After a week of being inundated with Obama surrogates unhelpfully dismissing the notion that Barack Obama would deign to choose Hillary Clinton as his VP nominee, a majority of voters, including 3/4 of Clinton supporters, are signaling loud and clear that that's exactly what he should do.

In a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll, 55% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents also would like Illinois Sen. Barack Obama to choose Clinton as his running mate, although there's notable resistance among his backers. [...]

Three of four Clinton supporters would like to see her on Obama's ticket. But 52% of Obama supporters would rather he "choose someone else."

In other words, the first unifying gesture for a man who's run on his ability to unify would be to choose the person who came in a close second for the ticket. It puzzles me to hear people automatically dismiss the idea of Clinton as VP. For one thing, as this poll proves, the pick it would assuage Clinton's extremely passionate army of supporters, who Obama is going to need in the general -- and I'm not just talking for votes. But in addition, a Clinton pick has the added benefit of shoring up Obama's demographic weaknesses (working class whites, latinos, women), his perceived deficiency in the resume department, which, quite frankly, I suspect would cause more people to defect to McCain than Obama's race would, and it would balance out his lofty post-partisan inspirer-in-chief persona with an in the trenches fighter, one who for once would beat the pants off the Republican VP nominee in a debate.

As for the cons, well, I do find the argument that it would be counter to Obama's message of a new kind of politics rather compelling, but the benefits that would accrue to the ticket overall would far outweigh any thematic incongruence. And as for the personality conflict argument or the "what would Obama do with Bill" argument, please, Obama says time and time again this campaign is not about him; surely his choice for VP should be about way more than who gets along with whom and Clinton on the ticket would be far more likely to enable the transformation Obama wants to achieve than hinder it.

I was glad to see Hardball's analysis of Obama's most likely VP picks omit Bill Richardson from contention. Not only is Richardson horribly gaffe-prone, but I just don't think a black/brown ticket is realistic.

As for another popular pick, Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, I have to say I'm puzzled. I suppose her being a Democrat in a red state brings that thematic congruence to the ticket, but little else. Certainly her dud of a State of the Union response alone should disqualify her as not ready for prime time, but ultimately I agree with Dem strategist Steve McMahon who said on Hardball yesterday that national security experience is going to be much too important to Obama's choice of VP for Sebelius to be seriously considered.

It's no accident that the consensus pick as the "best" choice for Obama on Hardball yesterday was a Republican, Chuck Hagel, for his national security experience (read: gravitas) and the message it would send vis a vis Obama's post-partisan message of inclusion. Which is to say that the Democrats on the list all have something that makes them problematic. Is Hillary Clinton's so-called divisiveness so problematic that it should keep her off the ticket? Seems to me that not only does Hillary Clinton balance out Obama's weaknesses -- the true utility of a VP choice -- but when it comes to the Democratic base, she's far more of a unifying pick than a divisive one.

I thought that Obama would be able to close the margin in West Virginia, but none of the polls think he will. Obama went along with the outlandish prediction that he'd lose 80-20-- that's one way to tell West Virginians they don't matter. Anyway, I'd better revise my thinking last month that Obama would close the gap.  

I'm predicting:

Obama loses West Virginia to Clinton by a 62- 35 margin.
Obama doesn't win a single West Virginia county.
Obama doesn't visit West Virginia again before the GE.
Obama loses West Virginia to McCain 66 - 33.

2008: "Change You Can Believe In" vs "Change You Deserve" (The Republican slogan is also used to market an antidepressant).

When Jerry Brown used the "change" argument in '92 during the primary, it was a pretty powerful message for an insurgency campaign that limited itself to $100 contributions, and subsequently, Bill Clinton co-opted that message to win the GE. In 2000, who can forget how Bush pivoted after losing NH to the maverick reformer McCain, to become the "reformer with results" for the SC primary.  So it's not surprising to see the Republicans adopt the vacuous "change" mantra.

Tom Matzzie comments on it:

If McCain is able to leverage that into becoming a "change Republican" he'll have done what Matzzie says, which is pointed out in the above examples: "Sometimes being the first person to adopt a message isn't the winner--your opponent can hijack the dialog in the media and turn it to his advantage."

Update [2008-5-13 10:45:29 by Jerome Armstrong]: An interesting related email I got today:

Funny how, at a time when things really couldn't be worse for Republicans, we've allowed a narrative to develop (in fact, we've fueled it) about how divided the Democratic Party is and how damaged the eventual nominee will be as a result of the fractured bases of the two candidates. The fact is, Republicans are loving it and, yes, are using it to prop up John McCain.

From Tim Russert on Sunday's Meet The Press:

The campaign manager for John McCain sent this memo out on Wednesday: "If and when Senator Barack Obama becomes the official nominee, Democratic primary voters may not form a tight coalition immediately. Data to date suggests Democratic primary voters will not blindly support Senator Obama. ... Among North Carolina Democratic primary voters interviewed in exit polls, 18 percent of the Democrats surveyed said they would vote for John McCain in a race against" "Obama. ... Among Indiana Democratic primary voters ... 18 percent" said "they'd vote for John McCain against Senator Obama. Among Pennsylvania Democratic Primary voters, 15 percent said they would vote for John McCain."

What's left out of the conversation, however -- conveniently for John McCain -- is not only the number of Republicans voting against the presumptive nominee in primary after primary, which, as Chris Dodd pointed out on Meet The Press, is usually in the 20-25% range, but also the number of Republicans likely to vote Democratic in the general election.

The new ABC News/Washington Post poll finds that, as other polls have before it, the level of defection to McCain among the Democratic candidates' supporters is disturbingly high, in the 20s:

About a quarter of Clinton supporters (26 percent) say they'd favor John McCain over Obama, and about as many Obama supporters (22 percent) say they'd take McCain over Clinton.

But think for a second about what is partially accounting for the incredible turnout nationwide: the unprecedented number of non-Democrats voting in our primary, voters who actually would be at least just as likely to vote Republican as they would be to vote Democratic in a general election. So, as you might expect, when ABC/WaPo broke down the defectors to just Democrats, the number lowered quite a bit:

Indeed, relatively few mainstream Democrats (as opposed to independents) say they'd cross over (13 and 10 percent, respectively).

And in fact is no greater than the defection rate among Republicans from McCain to the Democrats.

And as many Republicans say they'd defect the other way - 10 percent for Clinton if she faced McCain; 15 percent for Obama vs. McCain.

Just something to think about next time Timmeh or Tweety tells you how divided the Democrats are.

It looks like the commonwealth of Virginia is shaping up to be a real problem for John McCain and the Republicans in 2008.

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in Virginia finds John McCain leading Barack Obama by just three percentage points, 47% to 44%. That's a significant improvement for Obama after trailing the presumptive Republican nominee by eleven points a month ago.

The survey, which was in the field on Thursday, has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points, so McCain's lead over Barack Obama is not statistically significant. In fact, with the exception of a poll from March, McCain hasn't been able to hold a lead outside the margin of error in Virginia against Obama in Rasmussen polling this year (he led by 2 points in January and 5 points in February). McCain's lead in the commonwealth in April wasn't statistically significant either, according to SurveyUSA. According to the Pollster.com trend estimate, McCain can't crack 50 percent in Virginia, leading Obama 48.3 percent to 43.6 percent. With numbers like these it's little wonder that the bright minds at The Atlantic only rate Virginia as "tilts Republican" in the general election.

It's budget season in California and today, my friends at Courage Campaign (for whom I do part time work) launched a new ad going after the California Republican Party for keeping in place a tax loophole whereby yacht owners are able to pay...get this...NO TAX on their yachts. This at a time when the state coffers desperately need replenishing. California is a state where responsibly raising taxes to pay for programs and infrastructure, as opposed to the usual borrow and spend Republican way, requires a 2/3 majority in both houses in the state legislature, which the Democrats don't quite have. The whiners in the vocal minority that is the California Republican Party...excuse me, The Yacht Party...is digging in its heels and I'm pleased to see Courage Campaign pushing back with their effort to influence the debate in Sacramento. Arianna Huffington is helping us out with a fundraiser to get the ad on the air -- $100 or more gets you a signed copy of her book "The Right Is Wrong." Do me a favor and take a look at the ad below, give if you can and check out this nice n snarky page Courage created to explain why the yacht tax loophole is so outrageous.

What else is going on tonight?

In addition to West Virginia's presidential primary, there will also be two high-stakes elections tomorrow that we'll be following closely.

• NE-Sen The first is the Nebraska Democratic primary for senate. Voters will be choosing between netroots allstar Scott Kleeb, who made a name for himself in 2006 during his impressive run for the 3rd district congressional seat, and life-long Republican businessman Tony Raimondo who switched parties just to run for the senate. The choice is clear. Not only is Kleeb a champion of the netroots, but he is a proud Democrat in reddest of red Nebraska.

  New Nebraska Network has a rundown on the distinctions Kleeb is drawing between himself and Raimondo.

  This  editorial from the Lincoln Journal Star calls it a horserace -- it could go any way tomorrow, so go HERE to phonebank for Scott to get the vote out for him tomorrow.

  Also, here's Scott's final ad of the primary:

• MS-01 Remember the nailbiter of a special election in MS-01 from last month when Democrat Travis Childers almost beat Republican Greg Davis outright to fill out the remainder of former congressman Roger Wicker's term in congress? Since Childers came just short of the 50% threshold, tomorrow will be the runoff between Childers and Davis.

  WaPo on what's at stake tomorrow:

  With lots of help from Washington -- including more than $1.3 million in campaign cash and a last-minute visit by Vice President Cheney -- Mississippi Republicans are desperately trying to retain a congressional seat in one of the most reliably conservative districts in the nation.

  The stakes in the 1st District special election couldn't be higher, strategically or symbolically. The loss of a traditionally GOP seat to a Democrat would be the third in a special election this spring and the second in the Deep South after the May 3 victory of Rep. Don Cazayoux (D-La.)

  The importance of this race has not been lost on the DCCC who, to their credit, have spent $1.8 million of their considerable warchest on the race and have set up a virtual phonebank so you can help get out the vote for Travis Childers tomorrow.

  Check in with Cotton Mouth Blog for local coverage of this important race.

The NYT Caucus blog reports that House Republicans, eager to distance themselves from their work damaging our country, unveiled a new election-year slogan:

It looks like Republicans will counter the Democratic push for change from the years of the Bush administration with their own pledge to deliver, drum roll please, "the change you deserve." The first element of the party agenda developed over the past few months by the leadership and select party members will focus on family issues.

"Through our "Change You Deserve" message and through our "American Families Agenda," House Republicans will continue our efforts to speak directly to an American public looking for leaders who will offer real solutions for the challenges they confront every day," said the memo prepared for lawmakers.

Turns out the phrase is taken. The prescription drug Effexor is used to treat "depression, generalized anxiety disorder, social anxiety disorder, and panic disorder in adults." Sold by Wyeth Pharmaceuticals using the slogan "The Change You Deserve."

Common side effects:

In clinical studies, the most common side effects with EFFEXOR XR (reported in at least 10% of patients and at least twice as often as with placebo) were constipation, dizziness, dry mouth, insomnia, loss of appetite, nausea, nervousness, sexual side effects, sleepiness, sweating, and weakness.

This is too easy.