Another poll. Unimpressive methodology.

Well as most of the level heads in here have posted
Clinton/Obama won't tear the fiber of the universe.
It is ok with the Dem population and will probably be what will be. Some will have to be on bridge jumper watch but win some lose some. The press will try to make the world believe this won't work but the numbers don't back the lie they try to sell.

WTF is up with CNN? They're showing big HRC leads in states that haven't even voted yet -- all the caucuses today and the Tuesday states. WTF???

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/#D

However near-sighted our attempts at futurology, arguably the best shot the Dems have at consecutive 8-year administrations is HRC followed by Obama.

The Dems are going to win 2008, if only b/c of foreign policy. Dem turnout is likely to be much higher, something that isn't really taken into account in any of the inter-party polls.

What does the Zogby poll say?

Nevermind, super dels

Personally, I hope neither of them is the other's veep, but for different reasons than some have.

It is high time that we return the office of vice president to its proper Constitutional role: preside over the Senate, attend funerals of the leaders of second rate countries, attend the funerals of the leaders of first rate countries that we don't like, and keep up with the reading in case the president dies. If that doesn't fill his/her time, maybe the President can give him/her a limited assignement to tinker with the bureaucracy or streamline procurement, but that's it.

We Democrats bear a lot of the blame for the the way the OVP bloated into as a separate power center and a shadow presidency under Cheney. Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton both tried to to make the office worth more than John Nance Garner's legendary bucket of warm piss. In so doing, they created a situation where a Sith lord like Cheney could turn the office into the metastastatic tumor on the federal government it is today without anyone really noticing or thinking it was odd.

It'll suck for the next one, but the office needs to be hacked back to he point where where it is again a complete waste of the veep's talents.

Polls show that in washington state caucus that will take place today that Clinton is at 45% to Obama 50% with 6% not sure.....so when the people of washington go out to vote will that 6% vote for hillary or obama??

I think because of the strong women support that hillary has in washington state...she might pull off a win today but only time will tell....CNN will have coverage at 8pm edt.

Michael L is right, to my thinking.

People seem to be viewing the February contests and march 4th in separate vacuums. Luckily for Obama, February comes before March.

Assuming that Obama wins 9 of the next 10 contests (Maine & Wisconsin seem to be the iffy ones) the voters of TX & OH, who last time I checked read papers and watch tv, will see something that hasn't happened thus far in this race: a candidate peel off a string of wins. That will have an effect on the voters of those states. Momentum has a way of creating momentum. Just ask McCain. I would expect to see Clinton's numbers there shrink from their current highs.

I am not suggesting that he will win those states. I don't know enough about what is happening on the ground there to presume to know. But viewing February & March as entirely separate contests seems a bit silly.

Curious what the more learned poll readers here can add to the discussion. I am tiring of all the cheerleading. Give me some analysis!!

update...

4 polls:

Clinton: 48%
Obama: 22%

Obama:53%
Clinton 40%

Obama: 50%
Clinton: 45%

Clinton: 47%
Obama: 42%

Two polls have obama winning washington state
Two polls have clinton winning washington state

All 4 polls show that 6 to 10% of caucus goers aren't sure yet as to who they are going to vote for.

Washington State might be a tight raise.

SurveyUSA Poll has Obama down by 3 % and hillary up by 5% between Feb. 4 to Feb. 8 in the state of washington... however the poll still has obama in the lead by 5% with 6% of caucus goers not sure who they are going to vote for.

Despite the acrimony around the contest that has taken hold on blogs and elsewhere, this poll suggests, as do other surveys, that the Dem electorate isn't in the same place.

Thank goodness for that.

And just to add my .02, I think it's extremely unlikely that Clinton would want the Veep position, and that the probability of Obama taking it is 0.

One of the issues that has bothered me about Clinton is who she'd be able to persuade to be Veep. It'll be a worthless position because of the First Spouse factor. She's gotta pick someone (if she gets the nomination) but I can't imagine who. Evan Bayh? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

There is no way Bill does anything of note if Hillary takes the office. That is a concern for some people now, no way they give them ammunition with a possible 2nd term in the future.

I think a Clinton/Obama ticket is an excellent idea for several reasons:

1. It unites the party. The Democrats are clearly divided about whom they prefer at the top of the ticket, but generally agree that either candidate is acceptable. Therefore, a Clinton/Obama ticket gives everyone what they want. This does not have to be an either/or choice, but a both/and opportunity.

2. A Clinton/Obama ticket would be a strong and dynamic force against McCain and his runningmate (whoever that turns out to be). With Clinton's experience and knowledge, and Obama's ability to inspire and give hope, it would be hard for Republicans to come up with a persuasive argument as to how two old white guys who want to stay in Iraq for another 100 years are the better choice for the country at this time.

3. Clinton and Obama perfectly complement each other. She has all the knowledge, experience, and specific plans that he lacks, and he can pack a stadium with thousands of people and excite and inspire them in ways that she does not. (And he can bring out the new and young voters the Democrats will need to not only win, but win in a landslide.)

4. This is an amazing opportunity for Obama. With eight years as Vice President, he will be in an even stronger position to run for the White House in 2016. He will have gained the experience (and presumably, wisdom that comes with experience) that currently is his biggest weakness. To go from the state legislature to the vice presidency in four years would be truly remarkable.

If Obama was on the same ticket with Mrs. Bill Cliinton, in any combination, he would be recorded as one of the biggest hypocrite's in history. The Clintons are the personification of what is wrong with American politics. Sure it would be in their interest to buy off Obama with the vice presidency, bringing him into the Washington establishment status quo and ending any prospect of change and reform. The Clintons are owned by greedy, profiteering corporations, and like the Bushes, they promote deep political divisions that prevent building a national consensus on any major issue that would hold coprorations to account.

I hope that Obama has the integrity he seems to have. I hope he will take the high road and defeat the Clintons legitimately, sending them into political history.

Talk of making Obama Vice President is an effort to diminish him and the momonentum his campaign is building. Hillary's machine is scared of Obama, but even more frightened of the CHANGE he can bring to politics, government and national prorities.

After this weekend, my friend, we'll likely be asking YOU if you could live with an Obama-Clinton ticket. Her fundraising difficulties really made her look vulnerable, and her cries for a debate every half-second seem desperate. Obama's inching up in those national polls...

In any case, he couldn't possibly ask her to join his ticket and serve as VP because of her lightening rod draws for conservative Clinton-haters. Way too much distraction, all of the negative sort. Frankly, I think she's better suited for a high-level administrative post.

It's kind of funny, but the only people that talk about obama as vp and how wonderful it would be are clinton people. Obama people don't want the clintons within 100 yards of the whitehouse, let alone back in it. I wonder why? Too funny.

Clinton would not have Obama as VP cuz people actually profess warm feelings for him. Cinton's ambition and ego would not allow for someone who she can not completely overshadow. Clinton either needs someone so heinious and hated OR so raging left-wing that folk won't bump her off or evict her from office cuz NO one wants that VP to be President.

Obama might choose Clinton as insurance against assassination from everyone in the known universe and beyond except Her Royale Crownship herself. Clinton's ego and ambition would not allow her to be Obama's VeeP unless she had a clear shot at nukerglowing his rockstar arse.

colonpowowow,

Not wanting HRC in the White House (again) does not make one a misogynist. Implying otherwise is a cheap shot.

Michael A. and bdn:

Why don't you reread my post r e a l s l o w so maybe even you will understand that I was talking re the use of "Mrs. Clinton" in the context of party-of-one's use of it his post, not the correctness of the title and name.

The objection to the way it was used in context (like, for example, someone insists on shortening it to Mrs. Bill), it was a thinly veiled shot.

Like I said, it's the same thing as referring to Senator Obama emphasiszing or using his middle name by a Clinton supporter in order to imply he's a radical Muslim symp.

It's the context, stupid.

No, I think it's the poster colonpowwow. You would see a sexist comment at a NOW convention. Did you write that letter to the NY times yet? They used mrs. clinton. The use of mrs. is obviously sexist according to you as is any questioning or criticism of clinton. At least be consistent.

By the way concerning your consistent statement to posters to read your posts real slow. I wish your candidate read the NIE fast, slow or medium speed and maybe she might have shown some leadership and prevented the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent iraqis and americans. Or maybe if she read the iran war resolution slow, she might have voted against it. Or maybe if she read the banning of cluster bombs and mines where children might play near population centers she might have voted against it. Why don't you donate reading lessons to your candidate? It might help.

Michael A.

Pretty funny stuff coming from someone who, until recently, insisted on calling the Senator from New York, Mrs. Bill.

Yes, Michael, if Hillary had voted against the Iraq Authorization (a vote I oppose(d) BTW), Iraq would never have been invaded. I know it was such a big deal breaker for you and everyone who's suffering the with the vapors over it now, when the Kerry/Edwards ticket carried the Democratic nomination in 2004.

You know what's really funny, it's been over 4 months since I called her mrs. bill. I stopped based on our discussion and out of respect for your perception. In response all I have gotten is insults and a constant reminder.

I told you before that I was against the war in 04 as well BTW. Also, I told you that most of the info, including the NIE was withheld until after the 04 election. Also, I told you that I was disgusted with edwards on the war vote as well, but he probably didn't have the clout that your candidate had to stop what was going on. Same with mr. bill, he went along and he shouldn't have. If he spoke out, it might have been prevented but he was playing politics for a third term of the clintons in the white house as well.

By the way, I am still grappling with this 6 years on the walmart board thing. That is actually her most experience outside government. I can't imagine any dem candidate regardless of gender running for president. What's the washing machine have to say about her being on the board of the union busting walmart for six years?

Michael A.

You're right. Credit is where credit due. You did stop calling Senator Clinton by that stereotype when it was pointed out to you. I apologize and will not insult you with it again.

PEACE

colonpowwow

BTW - She claims she attempted to move WalMart in a positive direction re labor policies, etc. Don't really know that much about it to agree or disagree.

The fact is, sitting on a Board of Directors is often more of an honorary thing and a lot goes on within the company outside the purview of the board. I once sat on the Board of a company that produced "cruelty-free" cosmetics. This company was sold to another company that, it turns out, was in turn, a subsidiary of a parent company that both sold munitions and was also cited in Michigan for animal cruelty at one of their facilities.

I never even knew it until years later when I was off the board and some reporter investigated and wrote about it. Could you say that I was on the Board of Directors of a company that was guilty of animal cruelty? Yes, you certainly could. I was. Would the implication be an honest one? No.