Oh I agree - I think Obama wins both TX and OH at this point. But I think it's within the realm of possibility she pulls off a miracle and could get 55% (I think that's basically her ceiling). And if she does that, I think it will convince her to stay in the race, in the hopes that she can continue to make up some ground and then hope to seat FL/MI. Barring Obama making a huge gaffe, the nomination is his - the only question to me is how long before she drops out.
This simply can't happen. If she's the VP, he has no message anymore. His entire campaign is themed on getting away from the divisiveness of the past 20 years and moving forward from the past. That entire message goes out the window if he puts the divisiveness on the ticket. Beyond that, he drives away his biggest strength: independent, moderate, and disillusioned GOP voters. He's winning those votes by a huge margin and that all disappears with Clinton on the ticket. He has to address the experience issue - but there are plenty of much less polarizing options out there.
I think if he wins either TX or OH, all the superdelegates are going to decide the race is over and jump on board. At that point, if she makes even a semi-rational decision, I think she has to drop out. There are six weeks between that and the next major election in PA. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me to campaign for six weeks in that environment. If there were a ton of races in between, I could see her keep going, but there are only two small states the week after (that he likely dominates - putting his streak at 16 in a row at that point) and then five weeks of nothing. I don't see how you run a campaign given that you've lost 16 straight races, are losing all the superdelegates, and can't make up enough pledged delegates to make up the lost ground.
imo, Hillary & Barack would be a formidable combo. philosophically, there's not much difference in policy + they could easily galvanize their various demographics. probably won't happen since folly tricks is all about ego. whatever the end game; the tail attempting to wag McCain will be subdued or placated. Rush & Coulter are good theatre, but by Nov., McCain must present a consolidated front. he may have to prostrate himself fer the right wing fanatics, he may have the balls to turn the tables and reverse the dynamic. at some point he must realize that the voting conservative public has given him the power to address the far right wing fringe. history making times all round.
Agreed. He needs to address the experience issue if he gets the nomination. Frankly, I feel it's a shame that John Kerry ran in 2004 because he would make an excellent VP nomination for Obama. However, Kerry would bring too much baggage. As for John Edwards, I feel that he is unsuitable for the roll of VP on an Obama ticket. The man has been out of government since 2004 and wasn't in it that long before that. Personally, I feel that Obama would be wise to pick somebody from the early primary season that did not get a lot of media attention - a Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd type of VP - one that balances the ticket in terms of both experience and geographic location.
Well I retract most of what I said. Two recent polls average out to Obama + 5 vs McCain where Hillary -9 versus McCain. A week or two ago the gap between Obama and Hillary versus McCain was only about 5% (with Hillary and McCain about tied and Obama up 5-6 points)--the "baggage" now is awfully high. I still wouldn't entirely count it out, again they are so similar on issues and assist in some outreach (Latinos/women), + two more important issues--the VP choice usually isn't very weighty and the move would unify the party/fundraising/groundforces . If JFK and LBJ can team up on a ticket, it is possible for Obama-Clinton. But I agree with the degree her unfavorability is tipping up it just may be way too high of price for her benefit. Of course they could poll and see how many "thumbs" there are--people who really wouldn't vote for Obama as Pres if Hillary is the VP. Finally, I am supporting Obama, but I don't understand the repulsion by so many of Hillary. Sure she is a bit oppertunistic (like 80% of federal poliicians), but she seems likable enough, pragmatic, grounded and is center to center-left. I like her a lot better than Kerry, Edwards, Liberman or Gore (at least the 7 years ago version of Gore)--it is just unfortunate timing for her that Barrack Obama--inspiring and a fellow centrist--has emerged.
I thought Obama was actually very liberal, even more left of Hillary. He's now considered a centrist? http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/
Count it out entirely. Obama would be impaling himself and his message if he chose Hillary as veep. The logic that applied to JFK & LBJ doesn't apply to Obama and Hillary. Obama will not need her for Latino and women voters vs McCain. I won't start into the revulsion for Hillary. Suffice to say many Dems, independents and GOPers have it. Lot's of reasons.
The same type of group who voted for Governor Bush... "I don't know the man, but I liked what his father did". It's okay to look vulnerable as long as she exposes some conviction on why she is running. The media and the public love scrappy fights (even the mudslinging, which is why it's overused) because we're ingrained into thinking that the winner is the one who fought the hardest and sacrificed the most. Doing that while holding back Bubba (appearing to let her figure it out on her own) would have manufactured the "character" people think she doesn't have. Then she reinvents her self again to show her mettle under fire. It's a giant show.
I don't think he's considered a centrist so much as he just has much broader appeal. Clinton, despite her many attempts to paint herself as one, is much more of a straight up socialist than a centrist herself. But her real problem is that she is so vehemently disliked by many, particularly on the right and now increasingly in some left-leaning demographics that she would seriously damage Obama's (and the Democrats') political capital if she were to join his ticket.
Kerry voted for the war too and at best was mixed on a national stage. Edwards is OK, but her couldn't even deliver his home state for Kerry. Al Gore, if he could be pursuaded (doubtfull), would be great, but he would have some baggage. Also, in general I don't think Obama needs a North Easterm guy--particular ones who voted for the war (Biden, Dodd, Kerry). He already is going to win the NE. He should look for someone who voted against the war, or a swing state person. If you were in a liberal state and voted for the war--you have dug yourself a hole their, I would also look at those who have endorsed Obama or withheld (sorry Bayh and Bill Nelson--you probably blew it). I would say most likely list would be Pat Leahy (endorsed Obama and has a long foreign policy Senate record, including No on the war), Bill Richardson (better endorse Obama soon), Mark Warner (for Gov Vir, Senate front runner), Kaine (current Vir Gov, endorsed Obama), or endorsing senetors Jeff Bingamin or Kent Conrad. None is perfect but all have good attributes. Other more outside possibilities include Ben Nelson (a DINO who endorsed him, popular in a very red state), McCaskile, Bob Graham (form Sen. Florida), or maybe even Lincoln Chafee (Nay voter on War, a RINO/Ind). McCain's nominee could also swing things, for instance if he took the Florida Gov it might makes sense for Obama to forget Florida (consideirng Graham) but get an edge in Virginia (Warner/Kaine).
For the most part Obama's career would be seen as centrist to left. That report is biased because it just reflects recent year votes he was present for (e.g., he averaged 14th the previous two terms when he wasn't campaigning). Even read the discussion in that same article. in their yearlong race for the Democratic presidential nomination, Obama and Clinton have had strikingly similar voting records. Of the 267 measures on which both senators cast votes in 2007, the two differed on only 10. "The policy differences between Clinton and Obama are so slight they are almost nonexistent to the average voter
While Obama does have experience issues, I'd like Obama to bring in General Wesley Clark as his running mate to help take on John McCain. Clark's from Arkansas which would help bring the southern vote. He also did an admirable job in the Balkans back in the early-mid 90's. Senator Graham from Florida would also be a solid choice, but
McCain's pick might be the most important. McCain is 72 years old, which if he were elected, would make them the oldest president-elect in our history. It's not hard to imagine that a 72 year old McCain, having endured all of the physical torment he has in his lifetime, could be our first president to die of natural causes in office since FDR.
I'll repeat myself: McCain would be a one-term president who would be a lame duck from day 1. This would reduce his effectiveness quite a bit. He would have little leverage on tough domestic issues because neither party in Congress would have any reason to listen to him. His veep pick would have a leg up on 2012 since they could basically start campaigning from day 1.
Wes Clark could be a strong choice and brings a lot of good qualities, but... He has 1) not just endorsed but been campaigning for Hillary, heavy; and 2) never won elected office. If I recall he wasn't real strong in Demo debates last time. I think he is more of a Hillary choice than Obama's, but if Hillary somehow comes back Obama (if he would take it) would have to be her slam dunk 1st choice.
