I think that's consistent with what Max suggested. The same may hold true for a lot of the college kids who've joined the Obama glee club. But you just can't tell. There's a long way to November.......
not sure african americans would feel like the man is disenfranchising them... yall forget that the clintons are probably the most beloved politicians by the african american community. remember that bill clinton is the first "black" president. i think african americans would feel disappointed but i doubt they would vote against hillary to try to stick it to the democratic party. i think young voters in general would feel disappointed. but this is the reality of politics. obama talks about changing politics. and i believe he is ernest in his desire to clean up washington. but thats not how it works in the real world. things are more gray than black/white. many obama supporters feel that clinton is fishy and cant be trusted. i just think she has been exposed to the political system and realizes what must be done to meet her objectives. give obama a few more years in washington. he'll realize that sometimes, he has to do things that are questionable to meet his goals.
again...i don't think many african-americans would go out to vote against hillary...i just think a lot wouldn't go out to vote at all.
I've used the Cactus Jack Garner quote about the Vice-presidency before but let's suffice to say that I can't see Clinton or Obama giving up the power of their Senate seat to run as the VP on the Ticket. Win or lose the nomination, they are securing some serious political juice. And if McCain is elected, the loser in this process is probably the front runner in '12. The best VP candidates are innocuous unknowns that can't be assailed and cheer lead from the sidelines. Or deadenders that bring the perception of experience but little ambition. (the worst are evil puppetmasters)
You think they wouldn't give up their Senate seat for Vice-President of the United States? I beg to differ! (neither one loses their seat by running) Impeach Bush.
Senators have power to influence policy in the direction of their own choosing. Vice-presidents serve at the discretion of the president, sublimating their agenda to his. They can be relegated to as little power or influence as the President sees fit. Cheney and Gore are the historical exceptions.
The funny thing is, as a policy-wonk, Hillary would be phenomenally effective as a Senator with a Dem congress and Dem President. Obama should make a deal with her - since "Health Care for All" is her big goal in life (according to her), he should say if she drops out, he'll let take the lead on designing the plan in the Senate if he wins.
But the whole point with Hillary is that she polarizes the *country* (justifed or not). His goal is to unify the country, not unify the party at the expense of polarizing his administration. Having her on the ticket helps him with traditional Dems, but may cost him in the ability to change the electoral map and win crossover voters. So it goes back to that idea of governing with a 51/49 split that he's supposedly trying to break away from.
After declaring total victory on Tuesday, Hillary has a net gain of 18 delegates so far. Talk about a snoozer.
The Obama people say the final net gain will be about 4 delegates, which will probably be washed away by Wyoming. Obviously, it's a biased source, but I haven't seen anything from the Hillary campaign disagreeing, and they seem to have been right in the past where they made these preliminary estimates. Something that also is forgotten is that, to get 60% of the remaining delegates, you need to win something like 68-70% of the popular vote. It's not a straight 1-1 correlation. If you win a district with 4 delegates by 55-45, I think you split the delegates 2-2, for example. Here's a long, extensive article on the issue: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/4/162042/3056/80/468751 According to that guy's math, if Hillary wins every remaining state by 10%, she would gain 58 delegates. If she expanded that to 16% in every state, she'd only gain 68. (She's down 140 pledged delegates now, for reference). She would need FL/MI *and* superdelegates *and* blowouts across the board for this to work.
Are you talking about Obama having Ms. Clinton on the ticket as VP? I disagree, Major. It helps him with groups he needs help with that are not simply traditional Democrats. Blue collar workers, many who have considered themselves Reagan Republicans (I don't think all are longtime Democratic blue collar workers... depends on the state. do you think all those rural votes Ms. Clinton got in Texas voted Democratic the last several cycles?), but are sick of what they've seen the last 7+ years, and with women, who she has been winning, except for Black women. Saying having Senator Clinton on the ticket is going to sink Senator Obama is giving short shrift to his ability to wage a successful campaign and equally short shrift of her strengths, which may be dismissed by those who simply can't stand her (so they say, good reason or not), but do exist. I think it would unify the party and continue the support of those who have been brought in by Mr. Obama. Those who would be lost by her being the VP choice probably weren't going to stick in November, anyway. (IMO) Impeach Bush.
Reagan wouldn't be a VP JFK wouldn't be a VP there are personalities that lend themselves well to that position. if you're the top of the ticket, you don't want a VP with a personality that overshadows yours. I don't see Obama as a VP. I think he'd be compromising teh primary message he's running on if he joined her on a ticket.
I don't think it necessarily sinks Obama's chances to win the general election - but it does require him to abandon the campaign he's trying to run. He can't run on a unity/bring-the-country-together type platform if, standing next to him, is one of the 4 or 5 most divisive people in politics the last 10-15 years. It may not be her fault, but Clinton is to Republicans is what Bush is to Democrats -half the country really, really, really dislikes her. Given that the campaign he's trying to run is what got him this far, I don't think it makes a lot of sense to run a general election campaign on a different message.
I just disagree. We're in the primary season. After Obama gets the nomination, he will have center stage. Clinton will have the same role any VP candidate has... bring in those who supported her during the primary and a surrogate to attack the GOP candidate, so the head of the ticket doesn't have to. You think she couldn't do that job? People are going to be looking at this as between Obama and McCain. If the GOP fixates on Clinton, they are going to lose. (they'll lose anyway, but I hope you see my point. Why would it negate Obama's message? He's running as President. HE will have the power when elected. The VP has only the power given to him/her by the President. You think JFK and Johnson got along? You think Johnson, far different, in many ways, from Jack Kennedy, negated Kennedy's message of change? No one was more old school, party inside power dude, than Lyndon Johnson. Didn't make a difference and he helped Kennedy win. Impeach Bush.
But the people you're trying to convince - those in the middle - like BOTH Obama/McCain. Both of those guys have very high ratings with independents. Clinton as a running mate could be a tipping point. I could be wrong (I didn't live it), but it doesn't appear Kennedy ran the crossover type "working majority" campaign that Obama is trying to run. Kennedy won with 49.7% of the vote vs 49.5% for Nixon, and won primarily with Democrats from what I understand. And LBJ was certainly an party insider type, but was he intensely disliked by the independent/GOP part of the public?
Except that LBJ was not like the Clintons. This is also a different time and different generation. I don't think the Clintons with Hillary as VP will just sit there and take direction from Obama. Secretly, they will try to undermine his presidency and jump at a chance to weaken him. Obama can't afford to put Hillary as VP even if it meant assuring his presidential bid. It's going to be all or nothing for both Obama or Hillary.
Kennedy ran as the candidate of "change." Being who he was (he made Obama look like a school kid if you compared their speech making ability), he used different language than we are seeing today. It was a different time. He was, however, running as the candidate of change. ("pass the torch to a new generation," anyone?) Back then, there weren't nearly as many folks who didn't belong to one party or another. That's what I remember, anyway. Kennedy was the first candidate of his generation to run and win. The several previous Presidents were from the previous generation and were, compared to Kennedy, old. Heck, Nixon was young by comparison. Dick lost it in the TV debate, where he was road kill for Jack. Those who listened on the radio thought Nixon won the debate. Kennedy was able to better embrace the new technology. Sound familiar? Impeach Bush.
