too much is being made of what Bill's role would be after Obama/Hillary won. It would have been critical if Hillary were the president, but I just do not see that it if she is vice president.

The Democratic Party must unite if McCain is to be defeated. Both Obama and Clinton supporters must put behind them hurt feelings from the primaries, consider the present situation as it is (not as they wish it were), and be thrilled to have an Obama/Clinton ticket. Now, let's beat the Republicans.

Posted by: Byron | August 21, 2008 6:38 PM | Report abuse

Prediction of election result based on different Veep Picks by Senator Obama;


Hillary - Absolute Win

Gore - Next Best thing to Hil - Definite Win

Welsey Clark - Best of the Rest - Very Likely a win

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Gov. Tim Kaine, Evan Bayh, Joe Biden - Pic Em - Coin Toss

----------------------------------------------------------------------

John Kerry - Poor Choice - Likely Loss

Sam Nunn - The Lloyd Benson of 08 - 3rd Worst Choice - Loss

Any Republican - 2nd Worst Choice - Loss

Faux Hillary ( Sebelius or any other woman that is not Hil) - Worst Possible Choice - Loss

Disclaimer: I am for Obama and hope that I am wrong if he chooses those I have predicted as losing choices.

Posted by: Hebert | August 21, 2008 5:37 PM | Report abuse

Chris:

He needs her like he needs an ethics scandal-- not at all. It might appease some of her hard core supporters (I'm not really sure who they are) at the risk of alienating the independents he needs to convince. And what's more it would be viewed by most if not all observers as a sign of weakness, which he cannot afford.

As for her, she certainly does not need or want to be Vice President. There is literally no upside for her in running. If they lose, she'll be scapegoated, if they win, she'll be neutralized, bear in mind that no Democrat in the modern era has been elected President having previously been Vice President without first serving as President, and many have been defeated (Gore, Mondale, Humphery) and only George HW Bush has been elected to a sequential term to the administration that he served in since 1900.

Posted by: leuchtman | August 21, 2008 5:35 PM | Report abuse

For the last 12 months I have not seen a place for Clinton on an Obama ticket. Until the last couple of weeks when McCain seems to have put together a formula that could stifle Obama. Now I think that you can certainly make a case for her inclusion.

For:
- firms up the blue base, giving support amongst blue collar white voters, older voters, female voters, and hispanics.
- takes 'experience' off the table.
- domestic issues fall back into the Dem column. Economy, healthcare, social security.
- underlines the historic nature of the ticket


Against:
- Bill comes along for the ride
- energises red base
- doesn't address the military as an issue
- turns independents away
- undermines the change argument
- could Obama ever hope to be his own man?

Posted by: Anonymous | August 21, 2008 5:28 PM | Report abuse

HELL NO!

Posted by: No more PUMAS | August 21, 2008 5:25 PM | Report abuse

She would be a net (+) to the ticket.

Everyone who would be riled up to vote against Hillary is already riled up to vote against Obama. McCain is already getting +80% of the GOP vote. Obama is getting less than that of the Dems -- most of whom are HRC supporters.

Getting her on the ticket gets him up to +80% and tips OH, MO, VA, FL to blue and solidifies all the wavering Kerry states.

(Full disclosure - you won't find a more fervent HRC supporter than me, but PUMAs get a grip and realize that McCain is not the next best alternative to Hillary- Obama is.)

Posted by: Jonathan Saw | August 21, 2008 5:17 PM | Report abuse

I have yet to speak with aHC supporter who thinks that she is even being considered to be VP. He and his supporters seem hell bent to prove they can win the Whitehouse without the Clintons regardless of whether its the shrewdest political move. If the Ds lose this election, which they seem determined to prove, they are capable of doing, expect Howard Dean and those who manipulated the primaries and especially Michigan and Florida, to resign in shame immediately after the election and beg the Clintons to come back in 2012.

Posted by: Leichtman | August 21, 2008 4:52 PM | Report abuse

First, the political benefits of adding Clinton to the ticket are far from clear. Adding any VP without skeletons in teh closet would give him boost. Second, she looks good at the moment because she has had nothing but favorable press since she "suspended" her campaign. Once she is named, all of the scandals and Clintonian mendacity come back front and center.

Finally, you have to ask more than the political implications. What about governing? Hillary would not come cheap, she would not be content to just preside over the Senate and attend funerals. The Clintons have never played second fiddle to anyone and I doubt they would start doing so with Obama, especially given what they said about him during the primaries. She would demand to be a co-President, with a portfolio for Bill as well. Sorry, we don't need two (or three) chief executives.

Obama and Anyone but Hillary

Posted by: RealChoices | August 21, 2008 4:50 PM | Report abuse

I think all of the people who say that they won't vote for Obama if he does not pick Clinton, or those who say they won't vote for him if he does, need their heads examined. At this point, it is either Obama or McCain. So, unless you want John McCain starting World War III over nothing, or packing the Supreme Court with a few more jurists like Justice Scalia, Thomas, Alito, or Chief Justice Roberts, you will vote for the Democratic nominee.

I am an independent voter, who voted for Clinton in the primary, and will go with Obama as the Democratic nominee in the fall. Neither Clinton nor Obama were my perfect candidates, but I am just being pragmatic. You should think about doing the same.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 21, 2008 4:38 PM | Report abuse

Now, see, here's what I think: Obama can win with Hillary, even at the risk of energizing conservatives, but can he GOVERN effectively with her (and Bill) looking over his shoulder? Absolutely not. It'll polarize the country. Obama's got to go his own way, and turn the political page. I think Joe Biden's the way to go in the VP stakes. He's got the moxie to mix it up with McCain, the foreign policy experience to shore up any perceived weaknesses for Obama, and is basically known as something of a blue-class guy from Scranton, PA that can go after those critically important Reagan Democrats. Hillary's better off honing her skills in the Senate (and possibly for 2012 if Obama fails). Oh, and PUMAs--? Once again, there's that nagging pro-choice question (among other topics, I know it just isn't this one, but it's quite high on the list). I'm assuming most of you are pro-choice, am I right? If so, I ask you to consider who'll be more receptive to picking a more-than likely Supreme Court justice replacement that'll be pro-choice? McCain? (Snort) Yeah, right. Obama will be in your corner on far more than McCain will, and that's a fact. Who'll be more for you in legislating equal pay on a job? McCain? Yeah, right. I sincerely ask that you consider your options very carefully. Thank you.

Posted by: SAGG | August 21, 2008 4:35 PM | Report abuse

MarkinAusin: you do know what a slap suit is I presume. The fact that that worthless lawsuit survived Summary Judment in no way reflects that the suit will be succesful. You of all people should know better.

Posted by: Leichtman | August 21, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

President George W. Bush has changed the office of the VPOTUS for ever. Dick Cheney served with the powers and the influence of a Prime Minister, in the French way. President Bush copied the French Constitution's unique system of President/CEO and Prime Minister/COO. From now on, VPOTUS will need enough clout and authority to supervise cabinet members and agency heads. He/she'll need those qualities from day one. Sen. Clinton would make a very credible Prime Minister, other short listers just don't.

Posted by: Fred_of_paris | August 21, 2008 4:20 PM | Report abuse

Yes, he needs her to win. He's had a large number of his supporters, who are also HRC haters, scream anybody but her and this would make it hard for him. Maureen Dowd wrote an op-ed piece "Two against One" that was a slap in the face to 51% of the Deomocratic voters who supported Clinton. On the New Yorker's "Shouts and Murmors" page it would have been great comedy. In the Times, it made even my blood boil and Biden is my first choice for VP. However, Obama needs to be the grown up at the head of the ticket and do what it takes to win the general election; to do so he must unite the party and pull in all her votes. She can play attack dog and will. McCain is playing pretend liberal at the moment with his pick of Ridge or Liberman - to secure undecided voters - ha! Last year the Democrats had a turn coat at the RC trashing the party to the glee of Republicans; this year it's Liberman. McCain's pick will be T-Paw or Mitt with later Supreme Court picks to match, and he will attempt to out Republican Bush and Chaney when he gets in office to pay his dues to the party. No one who thinks about voting for Obama or Clinton should be able to make the swith to McCain, but then some Democrats and Independents don't think. Put her on and win and live with it!

Posted by: txajohnson | August 21, 2008 4:10 PM | Report abuse

I am a PUMA and would probably get on board with a Democratic ticket bearing an experienced candidate by the name of Clinton.

So...
What could possibly be holding up my decision?

The Democrats who tell us we are stupid for not putting "The Party" first.

Especially when they then post crap like this to Clinton's supporters:

"We want a new party and new day. We want to move aways from the poison of the clintons and their brand of politics."
Posted by: vwcat | August 21, 2008 2:28 PM

The only two-term Democratic President since World War II was Bill Clinton.

Democrats in the DNC who want to "move aways" from the "poison" of the Clintons just prove to me how much Democrats like being labelled "Losers."

Don't Democrats EVER get tired of snatching Defeat out of the jaws of Victory?
"New" Party?????
1980, 1984, 1988... 2000, 2004...

Notice any familiar patterns, vwcat?
Except for CLINTON, Losers R Democrats for the last 25 years.

Posted by: Jan | August 21, 2008 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Chris C. discussed even more interesting numbers with Chris Matthews last night: of the 11% undecided voters in the latest MSNBC poll, 7% are absolute Clintonites who don't know yet which way they will go. Given Obama's recent "ceiling" around 45-48% in most polls, that would virtually lock the election right now.

Even more important, a Lincolnesque "team of rivals" would allow Obama to begin identifying the key members of his administration now and have a complete agenda ready to go as soon as he is inaugurated. He could hit the ground running like no newly elected President since FDR!

Posted by: windserf | August 21, 2008 4:01 PM | Report abuse

there may be hell to pay with or without Obama....his own are turning on him

http://www.black-and-right.com:80/2008/08/18/obama-win-or-lose/


http://www.atlah.org/broadcast/ndnr07-28-08.html

Posted by: rtfanning | August 21, 2008 3:42 PM | Report abuse

If Obama's pick mainly is based on emotion, it's Kaine. If it is mainly based on caution, it's Bayh. If it is mainly based on aggressiveness, it's Biden. If it is mainly based on getting attention now, it is some long shot we have not heard much about.

If Obama's pick is pragmatic, it's Clinton. Geting a very strong women's vote, in particular, is perhaps the best counter to the "race" vote problem he cannot change.

If, as has been reported, Independents break better for him with Clinton as VP, that, too is in her favor.

Can she help him lead as well as other VP possibilities? That, alone, seems to be to be what Obama has to decide since she should be the best bet to help him be elected. I think she can, and I think Obama can handle the "Bill" factor. I love Biden as the VP choice, but Hillary helps more in getting Obama elected.

Posted by: Byron | August 21, 2008 3:25 PM | Report abuse

It's too late for Obama to pair up with Clinton. He's fallen down, his clay feet have been exposed and he's already becoming passe. Taking up with Clinton now after all the panning and nose-holding would look like a desperation move against his true desire, whereas if he had paired up with her earlier it would have been a unity move. Obama probably will not win the election; he might win with Clinton and might lose even if he does pair up with her. Presidential nominees only get one shot; they don't run again if they lose once. Obama should take his one shot and not drag the Clintons aboard his looming train wreck.

Posted by: AsperGirl | August 21, 2008 3:22 PM | Report abuse

Speaking as a Hillary voter. There was a time when would have, and did, argue that putting Hillary on the ticket made a lot of sense. Unfortunately, that is no longer the case. Now it would just look desperate. Obama will inevitably look smaller than she does. Unfortunately, there's a loud, plugged-in minority of her supporters who care more about promoting the Clintons than preventing a Republican presidency. Plus, as much as it pains me to say it, Bill would inevitably make some pouty comment that steps on Obama's message. And god helps us, he might even say something to the effect of, "Too bad this ticket ain't upside down, huh folks?"

Posted by: howlless | August 21, 2008 3:14 PM | Report abuse

...Maybe "bullet head" should help out these republicans that need his help instead of McCaint who is just a pathetic waste of his type of "talents....

How about these folks......

Republican County Constable Larry Dale Floyd was arrested on suspicion of soliciting sex with an 8-year old girl. Floyd has repeatedly won elections for Denton County, Texas, constable.

Republican Judge Mark Pazuhanich of Wilkes Barre, Pennsylvania pled no contest to fondling a 10-year old girl and was sentenced to 10 years probation.

Republican Party leader Bobby Stumbo of Floyd County, Kentucky was arrested for having sex with a 5-year old boy.

Republican teacher and former city councilman John Collins of Asbury Park, New Jersey pled guilty to sexually molesting 13 and 14 year old girls.

Republican campaign worker Mark Seidensticker of Nashua, New Hampshire is a convicted child molester.

Republican Mayor Philip Giordano of Waterbury, Connecticut is serving a 37-year sentence in federal prison for sexually abusing 8 and 10-year old girls.

Republican Mayor John Gosek of Oswego, New York was arrested on charges of soliciting sex from two 15-year old girls.

Republican County Commissioner David Swartz of Richland County, Ohio pled guilty to molesting two girls under the age of 11 and was sentenced to 8 years in prison.

Republican Speaker of the Puerto Rico House of Representatives Edison Misla Aldarondo was sentenced to 10 years in prison for raping his daughter between the ages of 9 and 17.

Republican Committeeman John R. Curtain of Monroe County, Pennsylvania was charged with molesting a teenage boy and unlawful sexual contact with a minor.

Republican anti-abortion activist Howard Scott Heldreth of Kannapolis, N.C., is a convicted child rapist in Florida.

Republican zoning supervisor, Boy Scout leader and Lutheran church president Dennis L. Rader of Witchita, Kansas pled guilty to performing a sexual act on an 11-year old girl he murdered.

Republican anti-abortion activist Nicholas Morency of Camden, New Jersey pled guilty to possessing child pornography on his computer and offering a bounty to anybody who murders an abortion doctor.

Republican campaign consultant Tom Shortridge of Soputhbay, California was sentenced to three years probation for taking nude photographs of a 15-year old girl.

Republican racist pedophile and United States Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina had sex with a 15-year old black girl which produced a child.

Republican pastor Mike Hintz of Des Moines, Iowa, who George W. Bush commended during the 2004 presidential campaign, surrendered to police after admitting to a sexual affair with a female juvenile.

Republican legislator Peter Dibble of New London, Connecticut pled no contest to having an inappropriate relationship with a 13-year-old girl.

Republican advertising consultant Carey Lee Cramer of Arizona was charged with molesting his 9-year old step daughter after including her in an anti-Gore television commercial.

Republican activist Lawrence E. King, Jr. and Republican lobbyist Craig J. Spence both of Washington, D.C. organized child sex parties at the White House during the 1980s.

Republican Congressman Donald “Buz” Lukens of Columbus, Ohio was found guilty of having sex with a female minor and sentenced to one month in jail.

Republican fundraiser Richard A. Delgaudio of Burke, Virginia was found guilty of child porn charges and paying two teenage girls to pose for sexual photos.

Republican activist Mark A. Grethen of Colorado Springs. Colorado was convicted on six counts of sex crimes involving children.

Republican activist Randal David Ankeney of El Paso County, Arizona pled guilty to attempted sexual assault on a child.

Republican Congressman Dan Crane of Illinois had sex with a female minor working as a congressional page.

Republican activist and Christian Coalition and South Carolina Republican leader Beverly Russell admitted to an incestuous relationship with his step daughter.

Republican Judge Ronald C. Kline of Orange County, California was placed under house arrest for child molestation and possession of child pornography.

Republican congressman and anti-gay activist Robert Bauman of Maryland was charged with having sex with a 16-year-old boy he picked up at a gay bar.

Republican Committee Chairman and attorney Jeffrey Patti of Sparta, New Jersey was arrested for distributing a video clip of a 5-year-old girl being raped.

Republican activist Marty Glickman of Florida (a.k.a. “Republican Marty”), was taken into custody by Florida police on four counts of unlawful sexual activity with an underage girl and one count of delivering the drug LSD. It was Glickman, interestingly enough, that claimed Bill Clinton came from a low rent state and had torn down all of the standards for the highest office in the land.

....and wait there's more.......

Bullet Head should help these RNC Fellas

Republican legislative aide Howard L. Brooks of Quartz Hill, California was charged with molesting a 12-year old boy and possession of child pornography

Republican Senate candidate John Hathaway who had relocated to Maine from Huntsville, Alabama after having been accused of having sex with his 12-year old baby sitter and withdrew his candidacy after the allegations were reported in the media

Republican preacher Stephen White of West Chester, Pennsylvania, who demanded a return to traditional values, was sentenced to jail after offering $20 to a 14-year-old boy for permission to perform oral sex on him

Republican talk show host Jon Matthews of Houston, Texas pled guilty to exposing his genitals to an 11 year old girl

Republican anti-gay activist Earl “Butch” Kimmerling of Anderson, Indiana was sentenced to 40 years in prison for molesting an 8-year old girl after he attempted to stop a gay couple from adopting her

Republican Party leader Paul Ingram of Thurston County, Washington pled guilty to six counts of raping his daughters and served 14 years in federal prison

Republican election board official Kevin Coan of St. Louis, Missouri was sentenced to two years probation for soliciting sex over the internet from a 14-year old girl

Republican politician Andrew Buhr, also of St. Louis, was charged with two counts of first degree sodomy with a 13-year old boy

Republican politician Keith Westmoreland of Kingsport, Tennessee was arrested on seven felony counts of lewd and lascivious exhibition to girls under the age of 16 (i.e. exposing himself to children)

Republican anti-abortion activist John Allen Burt of Pensacola, Florida was found guilty of molesting a 15-year old girl.

Republican County Councilman Keola Childs of Hawaii County, Hawaii pled guilty to molesting a male child.

Republican activist John Butler of Cass County, Illinois was charged with criminal sexual assault on a teenage girl.

Republican candidate Richard Gardner of Clark County, Nevada admitted to molesting his two daughters.

Republican Councilman and former Marine Jack W. Gardner of Lancaster, Pennsylvania was convicted of molesting a 13-year old girl.

Republican County Commissioner Merrill Robert Barter of Boothbay, Maine pled guilty to unlawful sexual contact and assault on a teenage boy.

Republican City Councilman Fred C. Smeltzer, Jr. of Wrightsville Borough, Delaware pled no contest to raping a 15 year-old girl and served 6-months in prison.

Republican activist Parker J. Bena pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography on his home computer and was sentenced to 30 months in federal prison and fined $18,000.

Republican parole board officer and former Colorado state representative, Larry Jack Schwarz, was fired after child pornography was found in his possession.

Republican strategist and Citadel Military College graduate Robin Vanderwall of Virginia was convicted in Virginia on five counts of soliciting sex from boys and girls over the internet.

Republican city councilman Mark Harris of West Bend, Wisconsin, who has been described as a “good military man” and “church goer,” was convicted of repeatedly having sex with an 11-year-old girl and sentenced to 12 years in prison.

Republican businessman Jon Grunseth withdrew his candidacy for Minnesota governor after allegations surfaced that he went swimming in the nude with four underage girls, including his daughter.

Republican director of the “Young Republican Federation” Nicholas Elizondo of Bakersfield, California molested his 6-year old daughter and was sentenced to six years in prison.

Republican president of the New York City Housing Development Corp, Russell Harding, pled guilty to possessing child pornography on his computer.

Republican benefactor of conservative Christian groups, Richard A. Dasen, Sr. of Kalispell, Montana, was found guilty of raping a 15-year old girl. Dasen, 62, who is married with grown children and several grandchildren, has allegedly told police that over the past decade he paid more than $1 million to have sex with a large number of young women.

Republican Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld authorized the rape of children in Iraqi prisons in order to humiliate their parents into providing information about the anti-American insurgency.

These are all matters of public record, not hearsay. They have been reported in both the local press where the incidents occurred and in various national media. The perverts in question have come from all over the country. Their major similarity is that they are Republican Conservative Christian activists who have made their mark by preaching family values while performing unspeakable acts of perversion, many with minors.

So much for family values from the religious right.

...the RNC/GOP card holding hypocrates that love made in china flag pins, bibles, rifles, airport bathrooms, male prostitutes..etc

Posted by: AlexP1 | August 21, 2008 3:11 PM | Report abuse

"On the issue of Supreme Court justices alone, how can any supporter of HRC see that their vote of protest will be beneficial to them or America."

It's not a protest vote.

Obama's not experienced, qualified or competent enough to be president with all the problems we face now.

Is it sexism that is preventing the Obama supporters from hearing and listening to Clinton supporters all these months?

OBAMA'S EXPERIENCE, RESUME AND COMPETENCIES ARE INADEQUATE FOR THE PRESIDENCY AT HIS CURRENT LEVEL OF DEVELOPMENT.

IT'S DANGEROUS TO ELECT AN INCOMPETENT PRESIDENT.

LOOK AT WHAT HAPPENED WITH BUSH, HE GOT DOMINATED BY NEOCONS IN HIS FIRST TERM AND THE REST OF HIS TENURE HASN'T BEEN BRILLIANT, EITHER, EVEN IN BASIC GOV'T FUNCTIONS

COMPETENCE IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN IDEOLOGY. IF YOU DON'T HAVE COMPETENCE, IT DOESN'T MATTER IF THE GUY IS LIBERAL OR CONSERVATIVE. ONLY WHEN YOU HAVE TWO QUALIFIED AND COMPETENT CANDIDATES DO YOU CHOOSE BASED ON OTHER THINGS.

How would you hire a manager for your factory? Would you hire an under-qualified, inexperienced fast-talker just because you like the country club he belongs to?

Posted by: AsperGirl | August 21, 2008 3:06 PM | Report abuse

The comment posted by dl above is very good information. I hadn't even thought about the vetting process as far as Bill Clinton is concerned. This chapter of the 2008 campaign may truly be over even if the emotions involved are still running wide and deep.

My initial knee-jerk response was NO!!! to Senator Clinton as a VP for Barack Obama. Then I made myself slow down and read the "Case For" and "Case Against" her as VP. I will always go back to what cost her the win in Iowa. She lost because of her own hubris and because of following poor advice from her campaign mananger at that time. Barack Obama ran a better campaign. That's it. He has earned his place as the Democratic Party's nominee for President.

Therefore, he can choose the VP candidate HE feels will best meet HIS criteria for the position. In my opinion, no amount of analysis changes these facts. I feel he has given too much to the Clintons already by having both of them speak at the convention in Denver. To me, Bill (mostly) and Hillary (less so) Clinton (and many of their supporters) act like spoiled children throwing tantrums because things did not turn out as they wished. It was just not their year.

While I personally feel it would be a disaster to bring Hillary Clinton on board the Democratic ticket as the VP candidate, if Senator Obama chooses to do so, I hope it is because he truly believes that she would be the best person for the position, and not because he thinks that he must do this to win. If she is chosen for VP as some sort of compromise candidate, and if the Obama/Clinton ticket wins the election, I think he enters the White House with a huge weight that will sabatage his Presidency. Senator Obama is a gifted politician, but I don't know if even he is up for that challange.

Posted by: NancyinNC | August 21, 2008 3:05 PM | Report abuse

Nope.

First, Obama's already been damaged by the storyline that he's easy manipulated by the Clintons (eg: Democratic convention, etc.)

Second: if she were announced as VP, how many dissatisfied Hillary voters would shift their protest to why they won't vote unless there's a co-presidency? Or unless she's at the top of the ticket? For some, the effort to de-legitimize Obama's candidacy will simply find new legs.

Finally, and most importantly with regard to all things Clinton and Vice-Presidential: Bill. Ultimately, no matter how much good effort Hillary has put into this thing, the reason she can't be Veep is down to Bill. He was one of the most influential elements in the destruction of her candidacy, his resentment of Obama is palpable, and his post-Presidential activities appear to be un-vettable.

Pass.

Posted by: no | August 21, 2008 3:03 PM | Report abuse

Where is my 60 lb bag of cookie dough? No Hillary coronation? The tears...the tears....

Posted by: AsperGirl | August 21, 2008 2:56 PM | Report abuse

He needs Clinton to win
He won't win without Clinton as VP
He might not win, even with Clinton as VP

Obama's got systematic negatives that cannot be TV-advertised or good-media-coveraged away.

You can't paper over a thin resume for Chief Executive using a lot of fatuous media coverage. You can't talk down a disingenuous and callow candidate. You can't cover up simple ignorance of an under-qualified candidate, no matter how many advisors he claims to have.

There is a certain number of people in the electorate for whom experience, brilliance, dedication and proven record of service is a core resume for President. Obama will never win over those people.

The problem with going with an under-qualified and/or inexperienced candidate is that he has to overcome with persuasion people's reluctance to elect a president who lacks core competencies.

Because he lacks core competencies, there is a hard limit as to the number of people for whom the following comprises sufficient and necessary reason for overriding the usual requirement to have a qualified candidate. So Obama's base is passionate and narrow because he only wins over those people who are positively wowed by him . Those who are not wowed by him are unattracted to him.

For the above reasons, Obama has a deep but narrow base. This also means that from a numbers perspective, Obama's growth as a candidate is bound by the hard upper limit that is due to the learge number of people who will not vote for a candidate who both lacks core competencies and doesn't wow them in some way that makes them overlook that.

On the other hand, McCain's potential appeal is broader because he meets the minimum qualifications that most people envision a president having. So all McCain has to do is pick at his opponent and undermine the cult appeal.

If McCain and Obama were both interviewing for a job, McCain basically qualifies for the job, but has to overcome some negatives not necessarily related to him personally. But Obama lacks real core competencies for the job. So he has to get the hiring manager to really fall for him and overlook his deficiencies and hire him anyways. So Obama is liked by those parts of the electorate where he can develop some strong, appealing "hook". Obama appeals to people who are blacks, media, college studdents and academics, left-wing socialists and have a high affinity for him. Everyone else just looks at him and shrugs and says, why elect a freshman senator?

Obama is fundamentally flawed as a candidate because he lacks minimum realistic qualifications for the job. He lacks core competencies and demonstrates that the longer he's on the trail.

There's a hard upper limit on the number of voters Obama can win. But those people he have hooked have a true affinity for him, so he has a deep but narrow base. He'll have to try to win with that.

Obama might win with Clinton as VP, but he's got so many negatives that he'd probably lose anyways. He shouldn't drag them down with him.

He wanted his shot this year, and couldn't wait until he matured as a politician and had more to offer. He gets one shot because a nominee who fails the general election doesn't get another chance to run. Obama should take his shot and leave the Clintons out of his train wreck.

Clinton can run and get elected in 2012.

Posted by: AsperGirl | August 21, 2008 2:53 PM | Report abuse

dl, it is ashame that Hillary never divorced Bill.
I found through the primaries that my most resistant feelings for her came when Bill was around or acting up.
There is something about the guy that is just sleazy.
I think he drags her down and has taught her the worst things in politics.
I feel if she dumped him and learned on her own the past 8 years and her own politics she may have been quite acceptable.
What her supporters never understood is that Hillary's rejection had nothing to do with gender.
It had to with with Clintonism and her husband.
they respresented all the worst things about politics in the past 25 years. and embraced it.
I always admired Lincoln and FDR. The Clintons were everything they were not. And I see the two, Lincoln and FDR in Obama.
But, I also find my biggest problem is with Bill and his brand of sleazy politics and the fact that Hillary learned all those bad habits and ways.
It's sad that it's her husband that hurt her more than anything and yet her supporters don't understand that.
Her gender was never the problem

Posted by: vwcat | August 21, 2008 2:51 PM | Report abuse

It seems to me that the fact that Paul v. Clinton survived summary judgment and is going to go to a jury in L.A. precludes picking HRC. It seems to me that being able to play back HRC's campaign against BHO precludes picking HRC. It seems to me that the heroine of Bosnia tape precludes picking HRC. Did I miss something?

Posted by: MarkInAustin | August 21, 2008 2:45 PM | Report abuse

My mother is 75. She liked Hillary is sad that she did not get the nomination. Up until yesterday she was leery of Obama seeing him as inexperienced and too young (her kids' ages).
My husband was over to fix her car and they talked politics. She just could not get past her uneasiness about Obama but, would not support McCain because he's too much like bush.
My husband went to work on her car and my mom came out a little latter all excited.
How she missed the reports prior to yesterday is beyond me because she is very much a news person and political junkie. But, it passed her.
anyway, she came all excited.
She now likes Obama. She heard on the news yesterday that Caroline Kennedy supports Obama.
If Caroline Kennedy approves that is good enough for her to give him a serious look.
She figures that Caroline would never approve unless Obama was up to a certain standard.
Like I said, I don't know how she missed it but, because of Caroline Kennedy, Obama is now good enough.
She figures if JFKs daughter supports him that is good enough for her.

Posted by: vwcat | August 21, 2008 2:44 PM | Report abuse

wwcat

I agree she has to have Bill's finances vetted from his overseas dealings.

and I am sure Hillary at points has to say to herself(as so many do - lol)...
"why am I still with this guy?"

because most of America is asking that. Taking nothing from his Presidency...but as a husband defending her or not... he kind of sucks.

but I think the scrutiny would be much less if she were sec of state and was the one walking in to leaders offices around the world...not as first lady but sec of state...brings a bit of familiarity and power at that point

and she can build her non-first lady experience and more trust from those who don't trust her...and get further away from Bill...to run when Biden will not after Obama.

but she can't do that if Obama loses and she gets tossed...which the numbers say that definitively could happen.

I know just a simpleton's dream...but

Posted by: dl | August 21, 2008 2:44 PM | Report abuse

"Russell, it will not unite the party.
the Obama supporters will be in open rebellion if that woman is picked.
We don't want any clinton and their old school culture war baby boomer mind games around."

I hope that works for you pal. The polls are saying something different. This choice should forever put to rest the Obama/JFK comparisons. JFK actually had the courage to select a strong VP he did not much like for the good of the country. Not choosing LBJ would have made his election a dicey proposition. JFK made the correct choice. Obama cannot do the same because he is weak.

Posted by: hdimig | August 21, 2008 2:41 PM | Report abuse

This is the classic story of cutting off yur nose to spite your face.

On the issue of Supreme Court justices alone, how can any supporter of HRC see that their vote of protest will be beneficial to them or America.

Posted by: mitchell kaplan | August 21, 2008 2:39 PM | Report abuse

dl wrote:
I hope ...dream that he picks her for sec of state...

Except for any administration post, Hillary's finances will have to be vetted and again, Bill's business dealings and library donors will be a subject of scrutiny.
And we know that he cannot pass that.
Unless Hillary throws off Bill, she will be kept from any post due to Bill.

She would have been better off without him. he is what is keeping her from higher office.

Posted by: vwcat | August 21, 2008 2:37 PM | Report abuse

I think the perfect VP candidate is Gore and am so hoping that he is the one. He has been vetted. - and revetted and proven himself in every category.

Posted by: Terry | August 21, 2008 2:37 PM | Report abuse

Obama doesn't need nor want Hilly Clinton nor her die hard supporters. An analysis of the "18 million" voters for Ms. Clinton shows that at least one quarter were Republican's, bent on mischief. The majority of the remaining ones were actual Dremocrats who genuinely preferred Clinton to Obama for any of a number of reasons, but have since determined (rightly) that any Democrat is preferrable to McCain and the suicidal NeoCon economic and military policies the Republican's represent. The few remaining die hards are a collection of 1960's older radical feminists and racists that no true Democrat likes nor wants to be associated with. If nothing else, this is an opportunity to be rod of this group once and for all. No to Clinton as VP!

Posted by: mibrooks27 | August 21, 2008 2:36 PM | Report abuse

"You spoiled old women need to grow up and learn that politics is not about just you and what you want."

I am a 40 year old college educated male, not a spoiled old woman. I just don't like Obama enough to vote for him for President. I can't even hold my nose and vote for him because I strongly suspect McCain may actually do a better job if elected. Writing in HRC is a legal and viable alternative. There are plenty of people out there who feel like me. If Obama had some fortitude, he would do something about it.

Posted by: hdimig | August 21, 2008 2:34 PM | Report abuse

My bad. Kerry and former President Carter were added yesterday. The DNC website is lame...nothing in the way of a schedule of speakers.

Posted by: P Diddy | August 21, 2008 2:33 PM | Report abuse

What the hillbots do not understand is that any attempt to mess up the convention or overthrow Obama or effort to cost him the election is going to be blamed on Hillary.
though many know it's not Hillary herself who is acting like an unhinged crazy, it is her forces. And as such, Hillary will be the one to pay the price for their immature and childish behavior and attempts to explode the party.
People see that it is Hillary's supporters. Not Edwards, or Bidens or anyone else who ran. They acted like grown ups.
It is the childish temper tantrums and emotional irrationality of the Clinton supporters who are driving a wedge and upheval and as such, if they cost Obama the election the price will be placed on their candidate.
Hillary will be the one to take the fall for the bratty behavior of her supporters.

Posted by: vwcat | August 21, 2008 2:33 PM | Report abuse

Obama has not hemmed and hawed according to the desires of the media. He is a self-made man who appears entirely comfortable with himself.

On another note, is there a reason why John Kerry isn't among the official roster of speakers at the Democratic Convention? Is that a hint of some kind?

Posted by: P Diddy | August 21, 2008 2:32 PM | Report abuse

and do you all understand that chances are he CAN't pick her because of the financial vetting issues with Bill C.

I hope ...dream that he picks her for sec of state...

Obama biden and Clinton teaming to get us back to "normal" in the world.

that would be awesome...

but look at the facts...how could Bill's financial unknowns have been vetted or be vetted in the next 5 days...secretly...it just couldn't happen.

Posted by: dl | August 21, 2008 2:31 PM | Report abuse

Russell, it will not unite the party.
the Obama supporters will be in open rebellion if that woman is picked.
We don't want any clinton and their old school culture war baby boomer mind games around.
We want a new party and new day. We want to move aways from the poison of the clintons and their brand of politics.

Posted by: vwcat | August 21, 2008 2:28 PM | Report abuse

Hdimig

It may be a typical Obama comment...but the woman who said "get over it and grow up"

is trying to tell you ...you are hurting women...with an emotional choice rather than a logical choice.

If obama loses...it far from helps women...

...or Hillary for that matter.

so the woman who said get over it and grow up... is saying use logic and be more noble than these PUMA group is.

If obama loses...Hillary is going to also and look at the number sher chances of coming back will be ...well they won't be is more apt.

not only that...but women's issues lose ...big.

PUMA is not noble... ...they are the opposite of noble.

It is sad... ...all out of the fact that we do not have a large enough selection of women on the second tier...so now out of spite they are going to lose the woman who would have lead on that second tier.

The woman who made the comment is trying to say...It is sad when self centered and yes immature emotional anger and spite trumps logic.

and that is a typical Obama supporter comment.

Posted by: dl | August 21, 2008 2:28 PM | Report abuse

"OBAMA WORLD, IT IS EXPLODIN'..."

HERE COMES THE HILLARY ROLL CALL PUTSCH

• And the Obama camp threatens to reduce superdelegate power? On the "Eve of Destruction"?


Chris, with all due respect, I'm "nearly certain" there's a big surprise coming, and that the presumption that Obama will emerge at the top of the ticket could end up being wishful thinking.

John McCain may be considering a pro-abortion moderate as his running mate because he's got his ear to the ground and realizes something that mainstream media outlets refuse to report on -- the possibility that Hillary's got the votes to prevent Obama from being nominated on the first ballot.

If she doesn't then broker a deal that gives the nomination to a compromise unity candidate (read: Al Gore), she could emerge as the nominee, and immediately name Obama has HER VP.

A poster here, I think it was Dexter Manley from Panama but I could be wrong, reminded us the other day of that meeting at Diane Feinstein's house between Barack and Hillary. The poster also speculated that perhaps the GOP had an "inside line" to what was discussed at that meeting (that's his speculation; I'm just a reporter here).

At that meeting, the candidates may have decided that whoever wins in the end, the other will get the VP pick. That would explain the delay in Obama making his VP announcement (which may end up being just a smokescreen to keep the backroom deal a surprise).

McCain realizes the juggernaut that would be spawned by a Clinton-Obama ticket (or, if you accept my theory, a Gore-Obama ticket brokered by Hillary, who would then be the Dems' kingmaker who recaptured the DNC and saved the party from defeat).

As the power behind the throne, Hillary could then head back victorious to the Senate, where she would surely become the majority leader as she awaits her Supreme Court appointment.

Obama's people make yet another under-reported strategic blunder the other day: They let it be known that they want to change the DNC rules with the intent of reducing the power of the superdelegates in future election cycles.

Why would they say that now, just before the supers are about to wield their big stick? Talk about putting a fork in it!


BUT WILL THE ELECTION EVEN MATTER? Not when government-supported "vigilante injustice" squads are "gang stalking" American citizens, making a mockery of the rule of law:
http://www.nowpublic.com/world/get-political-vic-livingston-opinion-expose-state-supported-vigilante-squads-doing-domestic-terrorism

Posted by: scrivener | August 21, 2008 2:27 PM | Report abuse

I hope Obama picks her. He needs to get over himself and his inflated ego and hurt feelings and pick HRC. It will unite the party and give him a huge boost in the polls. Bank on it. He has my vote anyway, but I'd be more willing to help out actively if she's on the ticket.

Posted by: Russell | August 21, 2008 2:25 PM | Report abuse

hdimig wrote:
If Obama had cajones he would chose Hillary and unite the party (I have seen no testicular evidence). I would vote for Obama with Hillary as VP. With Biden, I am writing in HRC. That is allowed in North Carolina.

by all means please do. take your ball and go home. Stomp your feet and hold your breath and throw your summerlong temper tantrum.
I am not going to bow before you.
You spoiled old women need to grow up and learn that politics is not about just you and what you want.
You and your candidate were rejected by the democrats and either deal with it or go away.
Just like said in 2000 about the clintons I say to you spoiled old women: good riddance.

Posted by: vwcat | August 21, 2008 2:23 PM | Report abuse

>> Get over it and grow up!

A typical Obama-tron statement. If Obama had cajones he would chose Hillary and unite the party (I have seen no testicular evidence). I would vote for Obama with Hillary as VP. With Biden, I am writing in HRC. That is allowed in North Carolina.

Posted by: hdimig | August 21, 2008 2:20 PM | Report abuse

Reality wrote: "Don't underestimate how disappointed, even angry, a lot of women over 40 are about some guy with almost no experience getting the nomination over Hillary.

I am a 50 year old woman and I never supported Hillary.
Not all women are driven by the stage mother syndrome. Seeing Hillary as their substitute for their own problems in life and expecting her to make it all better.
I saw her as she really is.
A party insider connected to corporations and corrupt politics.
The ultimate insider who could care less about the people as she never lived in our life. She was always the spoiled rich woman who got her positions through connections.
Not all women over 40 are in love with the Clintons.
Many of us remember their corruption and scandals and dramas.
I don't want any of it.
And I am sick of the pouting by spoiled women who think because they did not get their way we are all suppose to bow before you.
You women are an embarrassment to my gender and set us back generations with your spoiled temper tantrums.
Obama got more votes, more states and more delegates and ran a much better campaign.
Get over it and grow up!

Posted by: vwcat | August 21, 2008 2:15 PM | Report abuse

The only sure thing in life is death.

Obama has lost his franchise mutiny is brewing. "What will happen when he loses in DENVER" is a question no one is asking.
If Barack Obama Loses
We all know what it takes to piss off some in a city. Even congresswomen can instigate a crowd, chanting “No justice, no peace”.

I lived in Los Angeles during the Rodney King riot which was kind of intense. Everyone was on edge, parts of the city were burning, there was a sunset-to-sunrise curfew, and most people were praying some minor incident didn’t set something off in an adjacent neighborhood.

If Barack Obama loses, the template has already been created.

As of today, Hillary Clinton’s supporters are claiming her nomination was “stolen” from (her and) them. That excuse is now quite typical whenever a liberal loses. Can you imagine what’ll happen if Obama loses? It won’t be because McCain garnered more votes. It won’t be because he was considered more experienced and the American people wanted an adult in the Oval Office. It won’t be because he laid out a more detailed vision for the United States, as opposed to “change”, “hope”, tax the rich and oil companies, and stop the oceans from rising.

It’ll be because white America was too racist to elect a black man. Every vote for McCain will be compared to a baton strike on Rodney King’s upper body. Every Electoral College vote will be like the sting of the lash on the back of every black person in America.

The Man will have won again. The black man will have been put back in his place. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton will be interpreting this as the need for a new civil rights movement. Rappers will be inspired to created tracks instructing the young to burn down America. Rabid inebriated college students will have yet another reason to work off the binge, while also protesting the inherent American racism their professors preached about for years.

If the videotaped beating of a drunk and stoned black man, apprehended after a high-speed chase, can start a riot in a major metropolitan city, just what do you think could happen if a black presidential candidate is beaten by an old, white, Vietnam vet on national television live?

We are again talking about people we raised, giving them everything they wanted, when they wanted it.

Well, now they want Barack Obama, and whether they get him or not, there may be hell to pay.

http://www.black-and-right.com:80/2008/08/18/obama-win-or-lose/
http://www.atlah.org/broadcast/ndnr07-28-08.html


Posted by: rtfanning | August 21, 2008 2:14 PM | Report abuse

Taking polls on who should be the running mate are stupid. There are a lot of good candidates out there, but because they're not household names, they won't do well in the polls whereas people who have a lot of name recognition will poll well, in large part because they're famous. This happened in 2004. The Kerry team ran a poll to see who people wanted to see as his running mate. Edwards came out on top. Well of course he would. He's the most famous one. It's the same with Clinton. She'll poll better than some no-name governor out there who's probably way more qualified.

Posted by: DennyCrane | August 21, 2008 2:11 PM | Report abuse

She lost, he won. Obama should not have his running mate forced on him. The Clintonistas need to grow up and get behind the Democratic Party nominee. I was for Biden, but I'm not taking my ball and going home because he lost the nomination (rumors of him becoming Veep nominee notwithstanding), and I'm darn sure never voting for McSame. Unity isn't a matter of convenience, Democrats, it's essential to avoid four more nightmarish years.

Posted by: Soonerthought.blogspot.com | August 21, 2008 2:10 PM | Report abuse

what the pundits, who are obsessed with the handful of old women who say they won't vote for Obama, is that there are alot more Obama supporters who do not want or like clinton.
The millions of people who see Obama as a break with the same old thing and ego tripping of the Clinton era and want to move forward. The people who worked their heart and soul out to get Obama the nomination and believe in this man.
Not all are college kids and african americans.
There are alot of over 45 middle class whites who support and believe in Obama and the thought of a Clinton still in the center of things and still around after 20 years of having to put up with them is enough to turn many of us off.
Before 2000 I was ready to see the Clintons gone. It was good riddance in 2000 and I was happy to see the last of them.
I jumped aboard the Obama train at the beginning and when it looked like clinton was going to be the nominee I was heartsick. I simply did not want to deal with Clintons anymore and wanted them gone for good.
Now we have the press, who are addicted to the drama of the Clintons, pushing this woman on a daily basis at us democrats and Obama.
He won the primaries and it's his right to chose who he wants to work with and it's obvious it's not Clinton.
He even gives hints like he doesn't want an ego driven veep who seeks the limelight. that is a tip off he is not going to pick clinton.
So the press pushes it even more. Tries to pressure him even more with their continued stories of PUMAs and everyday for the past 6 months pounding away about how Obama has a problem with this or that group.
Anything to drive his numbers down and giving the excuse to keep the Clinton push alive.
Give it up.
the Clintons are the 90s and 20 years ago. It is now a new century and new era.
Give the Clintons up and quit pushing them.

Posted by: vwcat | August 21, 2008 2:08 PM | Report abuse

Polls like that one do a very bad job of making predictions about election day.

By the time election day roles around, the democratic base will have forgotten about Hillary, and they will have discovered that McCain actually is a Republican.

Posted by: Mike | August 21, 2008 2:08 PM | Report abuse

I like to use the Bush Reagan split in 1980 as my marker because I remember the hostility I felt and encountered first hand. Bush WAS the Republican consensus candidate. Bush was an insider. He had operatives in every state and the Party headquarters was staffed with Bush associated and supporting staff. Reagan was an outsider. He had an outsider (D.C.) crew. But Bush was a pragmatist and Reagan was a pragmatist and they came together, although they kept dual camps. I doubt they were ever good friends but they forced the two camps together as a Party and the Reagan had a reluctant but able partner. Possible that could be forged with the Democrats, but women activists are a sub-set, issue wize where the Bush people were able administrators... party functionaries, but they were not on a personal level driven by ideology or do or die legislation that Reagan represented. So the dynamic is different and HRC is no Bush senior, or maybe she is if given a substantive portfolio. The Veep trajectory has been re-made under Cheney, and that I'm sure is a place HRC could accept while she plotted her next move. I'm just saying, Politics 101.

Posted by: angriestdogintheworld | August 21, 2008 2:07 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Mary | August 21, 2008 1:48 PM

As a Republican woman I struggle with this
answer. I support McCain and want him in the white house. But at the same time I really have begun to deeply respect the fight in Hillary, if not necessarily her policy decisions. I would find it hard not to vote for her if she was on the ticket.
----

You are a republican. You do not neccesarily support her policies. But if she's on the ticket you would find it hard not to vote for her.

Sounds like reverse sexism to me.

There is this assumption that the republicans and anti-clinton dems/independents will just fall in love with the Clintons and vote for her. That would mean that the Clinton years will be forgotten and the GOP would offer us no reminders.

Give me a break.

The GOP will have a field day with Hillary. Obama does not need her despite protestations from her loyal band of followers. She represents the same tired politics of the boomer generation. Time to change the page from the clintons.

The era of political dynasties need to come to a complete halt.

No more Bushs
Definately no more Clinton's.

Posted by: Getoverit | August 21, 2008 2:05 PM | Report abuse

Please let us not forget that Hillary, in her attempt to seem more tough and engaged in world affairs, made up a story about dodging sniper fire in Bosnia while our tropps were still dying overseas. She admitted to lying about it during a debate, and did so with a smile.

What do you think McCain, et al will do with that between now and November?

Posted by: DaveB | August 21, 2008 2:05 PM | Report abuse

Reality wrote: "Don't underestimate how disappointed, even angry, a lot of women over 40 are about some guy with almost no experience getting the nomination over Hillary. It mirrors our experiences at work, when the women stay in middle management all their lives while various wonder boys shoot past them to better pay and positions. These women are an important part of the Democratic base and simply WILL NOT come out to vote for Obama."
----
Dear Womman Scorned,

Then Stay your arse at home or vote for McCain. Hillary has had every advantage known to man. She had the entire democratic army at her disposal and guess what happened? The american people rejected her.

This isn't some sexist america as she enjoyed priveleges none of her opponents were able to. She lost because people said NO. Get that through your scorned head. We said NO!

Got it? Good.

Get it.

Posted by: Getoverit | August 21, 2008 1:59 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton would be a terrible pick for Obama. The over 40 women will hold their nose & vote Obama. However, if Obama picked Clinton, it would totally undermine his "change" messege. Clinton is a Washington insider & has been since 1992. No way Clinton can be pegged as a "change" agent, as she ran on "experience" in the primary. McCain will also be running on experience, national security bona-fides but won't be afraid to bash Obama on every issue (including race & past statements he made). If Obama picks Hillary, that will prove he is an ultimate flip-flopping celebrity not interested in change but only his own self-interest. The liberal base would be very upset at a Hillary Clinton pick & many of his supporters truly interested in change would revolt to Cynthia McKinney & Ralph Nader. Clinton will be a horrible choice for Obama VP.

Posted by: reason | August 21, 2008 1:56 PM | Report abuse

How do you spell "anarchy"?...a must read, particularly if you live in Denver

The DNC is going to need a new savior by this time next week and guess who is positioned to save the party?


http://www.newmediajournal.us/staff/williams/2008/print/08202008.htm


Consider the Latest Clinton maneuvers

▪ Camp Clinton convinced Camp Obama to help liquidate her campaign debts.

▪ Camp Clinton convinced Camp Obama to call for Florida and Michigan voters to be counted. It’s the right thing to do, of course. But had it already been done, Hillary would already be the nominee.

▪ Camp Clinton convinces Camp Obama to agree to a floor vote at the convention when all the cameras will be rolling. What if Clinton wins on the floor?

▪ Camp Clinton removes Obama supporter John Edwards from the equation, along with his scheduled convention speaking spot, on the basis that he is now a known lying cheater. But Bill Clinton (also a known lying cheater) is the headliner of the convention, and he’s not an Obama supporter at all.

▪ Barockstar tanks on national TV only days before the convention and his campaign staff is sent out to do damage control, leaving the super-delegates gasping in a holy crap moment, with the sudden realization that this empty suit is in no way ready for the big show. Only a promise to make a VP announcement this week can get his failed TV appearance off the front pages.

▪ Meanwhile, Camp Clinton is mobilizing millions of NObama minions and staging a convention coup in which Hillary can ride in on silver steed to save the party from complete implosion on an international stage…

Posted by: rtfanning | August 21, 2008 1:55 PM | Report abuse

I find myself re-thinking this whole conundrum and finding that after all is said and done with the myriad possibilities that Obama has before him, Clinton may actually be the best choice. I wish I could say I was impressed with the litany of VP possibilities that folks have been bandying about, but none of them spark my interest or speak to me as they should. I'm afraid if Clinton is left on her own, then even if Obama gets the Presidency, he'll have to deal with her as a rival throughout his tenure.

If he does pick her, it would do three things: 1) reinforce the JFK mystique of bringing a rival on board; 2) abide by the old adage "keep your friends close and your enemies closer"; 3) pick up at least a good portion of the multitudes of new Democratic registrants that showed up for the primaries.

It's not the perfect solution, but as Obama is showing himself to be a talented compromiser, it may be the best road to take.

Posted by: rdeemer | August 21, 2008 1:55 PM | Report abuse

no name wrote this:
Nope! I think the women problem for Obama has been greatly exaggerated by some whiny PUMA soreheads and I don't see Clinton bringing anything to the table other than distraction,

The other problem is that the press gives these lunatics the attention they seek and makes it sound like there are thousands of them rather then the handful of crazies they are.
There are not more then a few but, the press keeps talking about them and giving them the legitimacy and attention and the press keeps talking about them that people are left with the false impression that it's a huge force then a few lunatics who forgot to take their meds.

Posted by: vwcat | August 21, 2008 1:55 PM | Report abuse

Other polls had earlier demonstrated that many individuals who voted for Clinton in the primary were going to vote for MacCain in November no matter who the Democratic nominee was- even if it were Clinton herself. We also don't know how many of these reluctant Clintonites will change their minds after the Democratic Convention and even later on in November. Let us not get carried away drawing the wrong conclusions from these polls at this time.

Munir

Posted by: Munir | August 21, 2008 1:54 PM | Report abuse

Who are Hillary supporters going to vote for? Are they going to not vote with liberal justices retiring during the next term? Are they going to not vote in hopes Hillary can win in 2012? Are they going to not vote or vote for McCain out of spite? The fact is, if Obama does not win this year Hillary Clinton will either split the party or not run in 2012.

My theory about life insurance applies to a VP pick - never be worth more to someone dead than alive. With Bill Clinton's ringing endorsement of Obama as his party's nominee and Hillary Clinton's enthusiasm gap, I think Clinton on the ticket is as essential to an Obama Presidency as a marching band is to a hunter.

Posted by: muD | August 21, 2008 1:54 PM | Report abuse

I was taking a cab to the airport. My conversation with the cabbie started with gas prices and quickly turned to politics. He said he'd vote for Obama only if the Hillary was on the ticket. His main reason was the better economic times we had under Bill Clinton. Plain and simple. It is the economy, stupid. Now I don't like the Clintons but the cabbie made a good point. And he is not alone in his thinking.

Posted by: RickY | August 21, 2008 1:53 PM | Report abuse

NO NO NO NO NO.
Obama does not need the Billary circus and all their clowns to undermine him.
The pundits act like the only democrats are the dysfuncational clintons.
It is far past time to have these two pack up their 3 ring circus and move back to Arkansas and have some fresh blood and faces and ideas in the mix.
It's time for the Clintons and their culture wars and ego tripping to be history and for the new generation to take over and wipe clean the sad history of the Clinton era with it's self absorbtion and drama and scandals.
and it far past time for the pundits in the beltway to move their minds outside the billary box and look around at all the better democrats out there and get over their addiction to the damn Clintons.

Posted by: vwcat | August 21, 2008 1:52 PM | Report abuse

Nope! I think the women problem for Obama has been greatly exaggerated by some whiny PUMA soreheads and I don't see Clinton bringing anything to the table other than distraction, questions about her husband's dealings, and something for the sad sack GOP to rally around.

Posted by: 2008 | August 21, 2008 1:50 PM | Report abuse

As a Republican woman I struggle with this answer. I support McCain and want him in the white house. But at the same time I really have begun to deeply respect the fight in Hillary, if not necessarily her policy decisions. I would find it hard not to vote for her if she was on the ticket.

Mary

Posted by: Mary | August 21, 2008 1:48 PM | Report abuse

If Obama is not going to select Hillary, then waiting until just before the convention to announce his choice is very risky. Nearly half of the convention delegates are Hillary supporters, and they would remain bitterly disappointed next week if the V.P. nominee is someone like Biden/Bayh/Kaine/Sebelius.

However, if Obama pulls the surprise of the century and the Dream Team becomes a reality, the convention will be incredibly energized, and the Democratic ticket will emerge from its convention with unstoppable momentum!

Posted by: harlemboy | August 21, 2008 1:47 PM | Report abuse

Don't underestimate how disappointed, even angry, a lot of women over 40 are about some guy with almost no experience getting the nomination over Hillary. It mirrors our experiences at work, when the women stay in middle management all their lives while various wonder boys shoot past them to better pay and positions. These women are an important part of the Democratic base and simply WILL NOT come out to vote for Obama. Yes, I can see problems down the road with Hillary/Bill in the White House with Obama. But he's gotta win first right? He's arrogantly assuming he can do it without Hillary. Guess what guys? He probably can't.

Posted by: Reality | August 21, 2008 1:43 PM | Report abuse

Wouldn't it be nice to live the life of John McCain? Not having to work a moment (except to divorce his first wife and marry a rich heiress) of his life to get his hands on a multi-million dollar fortune? And to live like this:

John McCain, by marrying the daughter of a rich business magnate, is worth up to $100 million! (And he's still taking in $56,000 in Navy pensions!) Fabulous!

The McCains have seven, that's right, at least seven different multi-million dollar properties, including luxury condos in California and Arizona! That's so many, that you can forgive them for sometimes forgetting how many houses the they own or even to pay their property taxes! Of course, being so rich means never having to lift a feather duster -- the McCain spend almost $300,000 on household staff.

And how do you jet around to these various luxury homes (and campaign events?) By private jet, of course! I mean, c'mon, as Cindy McCain says, it's the ONLY way to get around her state!

So how should a rich jet-setter like the McCains dress? Only in the finest European clothes. Escada suits at $3,000 a pop for her! Salvatore Ferragamo 'Pregiato' loafers at $520 a pop for him! Dressing like the richest European aristocrats!

How to ring up all these wonderful riches? When you've got $100 million and up in the bank, the credit card companies don't mind if you ring up a $100,000 credit card bill. They know you're good for it!

What a fabulous life for the McCains! No wonder John McCain thinks you need $5 million to be rich, and just thinks that concerns for the economy are just psychological! Times are tough for many Americans, but not John and Cindy!

In fact, I hear they're looking to move into another property in Washington, D.C. A perfect place to make sure their ultra rich life is improved by nice tax breaks for the ultra rich!

Posted by: Anonymous | August 21, 2008 1:41 PM | Report abuse

The question is, does putting hillary on the ticket really unify the democratic party? To me, the latest tightening of the national polls does seem to show that Clinton supporters are not yet coming to Obama in the way that they need to. So, will they eventually, or not?

If you had asked me two weeks ago, I would have said that Clinton didn't have a shot. But Obama has gone on what was supposed to be his victory tour to Europe and dropped in the polls. The fact is, The Clintons DO still own a lot of the Democratic base, like it or not.

I think one of the most interesting things about this whole process is that after all is said and done, Hillary really did come away from the primaries in a very, very strong position. She seems to be holding the cards right now. And giving her and Bill all of that time at the convention just shows that Obama will not have the entire spotlight. It just seems to be getting clearer that Hillary is NOT out of this.

So, my feeling today is the Obama may NEED to pick her. If she does get the nod, I think she will be an excellent VP. And if she is, she can be president in eight years.

Posted by: Adam | August 21, 2008 1:40 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is a very divisive figure who alienates moderate Democrats such as myself, Independents, and Republicans. I'm for Obama all the way, unless Hillary is in the ticket. Then I will vote for Bob Barr.

Posted by: MJ | August 21, 2008 1:38 PM | Report abuse

plainbrown1

It's too bad that you are upset about all the discussion/leaf reading with the VPstakes.

because there is a lot of policy and leadership issues within all the vitriol and questions and statements.

Policy will be shaped by the dynamic the winning candidate uses in picking their VP.

Posted by: dl | August 21, 2008 1:36 PM | Report abuse

Wonder how the media would react if it was revealed that Obama wore the same kind of shoes as OJ Simpson? It would be all we read about for weeks. But McCain? nary a peep. It goes against their precious narratives.

"Wouldn't it be nice to live the life of John McCain? Not having to work a moment (except to divorce his first wife and marry a rich heiress) of his life to get his hands on a multi-million dollar fortune? And to live like this:

John McCain, by marrying the daughter of a rich business magnate, is worth up to $100 million! (And he's still taking in $56,000 in Navy pensions!) Fabulous!

The McCains have seven, that's right, at least seven different multi-million dollar properties, including luxury condos in California and Arizona! That's so many, that you can forgive them for sometimes forgetting how many houses the they own or even to pay their property taxes! Of course, being so rich means never having to lift a feather duster -- the McCain spend almost $300,000 on household staff.

And how do you jet around to these various luxury homes (and campaign events?) By private jet, of course! I mean, c'mon, as Cindy McCain says, it's the ONLY way to get around her state!
So how should a rich jet-setter like the McCains dress? Only in the finest European clothes. Escada suits at $3,000 a pop for her! Salvatore Ferragamo 'Pregiato' loafers at $520 a pop for him! Dressing like the richest European aristocrats!

How to ring up all these wonderful riches? When you've got $100 million and up in the bank, the credit card companies don't mind if you ring up a $100,000 credit card bill. They know you're good for it!

What a fabulous life for the McCains! No wonder John McCain thinks you need $5 million to be rich, and just thinks that concerns for the economy are just psychological! Times are tough for many Americans, but not John and Cindy! In fact, I hear they're looking to move into another property in Washington, D.C. A perfect place to make sure their ultra rich life is improved by nice tax breaks for the ultra rich!"

Posted by: The loss of the 4th estate | August 21, 2008 1:36 PM | Report abuse

Why cherry pick that one stat from the poll? Most likely, since this is a change election, the Clinton supporters feel in no hurry to commit to Obama. McCain's own experience bring his base into line shows the difficulty of consolidating support under the party tent. That's what conventions are for.

A more interesting couplet of statistics to me is:
1) Only 18% think the country is headed in the right direction.
2) And 77% agreed that McCain will continue the policies of the Bush administration.

If those aren't a ball and chain McCain will be dragging around the next 10 weeks, I don't know what is.

The electorate knows who the change agent is, however, it is prudent to consider all options before making that final decision. The undecideds will break late, and they vote for change.

Posted by: Optimyst | August 21, 2008 1:34 PM | Report abuse

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!!

I am a Clinton supporter, and I would not vote for the BUM, no matter who he chooses.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 21, 2008 1:34 PM | Report abuse

McCain is a nationally known figure of 25+ years, yet he is stuck polling in the low 40's, and the base of his party most likely won't be coming out in droves on election day. The fact that he is sending up trial balloons concerning having a pro-choice running mate is just a reminder to his party's base that he is not quite one of them and even if he does ultimately choose a pro-life running mate, he just can't help but "tick" people off, those in the base of his party anyway. Over his career he has had a hard-line conservative voting record, usually over 90% in agreement with his party. He is not the great maverick he claims to be. But, the media has given him a pass on his record, so he gives out the image of being someone he isn't. Given this perspective, any Democrat should be further ahead in the polls, but Obama is still new and unknown to many. That is just the reality. He still hasn't closed the deal, and the convention and the debates is where this will happen, just as candidate Ronald Reagan was running neck and neck with President Carter in 1980, but in the debates he wasn't quite the scary man he was portrayed as, and he asked us if we were better off than four years ago, the obvious answer being a resounding no! In 2008, many people haven't really tuned in yet, what with working and not working and losing their homes and having family members spread all over the country. Having said all this, anytime a potential running mate for Obama was suggested, I found myself comparing him or her to Senator Clinton, and I am an Obama supporter. No one comes close to her experience, never mind her strength and tenacity. Certainly Governors Kaine and Sebelius are nowhere near her league. Senator Biden is the only person who is, but, he doesn't have Clinton's wow factor, her huge base of support and all the new found respect many Americans have for her having followed her grueling campaign. Even if Obama is tied with McCain, that is not enough, due to people not being ready for someone they know so little about, and of course, there is still plenty of racism in this country. I have an idea Obama kind of knew all along that it might come back to him running with Clinton. The fact that they gave us the summer off and are putting it off until the last minute is wise, and appreciated. No point in choosing too soon and peaking. I also think he really needed to come around to this, after all, their's was a hard fought campaign and I am sure they had some bad feelings toward one another. In the final analysis, Obama definitely needs Clinton. More to the point, the campaign is about all of us, not just the two candidates. We are one country. If Obama selects Clinton, a lot of people will feel a lot better about our country's future!

Posted by: Gerard | August 21, 2008 1:33 PM | Report abuse

Gosh, Chris, where are the haters today. I don't know how you can stay so cheerful when you're on camera with all the hate and vitriolic comments on your blog each day.

As for Clinton, go away, Hill and Bill, and let Barack have his day.

Posted by: california | August 21, 2008 1:33 PM | Report abuse

Dear Chris,

I miss you. I can't wait until you come back from your fixation with Veep possibilities. You used to be so observant and insightful. Your political analysis was crisp and clear and often right.

I miss the good time we had discussing ALL of the important political news of the day. I miss the way you would take an event from the campaign and explain it's significance. I miss your wit, your charm. It was so much fun having you around.

But alas, you became besotted with tea leaf reading and guessing about which horse would win the race on the VP track. I understand how you could invest all of your time and effort at the track, handicapping the runners. But we all know that your handicapping is simply an exercise in futility, since you have no real information to go on. So you give us endless biographies, rumor and speculation, knowing when the race is over, it won't really matter much, cause the stakes race is yet to come. And those carefully crafted bios will litter the ground like losing two dollar tickets at Pimlico.

So Chris, my good friend, please come home soon. Leave the track and get back to your best job... observing, parsing and analyzing the whole campaign and political spectrum. There's a lot interesting going on out there, I sure wish you were here to tell me about them.

Posted by: plainbrown1 | August 21, 2008 1:31 PM | Report abuse

along the lines of Obama "shouldn't have gone to hawaii"

and "everyone needs a vacation"

My other half is a doc who works with a lot of emergency cases... we have once gotten to enjoy a full vacation where we didn't have to fly or drive back a few days in.

Never mind being president.

Obama's campaign doesn't need a game changer...they need the guy from NH and Iowa all of last year...

and they need to get the fight back.

Posted by: dl | August 21, 2008 1:30 PM | Report abuse

Clinton would alienate a lot of people. Those Democrats who voted for Clinton but won't support Obama will just have to enjoy a McCain presidency. Those fools are only hurting themselves and Clinton's (already tattered reputation) as bad-sports.

Posted by: FreeDom4 | August 21, 2008 1:30 PM | Report abuse

At this point, Obama needs Hillary more than he would like to admit. Immediately following the primary, I believe Obama was determined NOT to put her on the ticket. Of course, he's probably in shock that after eight years of domestic and international failure and the republican brand tarnished that the race is a dead heat and McCain is making small but consistent gains nearly every day. I think the reason the VP announcement is coming so late has little to do with strategy. Obama is facing the hardest decision of his political life: Go with Kaine or Sebellius (who he really likes) or swallow hard, bite the bullet and put Hillary on the ticket despite her husband. Biden is a smokescreen. We'll find out soon.

Posted by: BillBolducinMaine | August 21, 2008 1:29 PM | Report abuse

James Carville famously uttered in 1992, "It's the economy stupid." In light of the closeness of the last two elections and likelihood of this one being similar, I would simply say, "It's the Electoral College, stupid." Who of the contenders brings electoral relief to Obama? Methinks it's Hillary,her 18 million supporters and large share of supposed undecideds. I think she shores up Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Florida at the very least and possibly Arkansas. No other candidate comes close to making such an impact and she'll be an excellent campaigner. I would suggest Joe Biden for Secretary of State.

Posted by: Frank Schilling | August 21, 2008 1:28 PM | Report abuse

"Does Obama Need Clinton on Ticket?"

No.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 21, 2008 1:27 PM | Report abuse

A substantial block of Democratic voters would like Clinton. An even bigger block of Democratic voters (at this point) would be very disappointed and deflated, but would ultimately swallow it--I still don't think they would sit this out. But the biggest block of voters of all would be the Republicans, who would finally have a true "reason to believe" that they should get involved, against Clinton. (Chris, you will note I have worked in a rock lyric in deference to your editorial preferences.)

Unless McCain responded in kind by selecting Newt Gingrich or Jerome Corsi, Obama selecting Clinton would write "the end" under the hopes of his candidacy.

Posted by: Fairfax Voter | August 21, 2008 1:25 PM | Report abuse

You're kidding, right? Of course he doesn't need her on the ticket. What he 'needs' is a clear changing of the guard for the party leadership. Having lined up the Clintons in prominent roles during the convention, he needs them to promote party unity for the good of the country. Former President Clinton needs to talk about how the world & our country have changed, and the time has come for new leadership. Senator Clinton needs to talk about how Senator Obama's positions on the issues are nearly identical to her own - and his leadership of the country will do us far more good than that of his opponent, Senator McCain.

Posted by: bsimon | August 21, 2008 1:25 PM | Report abuse

and Chris

THIS is the reason Obama should have announced last week...and this "later VP announcement was bad "... just time wise...Hillary can't be picked...again Bill's finances especially overseas has not been vetted (there again is no way they could have kept that financial vetting secret) ...

and I am sure he is resistant to opening his books for Hillary to be second banana to Obama... ....because that means he is third banana.

It is unfortunate but true... so now because obama's camp wanted to focus on the importance of the roll out rather than getting a strong VP candidate out there tearing the legs out from under the republicans...

we have this, often heated (pointless ) but heated debate about a candidate who truthfully can't be chosen at this point and that Obama's judgment is being questioned daily.

It is also the reason he should have sucked it up and not gone to Hawaii (everybody needs a vacation...but probably not during this election... extraordinarily long or not)

Posted by: dl | August 21, 2008 1:23 PM | Report abuse

Clinton does not help Obama win the election. Putting someone on the ticket who 49% of the country never want to see as president under any circumstance is not a good choice. Also, the only reason she was doing well against Obama with blue collar voters was because they disliked Obama, not because they liked her.

Posted by: Democratic Nol | August 21, 2008 1:22 PM | Report abuse

I don't think the poll numbers are why Obama should select Clinton as the VP. For all the talk of a new style of politics, this summer has shown that the typical, redefine your oponent with negative ads, still works. Obama needs a proven political warrior at his side for the remainder of the campaign. Choosing Hillary, would unite the ticket and give him a turbo boost going into the fall.

In retrospect, the smart play by Obama would have been to select Hillary immediately after the primaries. Once she stepped down, they should have joined forces. They would have been incredibly strong and could have began hammering McCain right out of the gate. Obama could have had an insurmountable lead at this point.

As it stand now the right wing attack machine, led by talk radio and followed by standard GOP branding the opponent campaign, have eroded Obama's support. McCain has rebuilt momentum and Obama is currently on the defensive.

No other VP candidate has the instant national profile, ability to unite the base, political force that Hillary would bring to the ticket.

Posted by: wood | August 21, 2008 1:21 PM | Report abuse

I voted for Clinton and am one of those supporters who will probably sit out the election--unless she is on the ticket. I to not believe that Obama can win without her. I am a highly educated professional woman who went through the days when professional women could not even apply for a mortgage much less be approved. In my opinion, the media was/is antiwoman for president--especially MSNBC's Chris Matthews who I now refuse to view.

Posted by: Karen | August 21, 2008 1:18 PM | Report abuse

The only reason for Ob to pick HRC is if his goal is to lose in an embarassing manner

Posted by: andy of MMA emails | August 21, 2008 1:18 PM | Report abuse

Obama will win without HRC on the ticket but not without her support. Look for the biggest surprise of the Convention to be a phenomenal speech by Hillary, after her name is placed in nomination and credit is given. Kaine will be on the ticket while Biden will be "short listed" for State and will campaign with the ticket. HRC and Ted Strickland will deliver OH while Ridge (on the ticket) will deliver PA for McCain. Add VA, NM, CO and NV to Obama with huge Hispanic support garnered by Bill and Bill (Clinton and Richardson) but not campaigning together (no hatchet burying there). Obama-Kaine in Hebrew means Obama Yes!

Posted by: Mark | August 21, 2008 1:16 PM | Report abuse

No, he doesn't need her to win, but with her on the ticket would make his job a little easier reaching the magic number of 270.

Clinton on the ticket would probably put Obama over the top in FL and OH. And create a bigger cushion for him in MI and PA, all but assuring him win of the election.

Also, I think she would help him with Hispanics in NV and NM.

Just a thought.

Posted by: David in FL | August 21, 2008 1:12 PM | Report abuse

I've actually come around in recent days to thinking that it might be a good idea to put Clinton on the ticket.

Enough time has passed since the primaries to give the appearance that Obama has selected Clinton from a position of strength rather than weakness.

It would unify the party, bring in a lot of money, and generate a lot of excitement with two "firsts" on the ticket.

Yes, Bill Clinton is a loose cannon, but at least with Hillary on the ticket, his volleys will be aimed squarely at the Republicans.

My suggestion? Pick Hillary, and send Bill to Arkansas until Election Day with the sole mission of trying to flip the state for Obama.

Post election, either nominate Bill for UN ambassador, or send him as a Special Envoy to the Middle East to work for peace (like George Mitchell was sent to Northern Ireland).

Posted by: Doug in NYC | August 21, 2008 1:10 PM | Report abuse

Speaking as someone who has supported Obama and opposed Clinton from the beginning, I have come around to the idea of her as Vice President. Obama has still not solidified his support in the Democratic base and by selecting Clinton as a VP, he could do so. With Democrats outnumbering Republicans by so much this cycle, I drool at the thought of a solid, unified and energized Democratic base trouncing the Republicans in the fall.

Posted by: Tetris | August 21, 2008 1:09 PM | Report abuse

The political firtunes of both of the people are interwined, but not joined at the hip. Both Obama and Clinton need each other if they are to be President some day. Obama not getting there in November will seal the deal for Hillary never getting there. He needs her supporters and she will need his down the road.

Just becasue you need someone does not mean you have to run together. I think it would be a mistake for Hillary to accept any VP nomination. She will run on run her isses and her concerns and not be tied to a former adminstration. This works for no one.

Clinton supprters can vote Republican or stay home. Just remember if you do that you will be ones to kill Hillary's chance the future. And remember, every administration wants their party to retain offic and keep their issues moving forward. So the Obama folks will be there done the road.

Posted by: Denny | August 21, 2008 1:08 PM | Report abuse

Obama says in a recent interview with TIME he doesn't want a VP to be someone "about ego, self-aggrandizement... getting their names in the press." Doesn't that just scream THE CLINTONS?

I think an Obama / Clinton ticket works great until right after the election. After that, the three co-presidents would be a political disaster. You have Obama fighting two people that had previously been in the White House and who wouldn't shy about going to the press to air their disagreements. They'd be undermining his presidency from "day one."

I think there could be an argument for those that believe Obama just needs to shut up and win before worrying about the next four years (since nobody snatches defeat out of the jaws of victory quite like the Dems) and Hillary would compliment Obama rather nicely demographically speaking. But I just can't see Obama, given the tightly moderated campaign he has run so far, deciding to go with TWO people he wouldn't be able to control.

As for Joe Biden, while I'm not sure he is the best choice and he tends to get his foot in his mouth, I can't see him actively trying to undermine an Obama presidency.

Posted by: Kyle | August 21, 2008 1:04 PM | Report abuse

Well, here's a subject that hasn't been discussed to death over the last 6 months...

Posted by: Blarg | August 21, 2008 12:59 PM | Report abuse

He needs her to win. Plain and simple. I voted for her and, even though I wo'nt vote for McCain, I probably just won't show up to vote if she's not on the ticket.

Posted by: Jeremy | August 21, 2008 12:58 PM | Report abuse

Oh really, Obama/Biden 08? Who are you going to vote for? McCain? Nader? (Of course, I'd ask the same question as HRC supporters who aren't going to vote for Obama.) Get over it. We need a Democrat in the White House, regardless of who is Vice President.

Posted by: Strong Dem. | August 21, 2008 12:57 PM | Report abuse

The only way Obama is going to make it to the White House is with Hillary by his side.

Otherwise, it's McCain all the way.

Posted by: PSU Gambit | August 21, 2008 12:57 PM | Report abuse

Doesn't he need to WIN? If the point of picking her is to win the election... then he needs to hold his nose and pick her.

My goal is to have a DEMOCRAT in the White House in 2009.

Posted by: Jan | August 21, 2008 12:53 PM | Report abuse

Chris

No. I would have said yes 2 weeks ago.

and here are the 2 reasons it won't happen and it shouldn't actually happen.

1. Bill's finances being vetted is a bigger issue than Bill's personal issues...
...which is incredibly unfortunate

they haven't been vetted (that secret would have been impossible to keep) ...and chances are they won't be. No matter how people cry for Hillary to be on the ticket...some big details have to be opened up with regard to whom he is receiving money's from...just as the other spouses need to also.

sorry to undermine people's hopes on that but that is the biggest concrete block.

2. Even if that concrete block wall wasn't sitting in their way...Hillary understands that Obama can not look like he took a decision based on her power.

You just can't PUMA...he is going to be President. No President can look like one individual in government has that much control over a candidate. You just can't whether they seem to or not.

so PUMA's are making a bad situation 1000 times worse...

because if Obama loses...Hillary does too.

some adult common sense needs to get filtered into those brains...otherwise...yes the dems will lose and so does our country again...8 years later.

Hillary for Sec of State. That is what should happen if she wants to help her country and gain huge kudos to run in 8 years when Biden does not.

Posted by: dl | August 21, 2008 12:51 PM | Report abuse

Has it been considered that if Obama selects Clinton as his running mate, he might lose a significant group of current supporters? I know I would have to reconsider who I vote for, and I know there are plenty of others out there like me...

Posted by: Obama/Biden 08 | August 21, 2008 12:47 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company