judoka: I agree that Obama has a lot of work to do to bring Clinton's supporters over. But he can do everything in his power and he still won't have the leverage with them that she will. It's been said many times already but unity depends more on how the second place finisher responds than how the winner does. I tentatively trust her to do the right thing. Tonight will be instructive. Anything short of pledging to continue the campaign will be very good news.
Also, I disagree that naming her VP should be in any way required as a method of reaching out to her supporters. A VP nod is not earned and nobody but the nominee should make this decision. Above all else, Obama needs to choose someone with whom he is comfortable, both as a running mate and as a partner in government. I'm going to tentatively retract my previous statements that Clinton's absolutely ruled herself out on those grounds, but there are so many other reasons not to do it I just don't see it happening. On the merits, I do think he ought to give her something big to do, in the campaign and in his administration (if she wants something in the admin other than VP), but after careful consideration of myriad factors, soothing hurt feelings should not be a consideration in selecting a VP pick.
Prior to Cheney becoming puppetmaster and expanding the role exponentially, the best way to marginalize a political foe was to make them VP.
I'm glad to see you getting a little bit more moderate on this issue. I am really conflicted on this one. If she is needed to win, then of course. If she hurts, then clearly "no". Though her attacks on Obama were sickening, I do think Hillary has created some genuine excitement among her fans and has proven that she is a very good campaigner, to the extent that is important. I think she is a better campaigner than anyone you listed, when you throw in the Clinton name recognition. Despite this bbs, I think that there are just not that many people who would not vote for Obama-Hillary due to Hillary. I think Obama has to choose someone who will soothe the electorate as much as possible. There is only so much change they can take. In a weird way I think that Hillary might do this even more than a white male. After all the attacking of Obama she has done, I think that if she is his VP it sort of undoes a lot of those attacks, though it gives the GOP sound bites to run in their campaign. Who better to refute those attacks, than Hillary herself. I would like to see some polling on this, and you can be assured it has been done.
Just one vote lost, I admit, but if Hillary joins the ticket, I'll switch to McCain. However, I talk with lots of people every day of the week. So what will be the majority response, and perhaps with some justification, but I'm sure there are others like me.
I think the real danger is the loss of the excitement factor. You'll gain some Hillary voters, but you also lose some of the uniqueness of the Obama campaign and the idea of getting away from traditional politics, etc. A lot of those new voters that love the theory of that might just go back to not voting. Plus, you excite a GOP base that is fairly disspirited right now by bringing back one of their most hated people. I think the negatives you bring with Hillary just about balance the positives, especially if you think Hillary hasn't been as divisive as it seems and that most of her voters would vote for Obama anyway.
Ted Sorenson brought up a great point on Obama's choice for VP. That person has to be trusted to keep Obama's vision and platform should he be incapacitated. That person's responsibility is to keep the mandate voters brought in when they elected Obama.
I voted for Edwards, but on second thought, I think that Wesley Clark might be just what the doctor ordered to shore up military and foreign policy credentials.
Obama should pick Roger Clemens as his running mate, they are both cut from the same mis-remembering mold. Neither of them can keep a story straight....
It coud still go back to that way and my guess is if Clinton is Obama's VP she will end up being marginalized if they win. Carter gave Mondale more responsibility than any VP before but Reagan gave GH Bush much less and by many accounts didn't agree with him or get along with him that well. GH Bush gave Quayle little responsibility, for good reason. Its only with the last two VP's that VP's have played something on par as being a co-president but that is only the discretion of the president. I still have a gut feeling, that is complete speculation, that Hillary Clinton doesn't really want the VP slot and that it is head of the ticket or back to the Senate for her.
The Clinton supporters will support Barack, I mean what else are they going to do, support the 3000 year old man? DD
I admit it is just a gut feeling and I don't expect to see her on the ticket. We might never know the real reasons for her not being on the ticket but my own feeling is that neither she nor Obama want her there. I admit though I have no solid basis for it otherwise. My own feeling regarding the last minute gamesmanship is that this has more to do with paying off her debts and also reiterating that she is a force with many supporters to be reckoned with in US politics. I don't see her as being VP accomplishing that but as majority leader.
You aren't a woman, are you, Major? Didn't think so. My wife's a feminist, as I've mentioned before, and I like to think of myself as one. I came very close to being fired from a job I had in the 1960's while going to school, because I went to management and complained heatedly about the fact that I had been given a much larger raise than the women there, who made up the large majority of the people I had been working with for all of 2 months. The manager told me I was crazy, and if I said another word, I could take a hike. That was not the only effort I made personally to change things, but it's one that sticks in my mind, largely because of the bigot's jaw dropping when I unloaded on him. Those women had families, bills to pay, and most had been working hard there for many years, knowing some rediculously high multiple of the amount I knew about that job. I think some of you have either not experienced discrimination against women in the work place first hand, or simply couldn't tell it was going on under your nose. And if you think it has largely gone away, you are much mistaken. Multiply that discrimination by millions of women, over decades, and you might begin to understand why, to them, Hillary Clinton is a big deal. Many people here underestimate the excitement generated among women by having the first member of their sex to have a serious shot at the nomination of one of the major parties. It isn't about Bill being the former President, it isn't about her being the former First Lady, it's about a serious woman candidate for President, damn near getting the nomination. And it has a hell of a lot of women excited about her, as a symbol of that progress. If Barack Obama doesn't figure out how to capture those people, as well as the millions of others who support Clinton, he's going to have a tough time of it during the general election. Somehow, he needs to connect to Clinton's supporters. He hasn't done that... not yet. Impeach Bush.
If Hillary receives the VP nomination, she won't be the first. Geraldine Ferraro beat her by 20+ years. However, Obama should consider a woman as his running mate -- just not Hillary.
Deckard: He hasn't properly connected to Hillary's supporters because she's done every possible thing to prevent that, understandably. Of course he has to reach out in every way he can, but what she does will be more important in reaching those voters. Those among them who are feminists or women or just people that favor equality for women might want to consider that he has a 100% perfect record on every single issue that is ever considered a "women's issue." And that McCain has a horrible record on each of those issues. The only thing Obama has ever done 'wrong' as far as women's issues go is having had the gall to run against one. As many as four justices may be named to the SC by the next president. Anybody who ever cared about women's issues should be passionately behind Obama, regardless of whom they might have previously preferred, starting today.
I can't claim a lot of credit for predicting this, since it was so obvious, but here it is, as predicted. After Bill Clinton, this is the second best reason not to pick Hillary for VP. The link is from the pro-Hillary blog site mydd.com. http://mydd.com/story/2008/6/3/19134/41432 RNC Already Using Clinton's Words Against Obama by Josh Orton, Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 07:13:04 PM EST Oh joy. The RNC will go to any length to exploit what they consider a "dems divided" storyline in the next couple days. And they're wasting no time, circulating a video of Clinton questioning Obama's national security credentials (via Tapper): "In this election we need a nominee who can pass the commander-in-chief test. Someone ready on Day One to defend our country and keep our families safe. And we need a president who passes that test...and when there's a crisis, when that phone rings, whether it's at 3 PM and 3 AM, in the White House there is no time for speeches and on-the-job training... "Senator McCain will bring a lifetime of experience to the campaign, I will bring a lifetime of experience and Senator Obama will bring a speech that he gave in 2002. "I think that is a significant difference. I think that since we now know Senator McCain will be the nominee for the Republican Party, national security will be front and center in this election. We all know that. This is just one of the reasons why this phase of uncertainty needs closure very, very soon.
