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 world I'm imagining, he announces that she will be he secretary of [something]. fine. she's happy, all us old broads who like her are happy, he's happy, and Jim Webb would be a perfect candidate to balance out Obama's perceived left-wing-nut-ness (whether true or not, that is the perception among many, many Americans in the flyovers).

there! I feel better. and thanks for your thoughtful comments. they're a hell of a lot better than the brainiac above me who mentions "Bill's pecker" as a reason to deny Hillary the vice presidency.

Good night, Gracie.

Go sleep it off, Rosey.

To thrice repeat (thrice, because I stupidly punched twice): You, sir, are senseless and timid. Why the hell advocate Clinton's ascension if she's not you're first choice? Better yet, answer this: what percentage of democratic and Independent voters do you believe Obama stands to lose, should she not be his running mate? If the answer is none, then why provoke those Obama supporters who backed him (in part, obviously) because he was not Hillary? If you genuinely fear her post convention power, precisely what state's electoral votes do you believe she would command?

I accuse you of timidity because a move is afoot by Clinton supporters to stampede people into believing she hold the keys to November's election. She doesn't. Once Obama is anointed, insofar as rank in file democrats and Independents are concerned it will be as if her campaign never existed. She has pledged to campaign for the nominee after Denver. Why not just leave it at that?

Screw the white working class. They'll vote for McCain anyway.

Bill Richardson helps put the whole southwest into play, drives huge latino voter registration and turnout, brings executive and cabinet experience and reinforces the theme of change.

Hillary on the ticket with Obama?

You've lost your mind.

When he gets elected, Obama will then have to govern. With Hillary in the administration & Bill lurking in the background, this would be impossible.

NO. Why? See Morris's column in The Hill:

www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/no_veep_slot_for_hillary.html

Solution?
CHUCK HAGEL

No Veep Slot for Hillary
By Dick Morris

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/printpage/?url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/no_veep_slot_for_hillary.html

It would be an act of terminal insanity for Barack Obama to name Hillary Clinton as his vice presidential candidate. It would not help him get elected, it would drag all the Clinton controversies into the general election, and having her down the hall in the West Wing would be a recipe for disaster, dissension and civil war. Other than that, it's a hell of an idea!

Start with the election. There are two kinds of people who backed Hillary in the primaries: her original supporters and those who joined her later in the game. Her original backers are all solid Democrats whose arms would fall off before they would back anyone who is pro-life. They are true believers, feminists, pro-choice advocates, older party loyalists who would prefer Hillary, may have doubts about Obama, but will always fall in line and vote Democratic. The more recent converts are people who are turned off by Obama's connection to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and who worry that he might be a closet black radical. Their latent racial fears were heightened by the revelations about Obama's links with Wright, and they voted for Hillary as the lesser of two evils. Putting Mrs. Clinton on the ticket will do nothing to assuage these fears. One wonders if these blue-collar, downscale, racially motivated voters would actually support Hillary against John McCain if she were to win the nomination. They certainly wouldn't follow her into Obama's camp just because she was on the ticket.

Obama's key need in the election is to demonstrate his experience and ability to do the job despite only minimal federal experience. Running with someone whose experience he, himself, derided will hardly solve this problem. Voters only credit Hillary with having experience when her record is compared with Obama's almost total lack of a record. Against McCain, she would do nothing to close the experience gap. Better for Obama to choose a senator with long tenure -- a Chris Dodd (Conn.) or Joseph Biden (Del.) -- just as Dukakis chose Bentsen, Bush chose Cheney, and Kennedy chose Johnson.

If Obama put Hillary on the ticket, it would re-raise all of the questions about Bill's income sources, what he did for Dubai, what he did for Frank Guistra -- the Canadian mining executive who gave millions to the Clinton library and whom Bill introduced to the president of Kazakhstan -- and whether he will make public his library donors. Who needs those issues, especially when Obama is trying to wage an anti-Washington-influence-peddling campaign?

Finally, having Hillary in the West Wing would be a nightmare. There is no way that Obama could trust her. She would be a throwback to the old days when the president did not consult the vice president on anything, a situation which led Vice President John Nance Garner, FDR's VP during his first two terms, to call the office "not worth a pitcher of warm piss."

If Obama got into trouble, he would have to look over his shoulder at Hillary and he would always have both Bill and Hillary around to show him up, hog the limelight, generate controversy with ill-considered remarks, and make life difficult. Would Bill stop giving speeches and making money? Would his ties with Arab nations and questionable American and Canadian businessmen end? Or would Obama have to explain his VP's husband's business dealings over and over again.

And, the ultimate question: Can Bill Clinton be put back into the bottle? Is this recent spate of angry, finger-wagging bursts of inappropriate outrage a permanent fixture of his public persona? Does Obama want to take the risk of having him on the team and having to account for his conduct?

Hillary would add no votes to Obama, she would dog his campaign with scandal, she would be disloyal in office, and her husband would be, at best, a huge distraction. Case closed.
Morris, a former political adviser to Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and President Bill Clinton, is the author of “Outrage.”

Oh. MJ! What a question to pose at ObamaCafe!

I'm with those who say "Dream Ticket my ass!" (succinct and to the point), and that picking Hillary Clinton as running mate would be a sign of real weakness on Barack Obama's part. I'd vote for him anyway (I've been donating periodically to him since those days when it was simply a gesture of futility and HRC led heavily among African American voters in the polls) but an HRC pick would be VERY disappointing to me. So would most of the other "moderate" choices unless they also opposed the Iraq War from the start.

A few points: first, Gore had a VERY similar position to Bill Clinton within the Democratic Party. I'm not just talking about proclaimed platform, but about their track records as DLC Democrats. Obama needs to find someone who matches his vision for the US at least as well as Gore did indeed match Clinton's.

Also, HRC brings HUGE negatives. One of the things that makes Obama a stronger candidate (which for a long time flew in the face of the CW that HRC was stronger against McCain) is that he doesn't have all her negative baggage, her divisiveness (at least a good portion of which isn't her fault, but as the campaign shows, a GOOD portion of this IS her), and her lack of strong personal positives to add to the ticket. I strongly doubt that there are a whole lot of voters who wouldn't vote for Obama -- Oh wait! He has Hillary on the ticket? Then I'll vote for him. Not bloody likely. I agree with MJ about supporting Obama, but oppose him on picking HRC as running mate very strongly.

So then who is a good pick? Finally we get around to focusing on this, when it's been obvious for months now that Obama is going to be the nominee. I say Obama should pick a candidate who fulfils AT LEAST two criteria: (a) essential -- they NEVER supported the Iraq War Resolution, something Obama has pointed to as very important and I agree -- preferably someone who clearly opposed it back in 2002, like Barbara Boxer; and (b) strongly preferable but not essential -- a WOMAN running mate who is NOT Hillary. I think that a lot of enthusiasm this year has been the prospects of a woman in the White House. It hasn't been so much Hillary, as her unprecedented role as the first really serious female presidential candidate. A woman on the ticket would both add women voters, including those who might otherwise not bother voting, and increase enthusiasm, which is itself important to the campaign.

Here are some possibly good choices: Barbara Boxer (LOTS of experience, including foreign policy, much moreso than the often suggested Sebelius), strong opponent of IWR all along, strong on Greenhouse Effect, very popular figure even though from a "safe" state, and without much in the way of negative baggage. Obama/Boxer WOULD REALLY be a dream ticket and would powerfully unite the Democratic Party, which is needed.

Sebelius might be good, and so might McAllister or Stabenow or Napolitano. All these should be discussed in detail. As for males, Schweitzer of MT, Strickland, possibly Kaine, and some others are worth considering. A lot of people suggest Richardson, with his resume, but I personally am not hot on Richardson, for a number of reasons. But the argument that he might help in the SouthWest and especially in New Mexico is one that has many people enthusiastic.

I TOTALLY consider a ticket with HRC on it very weak for this election year, and I figure if we elect a Democrat, I do NOT want to end up with another Clinton-TYPE in the White House, let alone another Clinton. I remember how Bill kicked the whole slew of progressives and progressive interests under a bus, even as he did help balance the budget and preside over immense prosperity generally.

Sen. Boxer has the unfortunate situation of being a Democratic senator from a state with a Republican governor. If she were elected VP, the Dems would lose a needed vote in the Senate.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Gov. Stabenow was born in Canada, so she's not constitutionally eligible. (Am I wrong about this?)

Peace,
Paul

I was wrong in the comment I posted earlier (which doesn't seem to have appeared, or has vanished): Gov. Stabenow was *not* born in Canada, but in Michigan. So she's eligible...and, IMHO, would make an excellent VP nominee, as governor of a swing state. Might help soothe MI's feelings about the convention, too.

Peace,
Paul

Let's just put it this way: Either Hillary Clinton is on the ticket, preferably at the top of the ticket, or a lot of her supporters, particularly her senior supporters, her white supporters will go to McCain. I'm one of those. I've never voted for anybody but a Democrat in a presidential campaign, but there is always a first time.
It appears that the Obama supporters have taken over the DNC. Maybe it is time for Hillary to run as an Independent and split the Democrat vote.

You continue to talk about all of Hillary's "baggage". Specifically what baggage? Her husband cheated on her is "her baggage - her fault"?? She and her husband were harassed by the Republican Party and investigated by Ken Starr to the tune of $50 Million and all they found were infidelities on the part of Bill Clinton. So, she is guilty of being investigated?
Maybe you better go read Michelle Obama's thesis before you start accusing anybody of baggage.

Well, MJ Rosenberg, Bush-Cheney was a strong ticket. Damned if I'm going to let "strength" determine my vote anymore!

When the choice between Hillary and Barack first became clear (Edwards was out, Obama had won Iowa), I was already a committed supporter of Obama. Why? Because it had become clear to me that, aside from his very acceptable policies and temperament, he was aleady running a campaign that was well-organized, inclusive, full of good people, funded by all of us, and committed to keeping the race as clean and above-board as possible. It was not a matter of "hating" Hillary. At least not until South Carolina. She was clearly prepared to play dirty. Her campaign was disorganized and often vituperative. Her campaign funds came in part from Bill's post-presidency wheelings and dealings. She has been too closely identified with '90's Democratic party poobahs -- not its most laudable leadership.

That's when I decided that if she and Bill looked as though they were going to get any closer to the White House than the average tourist, I probably couldn't vote for our ticket in the November election. I still feel that way and I suspect others might also feel betrayed, having also hoped for a clean, "new politics," post-Rovian campaign. We want a political victory not just for our chosen candidate but for the country, something distinctly different from skulduggery that gave us the Bush-Cheney wins.

The notion that Hillary might become part of a twofer is simply stomach-turning.