This is what Obama should have been saying all along. Every time the Clinton campaign suggests the idea of a joint ticket, he should explain that he's not ready to pick a vice president yet. Keep reminding the public that she's running second.

I'm glad to hear him stand firm. There is only one way I'd support it though, and this is my opinion, it would be if she somehow miraculously garnered the delegate lead (without superdelegates). If she won it fairly - I'd support a Clinton Obama ticket. If she doesn't, I can't support it.

Since he's in the lead in every plausible metric, that's the only answer that makes sense.

Webb for VP! We need Strickland here in OH to keep spreading the dems throughout state gov.

Now, if we could just capitalize his name on the TPM frontpage.

Wow - if the Clintons actually put as much effort into trying to win elections as they put into winning the news cycle they might not be in the middle of losing 13 of the last 16 primaries (14 of 17 after they lose Miss. on Tuesday)

Heck, they might have also ended up actually winning the facts out of Texas (delegates) instead of just winning the perception (the networks called Texas for Clinton!).

No more definitive than John Edwards public rejections of the VP possibility in 2004.

Considering that Hillary and I have similar foreign policy experience, I hereby submit my name - officially - as a candidate for Senator Clinton's running mate.

Say goodbye to refugee crises in Kosovo - and say hello to me, SINBAD!

They want his fundraising power without giving up authority. Obama knows they need him more than he needs them right now. Without Obama, the Democrats are starting to realize that Hillary will do almost as well as Mondale did. Almost.

I had a conversation with my dad today. He's a Texan republican. I have almost talked him into voting for Obama, because the republicans have committed such epic fail with Bush. He's ashamed of them for that. However, there is no way in hell he would ever vote for Clinton.

Has anyone bothered to ask Hillary if she'd be VP?

I know it is non-intuitive to the lily white press corp to consider such a thing.

But she is losing, and they will look like racists if they keep this up.

Obama shoukd turn the question around and ask the reporter if they have asked Hillary this question ,and why not.

Talk about huge ugly double standards.

Has anyone asked Bill whether he's open to the idea of being Obama's veep?

I think the only way she could be VP is if she agrees to withdraw from the race this month.

Otherwise, she's just scorching the earth and not paying a price.

for my money, i'm calling Obama's best choice for VP to be Wes Clark. an acceptable laurel branch to the Clintonistas, shrewder campaigner (since 2004), vastly experienced in military and foreign policy. just the kind of guy to fight the tough fights a VP is supposed to, and takes a whole bunch of wind out of John McCain's sails.

calling it now.

I think Hillary could certainly do better than Obama!! I hope, after her big win, she will pick someone like Biden or Senator Evan Bayh from Indiana. Obama is too "green"...and there are too many unanswered questions about him.

Obama has won over 20 states, but 10 of them--Alabama, Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Carolina, Utah, Vermont and Wyoming--have not voted for a Democrat since at least before '88, and are unlikely to do so this year. Two more states Obama won--Colorado & Georgia--have only gone to the Dems once in the past five presidential elections; and three more--Louisiana, Missouri & Tennessee--only voted for a Democrat when that Democrat's name was Bill Clinton.

Please start looking at this practically, people. According to a fine post summarizing the Survey USA 50-state match-ups, both Obama and Clinton ONLY NARROWLY beat McCain, and Survey USA shows him losing reliable Blue states like Pennsylvania and New Jersey. They need to be on the same ticket. Just cause you like the guy, don't imagine he will have a cake walk in the general election. The Republicans found enough voters to elect BUSH in 2004; need I say more?

Hillery is evil! She's like Pol Pot or Idi Amin. She should die in a pit of her own excrement.

Evan Bayh of Indiana--the words induce coma. Hillary/Bayh '08. I can picture someone disgustedly scraping off the bumper sticker in late November.

"Evan Bayh of Indiana--the words induce coma. Hillary/Bayh '08. I can picture someone disgustedly scraping off the bumper sticker in late November."

It's Mondale-Ferraro in reverse. LOL

"Hillary's argument to get the superdelegates is that their job is to nominate someone who can win in November. Remember, Carter had more delegates than Kennedy in 1980, and lost virtually every state to Reagan."

Carter lost, in part, to Ted Kennedy's no-surrender slash-and-burn campaign against him in the primaries. It was ugly and divided the party. Hillary is acting just like Kennedy did, the ungracious asshole spoiler.

At some point, candidates who lose need to bow out. HRC is just an asshole.

Obama would be the world's biggest hypocrite if he ran with Mrs. Bill Clinton in any combination. How could you possibly promise change and then help bring the Clintons back to power? They with the Bushes have created the politics of division that prevents meaningful action on any issue. How could Obama keep his integrity in a campaign with the Clintons?

If Hillary is nominated, irrespective of who her running mate is, the Democratic party will be deeply divided. We are witnessing the same type of dishonesty and deception from Hillary in her win at any cost campaign, that we have seem from Bush. We know what a presidency built on lies, family ties, corporate dollars and constant spin is like. Never again.

Obama can win the presidency on this own and leave the Clintons behind.

McCain will eat Obama for lunch. McCain-Obama means a very close contest and a probable McCain win. Hillary would beat McCain by 3 or 4 points.
The problem is that Obama does not win white Democrats and with his dependance on independent voters, who are often ticket splitters, he won`t have coat tails. Everyone should stop this nonsense about super delegates, most of them are elected office holders and the program has been around since 1980. In fact, the purpose of these super delegates is to avoid giving the nomination to someone like Obama. Clinton/Obama would indeed be a winning ticket.

in other news, igor resigns after calling frankenstein "hillary clinton."

Don't know if this was posted here...

From HuffPo:

Mikeblackbear See Profile I'm a Fan of Mikeblackbear

Dear Friends,
I have just read and signed the online petition:
"Obama Supporters Who Will Not Vote For Clinton in November"
hosted on the web by PetitionOnline.com, the free online petitionservice, at:
http://www.PetitionOnline.com/obama725/
I personally agree with what this petition says, and I think you mightagree, too. If you can spare a moment, please take a look, and considersigning yourself.
Best wishes,
Mike Willette
replyReply favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:31 PM on 03/08/2008

http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?obama725&1

I don't think we ought to dignify the Clinton's Alice in Wonderland worldview much longer. She lost Wyoming. I know, I know, it's a small state so it doesn't matter. And I know, I'm just another Obamabot who hates women.

Please. Enough.

Anyone else have a problem with this attitude about the entirety of the democratic process but me? I thought every vote was supposed to count, not just the ones the loser would prefer to count. Today, again, Obama collected 6 out of 10 votes. Oh, I forgot, they were caucus voters (and Clinton lost, so they shouldn't count as much. He also won the Texas delgate count, too, but that's got to be bad, somehow.... )

I think Obama ought to start, today, running against McCain, and stop trying to respond to the absolute craziness of the Clintonian weirdness. She's tied herself to McCain, out of some perverted and desperate gambit to look like a C in C. Bottom line: this is about the war, and all the corruption that led to going to this war at this time, for all the wrong reasons, and about who's already proven herself unfit to fill the office because she played the game and enabled it all.

Like David Bromwich says: http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20080308/cm_huffpost/090538

"Last week saw an event in our politics so giddy that we have yet to absorb its implications. Hillary Clinton, flush from her "comeback" in Ohio, told reporters that John McCain inspired her confidence on foreign policy; McCain had certainly "crossed the commander-in-chief threshold." She herself had crossed it, too, she said; but as for Barack Obama, "you'll have to ask Senator Obama" whether he is really prepared to serve as commander-in-chief.
ADVERTISEMENT

Puzzling: a contender for the Democratic nomination, praising the Republican nominee as preferable to her Democratic rival. It was a rash act and probably unprecedented. Joe Lieberman did something like it, but only after he declared himself an "independent."

Nor was Senator Clinton finished. In the same session with reporters, she glowed at the thought of herself and John McCain together. "Both of us will be on that stage having crossed that threshold," she said. And again: "I think you'll be able to imagine many things Senator McCain will be able to say. He's never been president, but he will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Senator Obama will put forth a speech made in 2002."

As other observers have noted, this is the kind of thing you say if you are John McCain's running mate, not what you say if you mean to campaign fiercely against him. It was a remarkably destructive statement--a defection from party loyalty, and a subversion of the principle that is supposed to underlie such loyalty.

...this is the kind of thing you say if you are John McCain's running mate, not what you say if you mean to campaign fiercely against him. It was a remarkably destructive statement--a defection from party loyalty, and a subversion of the principle that is supposed to underlie such loyalty.

To speak so emphatically about the president's role as commander-in-chief is to speak in code. It means all of the following: that war is the foremost thing in our minds when we think of any president; that this is especially so because we are now entangled in a necessary war on many fronts; that what we look for in a president is "a war president" (George W. Bush's description of himself); that the war in question is indeed the "global war" initiated by President Bush; and that a worthy commander-in-chief must be an enthusiast for the perpetuation of that war.

Hillary Clinton is the social-democratic candidate of the war establishment.
John McCain is the right-wing candidate of the war establishment. Both Clinton and McCain know this. They look on each other kindly, and share a disdain that borders on contempt for Barack Obama...."

Un-frickin' believable. Unbelievable.

Again:

"...this is the kind of thing you say if you are John McCain's running mate, not what you say if you mean to campaign fiercely against him. It was a remarkably destructive statement--a defection from party loyalty, and a subversion of the principle that is supposed to underlie such loyalty."

Hillary is running now as McCain's running mate.

Why?

Another sad day for Clinton supporters. Cry yourself to sleep guys, but don't forget, another beat-down comes next week.

There is no way the Obama would be #2 on her ticket. If she wins, and it is the Clinton/Bayh ticket (the likely combination in my opinion), Obama is in the strongest position ever to run either for a) 2012 or b) Ill. Gov. in 2010.

However, should Obama win the nomination (as I hope it does), the two names that make the most sense to me to be his number 2 are Webb and Zinni. They each can neutralize McCain's strength and potentially help in their respective home states, Virginia and Pennsylvania. Webb's downside is that he is also new to the senate; Zinni, on the other hand, has gold star military credentials, appropriately criticized the conduct of the war, and comes from the Philly burbs that have a huge politically moderate population that would otherwise go to McCain.

Talk about the height of arrogance!

The candidate losing all categories save the party insider supers is throwing the idea that the frontrunner would be a fine VP to them??? And the media reports it WITH A STRAIGHT FACE???

Good grief. Obama has won far more states, did not lose any state by a large margin (save Arkansas) has won something like 13 of the last 16 contests all across the country, leads in all categories that could possibly dictate a winner, AND STILL all the media can do is talk about what the Clintons want?

No wonder the world wonders how dumb half this country can be to elect and then reelect GW.

Clark is a Hillary supporter and an advisor I think. However, if Obama is the nominee and the VP spot were offered, he may well jump ship. I have also heard Anthony Zinni mentioned as a possible. He was cent-com commander in Iraq before the War and opposed the War. He has been a very out spoken critic since the beginning. Obama should point out that Hillary's JUDGEMENT on the War, the Iran vote and the Bankruptcy Bill make her not a good candidate for VP. After all, a VP needs to be able to be President and needs sound judgement.

How can Obama be the Vp when the whole point of a vp is to be ready at 3 am when the call says that the president has died. we know obama can't answer the phone because HRC told us. did Obama cross the cic threshold and no one told us or is the cic threshold somewhere in Pennsylvania and by the time that election is over and HRC has won then Obama will have crossed it? Hillary and Bill are confusing me.

Maybe Obama should just ask Bill to be VP. He's the more popular Clinton anyway.

Sinbad- Please remind these nice folks about YOUR CiC credetials:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Kid

acf_ma...please. Your argument about all the voters are in *big* states MIGHT hold water if the Clintons held the popular vote lead.

They don't.

And the most voters? That would be the UNITED States of America, not just NY and Calif.

BTW...those *big* very blue states? Hillary could only get 52% of the vote in California...she won by only 9%. And NY, her second (or was it third) home state? She could only get 57% of their vote to win by 17%.

Barack's home state? Illinois gave him 65% of their vote. He beat the Clintons by 35%!

So let's see....who's really strong in those *big* blue states?

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/tally.phtml

Greg, given my editorial complaint down thread, I have to say this is MUCH better, that hed is the story on the "dream ticket" gambit by the Clintons. And the MSM knew about and reported this at 10:30 LAST NIGHT (Obama rejecting the Clinton bullshit).

I guess, better late than never? But really, TPM Election Central has to do better than this going forward. You can't give the hed to one side floating some bullshit that the other side already rejected THE NIGHT BEFORE!

Having her on his ticket is like a death wish. He would have to spend all of his time watching his back. Hillary would be very aware of being just a heartbeat away.

Veep comment: Pure Clinton tactics.

From "Head of State"

http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/03/how-obama-can-win.html

"Saturday, March 08, 2008

How Obama Can Win and Win Strong

I am aware of the delegate math.

I know that, unless the Clinton team runs roughshod with regard to superdelegates, the numbers are unassailable.

However, for Obama to not only win, but to win strong, and thus to be in the best position for the general, he must step outside of the box created when Clinton tactics were applied to his own admirable stance.



By declaring himself the candidate of the new politics, putting the politics of Rove et al. aside for a politics of honesty, straight-forward decency, and strength, he has putatively left the field open for Clinton et al. to lob innuendo after innuendo. If he responds, he is in violation of his commitment to the new; if he continues with his current path of non-response, he will be taken down by a series of attacks, that however false or fantastic, will eventually raises doubts in the mind of the electorate as to the validity of his new politics, and will, in the great viscera of the electorate, so responsive and so easily changed, appear "weak."

If he attacks, it is said, he betrays himself; if he continues on the same path, he is whittled down by rumor and insinuation.

Clinton's current strength is her ability to attack, however true the nature and content of the attacks. Obama must turn this very behavior into its own negative. To do so, Obama must relentlessly name what she is doing and anchor it--calling for an "end to the era of 'kitchen sink' politics, i.e.:

"It's about time that we left the era of "kitchen sink" politics, of distortion and insinuation, behind us. We have all seen it before this--a period where it was often difficult to tell falsehood, rumor, and misinformation from truth. It was this type of politics that contributed to a war in which we have lost the best of our national treasure, our nation's men and women. It is this type of politics that our opponents not so long ago decried. And it is this type of politics that, more than anything else, signals weakness--the inability to base one's statements and actions on the firm ground of truth, on our collective and honest dedication to the construction of a new and positive future--and instead, on a retreat into the politics of personal destruction.

It's time to take out the dirty dishes; It's time to empty the kitchen sink. After an era where it was often difficult to distinguish fantasy from truth, it's time to put that era behind us, to base our future efforts on a strong and honest desire to build a new and better future."

What Obama can create is his own "There you go again" moment--one that will both define Clinton (after all, someone has to do it), and place the Clinton camp in their very own box, of their own making: A box where any attack will immediately be associated in the voter's mind, and will be accompanied by a roll of the voter's eyes, as another example of Clinton's "kitchen sink" politics--of the chaotic, inconsistent, contradictory and frantic willingness to say or do anything to be elected, be it the changing of one's personality, tone, degree of honesty--or one's degree of tolerance or gusto for the politics of personal destruction.

Without a single attack, this demonstrates the nature of the Clinton camp: in a moment of crisis, and in danger of loss, rather than respond with strength, principle and authority, they throw the "kitchen sink" at the issue, abandoning principles and frantically strewing innuendo as they do so.

With powerful moral force, it names exactly what the Clinton camp is doing, and anchors it both to the politics of the past Administration, and to the very political tactics that Clinton herself has denounced and disavowed. It provides direct evidence--thus far, the only direct evidence--of how a Clinton Administration would likely govern in times of chaos, crisis, and other "3 a.m. moments" (thus disempowering her already shaky claims to superior foreign policy judgment): With a "kitchen sink" approach of tumultuous, changing, disorganized and contradictory attack, rather than with consistent purpose and moral authority.

Obama must persistently name what the Clinton camp is doing rather than complain, and he must then link it to the very essence of an old politics that has been lived through by all of us, and denigrated by most, over the past 8 years.

Thus named, and thus defined, Obama can then invite Clinton up to the higher ground--to a debate based on policy and principle--or she can choose to stay in the box that she and her camp have created.

Cite:

Head of State

http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/03/how-obama-can-win.html

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2008/03/heilemann_monstergate_woke_the.html

Excellent.

I posted this comment in another portion of the site. I think that it is more appropriate here:

My opinion is that Barack was correct to indicate that he is not interested in being HRCs VP.

First thing Monday morning, the Obama campaign should release a statement that he is not interested in running with her because he wants to see America move forward. This goal would be impossible to obtain with HRC in the White House, in any capacity. In soft terms, remind the people that the Clinton White House was riddled with scandals and crippled politically.

On the idea that this proposal is the familiar old Clintonian TRIANGULATION, see

http://backalleymedia.org/?p=253

Has anyone asked Hillary whether she's open to the idea of being Obama's veep?

It's not going to happen. This question is generally asked by the same sort of people who had trouble understanding that Al Gore was not running for President.

Hi, new poster here, somewhat off topic, but I haven't seen an answer to this anywhere:

Why hasn't Edwards made an endorsement yet? Any theories and/or hard facts? I was shocked he didn't before 3/4, when it looked like it was all almost over. Maybe he's not going to?

Bill Clinton has picked Senator Obama to be Vice President.

I tried to contact Hillary to let her know, but that damn red phone kept on ringing and ringing with no one answering it.

Looks like Bill will be calling the shots after all. So much for all that talk from Hillary about how she was going to the one in charge. Someone please let her know that Bill has named the Vice President he wants for his third term.

+1 Liam...

Bill is calling the shots and that is PRECISELY why alot of folks are wondering who will really be POTUS if she's elected.

Anecdotal-
A female co-worker wishes that the first female president could get elected on her own merit and my mother, who is a moderate Republican, doubts that many will want 2 Clinton's in the White House...and the Repubs know this...

khodges

I totally agree, and I can't fathom why the DNC "elders" are allowing this to happen. They are endangering the party's legitimacy, because a voter like myself who starts to feel that the Cheatocrats are just another racist corporate club for hacks and sellouts will abandon the party for a very long time after this.

The racism, the "take his word on it" anti-muslim smears, the cheating in Florida and Soviet style Michigan, and now the superdelegate's trying to find SOME way to steal the election.... This is so Rove. This is so GOP. If they are just like the GOP, why do we need them?

I also wonder why the MSM is still so friendly to the Clintons? A lot of people are getting angry over their revolting tactics, but the cable news and big newspapers seem to play along with it. In fact, it seems to be all Clinton talking points, all the time.

What gives?

I don't read this as "I would never run for Vice President." He's saying "It's not going to happen, because I'll be the nominee." I think it's pretty clear that he's right, but if Clinton were to somehow come back and clinch the nomination, I don't think he's saying he wouldn't accept if she offered him the spot.

I've posted this elsewhere but it's my big analysis for this race so I will post it again.

Hillary and Bill, due to their narcissism, completely misunderstood the Democratic voters' defense of them in the Starr/Monica/Whitewater/impeachment days. I think this miscalculation has led them to make very bad choices in the primaries, from the race-baiting to this new vp scheme.

My theory is that the Clintons misread the reaction of Democrats to be a defense of Bill and Hillary, personally, rather than a circling of the wagons around a Democrat who was president and the rallying around certain principles (the private actions of elected officials should remain private).

I first saw this when Bill's book came out. I was looking forward to his book tour, hoping he would say some smart things about September 11 and how to go forward. Then I watched an hour-long interview on c-span. He started talking about a period of darkness where the US was in peril and it turned out he was talking not about threats from within or without but instead was referring to the VRWC and its pursuit of him. I was surprised that he had not realized that after September 11 and the invasion of Iraq, the Lewinsky thing and even the impeachment felt like a more innocent time when the stakes were not so high.

Because they are functioning under this misconception that Democrats love love love them, they assume that any hijinks or worse will be tolerated and that Dems will welcome them back. I think it may explain why HRC went into this campaign not thinking she had to persuade people to vote for her but expecting instead to just stand and be crowned.

Why do independents have any say in who the Democratic party nominates? If they want a candidate develope an Independent party and nominate one. Independent is just another word for wishy washy.

I think more people are paying attention than you think. The MSM are starting to cover this and question it. HRC's national numbers were falling even before WY. Ironically Ms Powers' 'Monster' comment may have helped, reminding people of how polarizing HRC can be and then Clinton overplayed the negative hand- thus proving Powers right.

Honestly, again ironically, I believe this will seal the deal for Obama. She has opened the door into her own record, she has gone too far on the negativity/scorched earth strategy and Obama's ability to survive it will get people more comfortable with him for the GE.
This ranks up there with her race-baiting before SC as a smart strategy.

"Why do independents have any say in who the Democratic party nominates? If they want a candidate develope an Independent party and nominate one. Independent is just another word for wishy washy.
Posted by TimAZ"

This is why you lose, moron.

Independents are how the DNC can beat the RNC. They are roughly one third of the nation. With Dems alone, you will lose. Guaranteed.

Observer2

Indies, newbies & crossover voters have NO right to pick your Dem Presidential Candidate...perhaps you should re-read what I wrote. It will be a decision made by your party faithful elder statesman aka superdelegates.

After the Dem Convention on August 25-28 we the Indies, newbies & crossover voters will have a chance to decide what we will do at the ballot box in November.

Our numbers and votes shouldnt effect the outcome in any way..(They) as one of your candidates states are insignificant to your party or the outcome of the 2008 Presidential race.

OOps I directed my statement to the wrong poster..

I do apologize..to this board. You do have a lot of problems to overcome or should I say heal before November.. I honestly wish you luck.

I do wonder how a Primary race turned out to be a General election race within your own party?

Like I said before the best of luck to you all.