So what's our message then

Change - but not so much?

Peace - but not till we obliterate Iran?

As others have pointed out, Johnson brought Texas. Clinton brings enormous negatives, which would alienate many Democrats and Independents and rally the Republican base like no other candidate. Any positives associated with Clinton can be gotten from another VP candidate who doesn't have her negatives and who is philosophically compatible with Obama. Putting her on the ticket would validate her campaign tactics and her harsh and unfair criticisms of Obama.

Every day a Clinton spokesperson floats the possibility of a joint ticket. Every day someone posts an Obama-Clinton Dream Ticket thread on TPM, sometimes two. The same points are made over and over. Nothing has changed since yesterday, or last week. Please stop.

Couldn't disagree with you more.

The reason Bill Clinton would be a *major* distraction to Obama's presidency.

Rosenberg is almost right. I have to go out to dinner now, but I want to leave you with a thought so I can have some stimulative reading when I get back. Now that Hillary has won West Virginia - and by the way, did anyone hear Obama's speech in Missouri earlier this evening? - It really stunk!- Totally phony and without energy - Hillary won W.Va, so soon after Pa and IN, and Ohio etc. Anyway, the dream ticket pairs the white hussy, the one the Obama supporters think is the aggressive bitch, the meanie picking on our defenseless Barack, she gets paired with America's favorite African American, a man who has a proven record of service and accomplishment on a national scale, creates the dream ticket, winning all 50 states, Hillary Clinton and Colin Powell. That's my dream. Then Obama in 2016.

Outside of their home state, VP candidates do not
change any voters minds. People vote for or against the top of the ticket. That being the case, and New York being a safe Democratic state, Hillary would be of no help to the ticket.

This dream ticket claim is absurd. It is actually a nightmare ticket. Expecting that America is ready to elect both the first Black, and the first Woman on the same ticket is sheer folly.

Finally. Who would bell Bimbo Bill. Think about it.
Why would a President Obama step on that landmine.

His Presidency would be ruined if the Husband of his VP was caught in another sex scandel, and you know that it very easily could happen. President Obama could not punish Bill, and he could not fire the VP that Bill is marrried to, but President Obama would take a huge hit for showing such bad judgment, because Bimbo Bill's history should have been enough of a warning sign

Governor Strickland of Ohio is the proper choice. He is a big Clinton supporter, so that should be enough of an olive branch to her suppporters, and he can deliver Ohio.

First there was a wave of threads assuring us that the race was over and beseaching us to stop talking about Clinton's negatives, so as not to antagonize her supporters. We tried to comply by moderating our language and not expressing the hostility we deeply feel. Now there's a wave of "joint ticket" threads, misinterpreting our restraint as a warming toward Clinton to the point of inviting her onto the ticket. It's a Catch-22. Are you trying to elicit howls of hostility, endless lists of reasons she is detested? Her conflicts of interest, her unique power to energize Republicans, her shape-changing personas, the staff from Hell, the mismanagement, the pandering, the appeals to the worst in voters, the betrayal of Democratic principles.

The tactics Clinton has used against a Democratic opponent in Democratic primaries crossed a line that disqualifies her for the VP position. Period. Every Democratic leader who has failed to speak up has ratified her behavior and tactics. Those who failed to speak out in the primaries will have no moral ground to speak out when Republicans recycle her campaign tactics in the fall. She cannot, she will not be on the ticket.

Don't expect much positive feedback from TPM on an Obama-Clinton ticket. These people aren't just Obama supporters, they're Clinton haters.

There's few who won't vote for Obama if he chooses Clinton, and there's 48% of primary voting democrats who would probably feel better about him if he did choose their candidate. It would be a smart move. I'm not sure she'd do it though, because she's a deal-making politician, and as vp you don't do a whole lot. She'd rather be out there making legislation. I'm a new yorker and I've been proud to have her as my senator, and Schumer too. They're both a couple of pros.

These anti-Clinton posters are a bore. They should get over it and look again at her numbers.

Yes, you're very wrong on this one. Obama/Clinton is not a dream ticket; rather, it would signal the weakness of Obama, that he had lost control of his campaign, and of its central messages - not just "change", but of a different approach to political leadership and governance. Moreover, Clinton's tactics over the past several weeks/months have been reprehensible. Why offer such easy rehabilitation?

Rosenberg is almost right. I have to go out to dinner now, but I want to leave you with a thought so I can have some stimulative reading when I get back. Now that Hillary has won West Virginia - and by the way, did anyone hear Obama's speech in Missouri earlier this evening? - It really stunk!- Totally phony and without energy - Hillary won W.Va, so soon after Pa and IN, and Ohio etc. Anyway, the dream ticket pairs the white hussy, the one the Obama supporters think is the aggressive bitch, the meanie picking on our defenseless Barack, she gets paired with America's favorite African American, a man who has a proven record of service and accomplishment on a national scale, creates the dream ticket, winning all 50 states, Hillary Clinton and Colin Powell. That's my dream. Then Obama in 2016.

MJ, you probably got this one right. Gore certainly wasn't Bill's first choice either. Its about winning.

Putting Hillary on the Obama ticket would mean Obama's CHANGE message was bullshit.

Putting Hillary on the Obama ticket would REALLY UNITE a fractured Republican electorate.

Putting Hillary on the Obama ticket would energize the Republican PARTY Operatives who will also be thrilled that they will, after all, finally be able to use all that oppo research they've been collecting for the past 8 years.

Putting Hillary on the Obama ticket would mean that a loose cannon and unreignable former president -- Bill Clinton -- and major ally of his wife the Vice President -- will be incapable of resisting the spotlight and thereby undermining President Obama.

Putting Hillary on the Obama ticket means that President Obama would be forever looking over his shoulder while the 2 most divisive politicians in the OLD Democratic Party were now a mere heartbeat away from the Presidency. Again.

I agree. I can't help but think that Obama-Clinton is the dream ticket. No, not because Obama is my favorite Democrat. He isn't.

But I know for a fact that Lyndon Johnson was not the Kennedy people's second favorite either. The name of the game is winning. We have to get every Democrat energized for this election and shut the door on any possibility that John McCain and endless war will win.

I'm not saying he deserves to be President. I'm saying that I can't think of a stronger ticket.

Am I wrong? No way.

Am I the only one who thought MJ was joking? Maybe I read too much into the last line...

Hillary Clinton deserves the VP slot if she wants it. She came in second, and while she's lost decisively, she hasn't lost disastrously. I think that ought to count for something.

On the other hand, I don't think she's the best choice. I can think of about 5 people I'd pick before her.

The biggest advantages to having her on the ticket are that it meshes well with part of Obama's message--not the "change" part, but the "unity" part--and she'll carry her home state for him. Not New York, the other one. No, not Illinois either.

I mean Arkansas.

Am I wrong? No way.

Way.

Nobody deserves the VP slot.

People run to be the nominee for president.

And then that nominee picks a running mate.

In theory, it is the best person who could take over in the event of something horrible happening.

In practice, what they can do to help the ticket win
is a major factor.

As many have said, Clinton is the wrong person strategically, tactically, and on substance.

There are people, particularly independents and Republicans who support or at least open to Obama who would be much less likely to vote for him if Clinton is his running mate.

And then there is Bill. We've seen how badly he's messed up on this campaign and in the past. And then there would be the matter of his role in an Obama administration.

Obviously, not all of Clinton's voters will support Obama in the fall, but many of them will. Especially if McCain's record on issues like choice is revealed.

I think either Democrat will destroy McCain in the general (I think that's one reason Clinton is so desperate to get the nod - this year the Dem nomination is a ticket straight to the White House). Obama doesn't need Clinton on the ticket to win, and if enough of her supporters sit home or vote Republican that it swings the election to McCain, then there isn't a Democratic Party at all, just competing cults of personality.

The problem with Clinton as Veep starts after the election. Obama will basically have two other people closely involved in the administration who think they should be president. The capacity for sabotage of Obama's historic opporunity is just too great to risk it for the short-term electoral gain.

Plus, she's absolutely horrible, and the polar opposite of Obama, both in terms of policy and tone when it comes to foreign affairs. She can do more to help pass big-ticket items from her perch in the Senate.

The reason to reject out of hand the idea of Hillary Clinton as VP has nothing to do with November 2008, and everything to do with January 2009.

MJ, are there any numbers on how much of the base bringing in Clinton would help versus how many independents and Obamacans we would lose?

Don't you think Sibelius could win back most of the women? I thought she was a bit wooden on the SOTU response, but her speech was really well written, and I think she'd appeal to a lot of the Clinton voters while not energizing the Clinton-haters.

They would both need a military guy in the vp position, imho.

That being said, it is clear that Obama is being pushed out
prematurely.

This defeat is showing us that he has been in the black equivalent
of James Dickey country most of his adult life. He has
not acclimated to the world at large, and does not understand
the country that he is trying to serve. He still thinks in terms of his narrow focus 'hood - this race or that race.

I can tell you something. I've lived in NYC and in CHI, and
NYC AA's are FAR beyond this stuff. (The battle being fought
here is for Sean Bell, but it's also for all of us, and I feel guilty for not joining in.) CHI is backwater, and scary as all hell.

Obama supporters want him to run a country that he has not had time to grow empathy for. And the country is being blamed for realizing this. And being called ugly names.

Maybe all these blue collar people and grannies know a little something that you don't.

Obama seems to have a lot of promise. So give him time and place to develop it. Let him watch others sweat and make mistakes.

Sending him out before his time is like sending a racehorse to the Kentucky Derby before it has fully matured.

You will finish him off before he even has a chance.

razor: Republicans are not going to vote for Obama. if you believe that, then you're buying into the lies they've been feeding you. for example, I can't ever remember Peggy Noonan being so lionized by the left before as when she lets loose on Hillary and lifts up Obama. we shouldn't listen to her.

and I disagree with you about the "women's vote." I think diehard Hillary supporters will look at it differently. he wants a woman on the ticket...he ran against a woman who almost split the votes 50-50 with him...but she can't be allowed to be the VP? it ain't nice.

AND...what happens if McCain REALLY panders (as he is wont to do) and picks Condi Rice as a running mate?!

razor--just thinking about my response and maybe I was unclear, and also a little harsh. here's what I meant to communicate:

For Hllary Clinton and her supporters, of which I am one (obviously), the race is personal. very, very personal. Obama has to allow her to save face or he WILL alienate the half of the Democrats who like her. picking another woman will make it even more personal and rancorous.

now he can help her save face several ways. he can pick her for VP... but he wouldn't have to. actually, what I'd like to see is Jim Webb as VP; he's got the military cred which would kind of shut McCain down a bit.

but Obama HAS to find something for Hllary to do. so in the perfect wor