Have you heard the pitch for Eli Roth's new suspense thriller?

"It's a horror flick about a presidential election, sort of Bulworth meets Groundhog Day. There's this freshman Democratic Senator who's the first serious black contender, and a former first lady who's the first serious woman candidate. They battle it out in a closely matched primary that's so self-destructive they can't get the vote out in November. The Republican, a weak old warmonger who doesn't know a thing about economics, wins Michigan in a cliffhanger and takes the presidency. Then, four years later, the Democrats face off again, and it's the woman and the black guy, and they battle it out all over again, and it gets nastier then ever, and vice president Huckabee wins in a Supreme Court decision that's 9-0 because all the liberal justices are dead or retired. The Democrats lose in 2008, 2012, 2016, 2020, and again in 2024 when finally Jesus Christ returns to earth to run as the black guy's vice president, you see, and on election day he raptures up all the true believers and finally the Democrats win, but America is a desert wasteland and the United States Constitution has been replaced with the Bible. Finally, the president is inaugurated and he discovers that his entire Cabinet and every member of Congress has been replaced with clones of the woman candidate, now 90 years old. He lets out a terrifying SCREAM, then fade to black!"

It's silly season in punditville where one talking head after another are trickling out their wisdom to help Obama pick a running mate. All in all, this advice sounds like "politics as usual" warmed over.

They tell us that Obama is too liberal, so he needs to pick a moderate. They say he's not hawkish enough, so he needs someone who can out-veteran John McCain. They say he's weak on the white male vote, so he needs to boost his testosterone appeal. They say he should prove his commitment to bipartisanship, so he needs to pick a Republican. What they mean is they want Obama to pick a conservative.

The buzz is swirling around three candidates in particular: former Republican Senator Jim Webb, current Republican Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel, and blue dog Democrat Sam Nunn. Any of these choices is a slap in the face to Democrats who have worked their heart out and donated thousands of hours and millions of dollars to elect a progressive candidate.

These pundits want nothing more than to snatch this primary victory away from us by convincing Obama that he needs to "balance" his ticket or prove his "post-partisan" bone fides by sacrificing his core principals. Let's send the Obama campaign a message that we will not accept Webb, Hagel, or Nunn.

These are three honorable men, but let's not put them a heartbeat away from the presidency.

Let's tell Obama not to remove Jim Webb from the Senate, where he can do the most good. Webb is anti-feminist, too hostile to affirmative action and immigration, too conservative on academia and pop culture. He's not a reliable progressive, so do we really know he won't turn into another Joe Lieberman?

Say No to Jim Webb.

Obamcans like Andrew Sullivan are pushing for Obama to pick a Republican like Chuck Hagel. Hagel has a 90% conservative voting record and a 0% NARAL record and 0% HRC record. That means you can't find a Senator more anti-choice or anti-gay.

Respectfully, let's tell Obama to let Senator Hagel enjoy his retirement.

Another awful choice for Obama would be an Obama-Nunn ticket. Nunn is notoriously anti-gay, a social conservative who helped architect Don't Ask Don't Tell, opposes equal marriage rights, opposes prohibiting job discrimination for gays. Nunn is weak on abortion, gun control, and affirmative action. He's also a big supporter of abstinence education and prayer in public schools.

The good news is that Obama is probably too smart to pick any of these candidates, but it's probably wisest to send him a signal that he should resist the urge to pair up with a conservative. Tell Obama that Democrats want a progressive ticket all the way ... that's change we can believe in.

Oh my God! I can't believe he said THAT!!! Here's what Barack Obama said today:

"When Dukakis won the nomination, you know, Jesse (Jackson) was still running until the convention," Obama said. "When Bill Clinton was running, Jerry Brown was still technically in it. As far as I can tell, this is fairly standard fare."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Obama directly comparing Hillary Clinton to Jesse Jackson? Surely he is trying to smear Clinton by associating her with a figure likely to alienate her base of "hard-working white middle class voters".

This is race-baiting! How dare Obama stoop so low. I've supported him for months now, and he has rarely disappointed me, but this is just the last straw. As Josh Marshall would say, "this pretty much speaks for itself."

Don't miss the smart essay by Mark Schmitt in the American Prospect. In his evaluation of the sorry state of the GOP in general and John McCain's campaign specifically, he hits the nail on the head. The Republicans are waging a new culture war: it's true, red-blooded "Americans" against that which is fundamentally "un-American":

The GOP's attack on "liberals" was always an attack on people not quite like "Americans"--secular, cosmopolitan, educated, egalitarian. When Republicans went after Michael Dukakis for his policies on crime, they weren't just saying his policies were bad. They were saying, he's not like us; he's a cold-blooded, academic mush-brain who wouldn't give his kids a whupping if they needed it.

The politics of American-ness needs to be cloaked in policy, simply because it's unpalatable otherwise. Without the helpful crutches of symbolic issues like welfare, crime, and immigration, the raw edges of the politics of people-not-like-us would be a little too uncomfortable, and not just for those of us who fall into one or more of the "pluribus" categories. But thanks to the unlikely trio of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and John McCain, the usual game is impossible. Clinton took welfare and crime off the political agenda. Bush made global belligerence and eternal tax cuts unpalatable. And McCain's inconvenient position on immigration takes away what Republicans last fall were dreaming would be their silver bullet. As a result, with Americans saying they are willing to pay more taxes for health care and better schools, with Republicans at a disadvantage in the polls on every single issue, there is no respectable costume in which to dress up identity politics.

Traditionally, the phrase "identity politics" has referred to the Democratic coalition's caucuses, interest groups, and competitive claims of wrongs to be righted and rights to be granted. Identity politics on the left, according to this very conventional wisdom, opened the door to an alternative politics of national identity on the right. And yet in 2008, the Democratic presidential nomination battle between an African American and a woman has not exacerbated left identity politics but brought it to a peaceful close. Obama is not Jesse Jackson; Hillary Clinton is not former Rep. Pat Schroeder. He chose to campaign on national reconciliation, she on bread-and-butter economics and her expertise on military affairs. Whereas McCain--a man whose known positions on the war and on the economy are deeply unpopular, whose other positions are endlessly shifting, whose party and ideology are rejected--is recast entirely in terms of his biography, his honor, his character, his American-ness.

It's obvious that conservatives are going after Obama via the new "identity politics", hence the attacks on his lapel pins, the pledge of allegiance rumors, Michelle Obama's ProudGate, Obama's lack of military service, Rev. Wright's "G-damn America", and disdain towards his multicultural upbringing and foreign-sounding name.

However, Schmitt stops short of spelling out how Democrats can defeat the untrue "Obama is un-American" meme. Part of the answer certainly, is imaging, cosmetics, and argument framing. Democratic values ARE American values, and Democrats are no less patriotic than the GOP. Our patriotism needs to be front and center in how we present the campaign.

A Rovian campaign tactic is beneath the Democrats' dignity. It simply will not do to imply that the Republicans' patriotism is their greatest strength, and therefore attack them as unpatriotic. Therefore, I suggest Obama should tackle this strategy by doing what comes naturally to him: talking to Americans as the adults we are. Explain to them what he believes patriotism really means; explain his opposition to McCain's agenda because of how damaging it is to America; show his anger towards attempts to impugn his own or others' patriotism. Obama should also select a running mate with a strong American story to tell: for example, John Edwards or Jim Webb.

Finally, I would suggest to Obama add to his campaign some sort of "Take Back America" tour. He could spend three or four days visiting famous historic sites -- Bunker Hill, the Liberty Bell, Mt. Rushmore, and so forth -- and speak to the challenge of lifting America up again and erasing the dark stain on our spirit resulting from the failed policies of the past.

Can you stand one more post on the Unity Ticket theme? Please indulge me for just a moment...

I'm a rare breed on TPM: I strongly support Barack Obama. And I respect and admire Hillary Clinton, in contrast to many of other TPM readers who constantly villify, hate, or oppose her.

I assume it's a foregone conclusion that Obama has the nomination essentially won, and that he should be given the full latitude to select whatever vice-presidential candidate he feels is best. Assuming that Dan Quayle is not a likely candidate, I will respect his judgment whoever he chooses.

That said, I've gone back and forth on the so-called Unity Ticket (which would certainly be Obama-Clinton at this point). I started out thinking it would be a great idea. Then Hillary's attacks on Obama just got too over-the-top, and the animosity between Obama and Clinton supporters went through the roof. So I thought it would be an awful idea. Now, I'm back to thinking that Clinton should be near the top of Obama's list of vice-presidential candidates.

In this post, I'll try to succintly make the case for Obama-Clinton. And I'll challenge my fellow TPM readers, especially the most energetic Obama supporters, to say whether they will support an Obama-Clinton ticket if Obama decides to go this route.

So I'll start by sharing the opinion of one of the most vociferous Clinton haters of all time, Andrew Sullivan:

[T]he Clintons' popular vote argument is not an argument for winning the nomination. You can't change the rules in the fourth quarter. But it is an argument for the veep slot. Put this way, the dead-ender act is not so psycho. The Clintons, like it or not, do have a base in their party. They've been beaten but not destroyed. Obama has to do something about it...

This really is the first major presidential decision Obama has to make. How he handles it, and what he decides will tell us a huge amount about the kind of president he would be. My hunch is that he will try to conciliate - and that, if he's shrewd, that will be the theme of his campaign. A Clinton pick would instantly relieve the Democrats and create a demographic landslide potential for the fall. It would immediately force an entire army on the right, now making the Clintons' arguments for them, to eat their words or find themselves praising the Democrat. It would reassure some voters that Obama has a running mate with more Washington experience. It would help the women's vote."

Let me highlight this sentence:  "A Clinton pick would instantly relieve the Democrats and create a demographic landslide potential for the fall." Do you want to WIN or do you want to BE RIGHT? Do you want to create a potential LANDSLIDE or do you want to gamble on a New Electoral Strategy?

As this contest comes to a close, look at a few key facts on the ground.

(1) Clinton has secured equal or greater popular vote than Obama, and if she isn't represented on the ticket many Democratic voters could feel that Obama lacks legitimacy, or that the election was stolen.

(2) Look at the polls. Yes, they're bound to change between now and November. But look at them. Gallup shows Obama losing to McCain 47/44, but Clinton beating McCain 47/75. Rasmussen has Obama and McCain tied at 45/45 and Clinton winning 47/45. Newsweek (May 23) has Obama and McCain tied 46/46, and Clinton beating McCain 48/44.

(3) Look at the electoral maps. Several news organizations have analyzed the electoral maps, and while both Obama and Hillary have potential routes to the White House, the analyses I've seen shows Hillary has an edge. Here's analysis that shows Obama beating McCain 266/248 with 24 tied votes; the same analyst shows Clinton beating McCain 327/194 with 17 ties. Salon.com's analysis shows Clinton and McCain 259/206 with 73 votes as tossups, and Obama and McCain 238/221 with 79 votes as tossups.

None of these arguments persuade me to think that Clinton should be handed the nomination by a superdelegate coup. But they do raise the possibility that an Obama/Clinton ticket could fortell a DEMOCRATIC LANDSLIDE. While there's no guarantee, at the very least it would seem to suggest that Clinton deserves to be considered highly as vice president.

The most frequently voiced criticism of this proposal goes like this: But Obama has campaigned on "change" and "turning the page on the past" and Clinton represents the failed past, and the sort of Washington insider that needs to be left behind!

To this fair argument, I would offer this rebuttal: (1) Clinton's supporters -- half the Democratic party -- has never brought into this frame. They believe Clinton, as a woman, symbolizes change. And her policies, nearly identical to Obama's, would be a radical change over the Republican alternative. (2) Clinton could pledge to uphold the same standards Obama has set for fundraising: taking no money from Washington lobbyists, etc. (3) Obama's "new politics" is about reconciliation, working across partisan lines, overcoming divisions. Accepting Clinton onto the ticket would show Obama he is serious about his message, and serious even about demanding that his zealous supporters "play nice" and avoid escalating negative rhetoric against their fellow Democrats.

So... do you want to HOLD ONTO YOUR GRUDGES, RESENTMENT, HATRED, AND SMUG SENSE OF SUPERIORITY OVER CLINTON SUPPORTERS?

Or do you want to win?

There's a second argument worth rebutting. That's the claim that Hillary has uniquely high negatives among Democratic candidates. Actually, that was true before "Bittergate" and "WrightGate" and now both Clinton and Obama have high negatives.

There's one final argument worth rebutting. That's the claim that Obama shouldn't select Hillary because he can't handle Hillary and Bill near the White House. This is the argument I find most astonishingly stupid. It assumes that Obama, once president, is not capable of handling Hillary as veep or Bill as her husband. Give the man some credit. You must really think he's a poor leader or weak administrator for you to believe that Obama would not make absolutely clear to his veep that HE is in charge, HE makes the decisions, HE expects loyalty and integrity, HE is the ultimate authority. Of course he's capable of taming Hillary or Bill. What are you so afraid of? A person is wise who keeps his friends close and his enemies closer. Hillary knows that her political future depends on her being perceived as trustworthy, valuable, and loyal vice president. And both Hillary and Bill are concerned with their historical legacy. They are manageable, and Obama is certainly up to the task.

In conclusion, I have come to realize that the Unity Ticket is worth seriously considering. As an Obama supporter, I vow to strongly support Obama's choice of running mate, and to vote for Obama/Clinton if that's his choice.

So, Obama supporters and Clinton supporters, will you make the same pledge? Or is your heart so blackened with cynicism and hatred that you would allow McCain to win by dividing the Democratic party? In short, DO YOU WANT TO WIN?