A Draw

The battle for the Democratic nomination has been unique for many reasons, not the least of which has been the fact that neither candidate has really been able to generate and then maintain momentum enough to seal the nomination (see Obama after Iowa, Clinton after New Hampshire, Obama after his post Feb. 5th run and Clinton after March 4th.) Each candidate's inability to make momentum stick has been reflected not only in electoral results that counter the then prevailing winds, but also in the national polling, especially the daily tracking polls, which have see-sawed between Clinton and Obama for weeks. Last week, in an apparent response to the Obama's well-received speech on race as well as the controversy over Clinton's sniper fire claims, Obama appeared to perhaps begin to pull away. Today, however, the rolling averages in both the Rasmussen tracking poll and the Gallup tracking poll are ticking back in Clinton's direction.

Gallup:

Obama 51 (52, 50...)
Clinton 43 (42, 43...)

Rasmussen:

Obama 46 (47, 48...)
Clinton 43 (42, 42...)

It's too early, of course, to know whether or not this will continue or if it's a daily quirk (or it could be due to what Pollster's Mark Blumenthal calls the day-of-week effect) but if recent history is a guide, it's likely just the latest return of the race back to what is essentially a draw, a further sign that Obama and Clinton are likely to trade the national lead through the June contests.

Now, obviously a presidential contest can't actually be a draw, there has to be a winner and a loser, which is why this proposal from Gov. Mario Cuomo yesterday was so intriguing:

Who can solve the problem?

Obama and Clinton can - by putting aside personal irritations, and to some extent personal aspirations, and agreeing to end the hostilities and form a ticket that offers both of them, a candidate for president and a candidate for vice president who is clearly good enough to serve as president, should the occasion arise. That candidate for vice president would also have a good chance of being elected president eight years from now because neither of the two would be too old in 2016. If they are not capable of doing that, the two could announce they will complete the primary schedule and convention with the winner becoming candidate for president and the other agreeing to be a candidate for vice president, thereby mollifying to some extent the constituency of the candidate who was not chosen as the nominee for president.

Think of it, over the next eight years we could elect both the first woman and the first African-American to become president. That's not a dream: It's a plausible, achievable, glorious possibility - if our two remaining candidates have the personal strength and wisdom to make it happen. The joint statement announcing their agreement would rock the nation and resound across the globe - sweeter than any political poetry; smarter and more meaningful than any tightly intelligent political prose.

While conventional wisdom would have it that this "dream ticket" is an impossibility due to the divisive nature of the primary recently, Cuomo's framing it as a means of uniting the party and giving supporters the best of both worlds could give it renewed momentum, especially since supporters of both are likely to feel their candidate's not being on the ticket would be akin to having been robbed. Now, Obama has always been my first choice for Clinton's VP pick should she win the nomination, but thinking about possible VP picks for him, I keep coming back to Hillary Clinton, mostly because she complements him both in style and constituency support. I really do think no matter who is on the top of such a ticket, it would be absolutely unbeatable. That is, as long as partisans on each side can swallow their pride should their candidate be relegated to the VP slot.



Display:


Re: A Draw (none / 0)

And where would Bill fit in the dream ticket?  


Stop H8
by mikeinsf on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:48:11 PM EST

Re: A Draw (2.00 / 1)

In the nightmare part of the dream.

If Hillary wins NC and IN then it's dream ticket time otherwise it's Obama/ABC.

Gotta. win. Indiana.


Bitter voter for change.
by Hope08 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:53:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Draw (2.00 / 0)

Please, Indiana, pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeease.


Stop H8
by mikeinsf on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 09:00:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Draw (none / 0)

Because the last thing someone 47 years old would want is some advice from an 8 year president of the United States.

I must be nice to live in a fairtale.

david


by giusd on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 09:49:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Draw (none / 0)

A draw. How cute. In what bizarro world is this a draw? Not in delegates, not in popular vote, not in states won.

Hillary, momentum after March 4? Um, what happened the week of March 4, beside Obama increasing his delegate lead?

BTW, the Hillary Death Watch at Slate now has her chances below 10%.


by vermontprog on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 04:16:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Draw (none / 0)

With Hillary as President and Bill as First "Whatever", there will be some confusion with the staff, the Cabinet, the Congress and foreign leaders over who is really in charge.  

What there will not be confusion about is the role of the Vice President.  His job will be to sit, fold his hands and be quiet.  Maybe get some coffee sometimes.  Maybe its a dream ticket, but its not the dream job.

And, speaking of dreams, the whole thing a draw shows a very active fantasy life.  I'm not sure on which planet you see a draw in the Democratic primaries, but I see Obama with a lead that can only be erased with the interference of superdelegates--not by average voters.

I acknowledge that the Clintons can cut deals, promise positions, etc. to gain an advantage with superdelegates, but I think (hope) that enough superdelegates have the larger interests of the Democratic Party and the United States at heart than any back room deal.

Obama is the candidate that can lead, inspire and heal this nation.  Maybe Hillary can too, but when I look at Obama's speeches, the crowds, the enthusiastic volunteers, the money (mostly small donations), the popular vote, the pledged delegate vote....the whole package....I see a winner.


by smoker1 on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:46:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

No, no and no (none / 0)

Clinton's negatives are in the high forties, her positives are in Bush territory.  She would hurt the ticket, especially with the repentant repubs and independents we will need to win this in November, who cannot stomach Hillary for whatever reason.


by ReillyDiefenbach on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:09:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Draw (2.00 / 0)

This poll hasn't been getting much attention. Most people think Obama is a tougher opponent against McCain.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/105904/Dems-R eps-Agree-Obama-Tougher-Opponent-McCain. aspx
Democrats were asked whether Clinton or Obama has the better chance of defeating McCain in November: 59% say Obama does; 30% say Clinton. Republicans were asked whether McCain has a better chance of defeating Clinton or Obama on Election Day. Sixty-four percent say McCain has a better chance of beating Clinton, compared with only 22% choosing Obama, meaning Republicans view Obama as the more formidable candidate.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:48:40 PM EST

I'm writing a diary on it (none / 0)

as we speak :-)


"This election is not about ideology, it's about competence." -Michael Dukakis
by MBNYC on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 09:09:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm writing a diary on it (none / 0)

Great!


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 09:13:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Here ya go. (none / 0)

Linky


"This election is not about ideology, it's about competence." -Michael Dukakis
by MBNYC on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 09:52:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Draw (none / 0)

Who people think "has a better chance" doesn't really have much to do with who would do better.

I would think this would be an obvious point but apparently not.


by world dictator on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 10:03:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Draw (none / 0)

Does who people think would make a better president,
have anything to do with them being a better president ?

Or are we all in a lather for naught?

Come on, this election is about what we think.
And consequently how we vote


by holder on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 10:19:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Draw (none / 0)

you have to take whatever those to as being written through a filter, anything that does not say universal hosannas to BHO 'mean nothing' or 'few' are paying attention to them. they will then whip out some other poll and claim it is the one and only holy gospel, until next week when their BHO filter will TR it if the numbers have changed not to their liking. that will of course be part of an evil plot by She Who Must Not be Named :)


by zerosumgame on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:21:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Draw (none / 0)

yeah... remember when no one could beat giuliani?


by nikkid on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:08:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

it would be nice to know (none / 0)

If Clinton as VP would still carry Arkansas.


New Jersey politics and news
by John DE on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:49:03 PM EST

Clinton is not going to accept being #2 (none / 0)

and she's not going to want Obama on her ticket as #2. The Wright thing is way too toxic for the GE or even a national ticket and she's going to want to get away from that. She's already tried to do that last week. Just IMO.


It's an election, not an auction.
by cosbo on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:50:11 PM EST

Re: Clinton is not going to accept being #2 (none / 0)

"The Wright thing is way too toxic for the GE..."

I wonder why Obama would want to answer questions about Bosnia from now till November.


by KTinOhio on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:58:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton is not going to accept being #2 (none / 0)

Or to take on the arsenal of ammo that the Repubs have been saving up for years while Hillary was the inevitable nominee.

Her negative rating floors at 47% in the general and she doesn't bring a single state to the table that Obama couldn't take on his own. She's a terrible choice for VP.

I think there are a lot of places where she could do wondrous work within the Obama administration, but I don't think VP is it. I also can't see her taking it.


Your old role is rapidly aging. Please get out of the new one if you can't lend a hand, for the times they are a changing.
by Travis Stark on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 09:05:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton is not going to accept being #2 (none / 0)

Has a running mate even proved to be a significant drag on a presidential campaign?  Hell, if George H.W. Bush could will with Dan "Potatoe" Quayle at his side, surely HRC couldn't sink the Obama campaign.


by KTinOhio on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:40:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

47% negatives with complete name recognition (none / 0)

and attitudes set in stone is not going to help any top of the ticket.


by ReillyDiefenbach on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:12:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Draw (2.00 / 0)

Personally, I don't think either of them would accept the vice presidency.


A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy. - Teddy Roosevelt
by minvis on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:50:27 PM EST

Re: A Draw (1.00 / 2)

Hillary would be a drag on the Obama ticket.  Besides they are both too different to run together, and I think it is just another ploy to get Obama to say he would be Hillary's VP, so she could then say vote for me and get both of us.  It is the same tactic the Clintonistas have been trying all along.  Cuomo is a Clintonista.  He is from NY, remember.  If I was Obama I would tell Cuomo and the Clintonistas to take a hike.


by Spanky on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:51:35 PM EST

Re: A Draw (none / 0)

Clinton/Gore worked pretty well for 2 terms...


by zerosumgame on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:58:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Draw (none / 0)

I would not be so sure Mario is a Clinton supporter.  He goes his own way.


by mady on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 09:13:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Draw (none / 0)

I suppose when the idea of a dream ticket got a standing ovation at the California debate those were a bunch of Clinton supporters trying to advance the dream ticket ploy too

Obama is a good canadiate but when his supporters advance these tin foil hat conspiracy theories that suggest any scenario where Obama is not crowned Supreme Ruler of the World is a nefarious ploy by the Clinton campaign, you really just ruin your credibility.


by world dictator on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 10:14:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

A draw? (2.00 / 1)

Obama leads by an average of over 5 points in that poll. While not a huge lead, it isn't a draw.


by Obama08 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:52:04 PM EST

Re: A draw? (1.33 / 3)

Shhhhhh! The Hillary supporters are all about the "New Math". A 10 point spread means nothing!


by jwolf on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 09:05:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Draw (2.00 / 1)

I really don't understand the bizarre fascination with daily tracking polls, especially considering the fact that 80% of the country has already voted.  Daily tracking polls will fluctuate.  People will get all flustered over a couple points worth of movement.

In any case, regarding the combined ticket, if Hillary Clinton does win the nomination by dominating the remaining contests, forcing a favorable seating of MI and FL, and winning enough superdelegates to erase the pledged delegate gap, then there will be pressure on her to offer the VP spot to Obama.  Whether he accepts that offer is anyone's guess.

If Obama wins the nomination I doubt he would offer the VP spot to Clinton.  I also doubt there would be any significant pressure for him to do so.


by Skaje on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:52:50 PM EST

Re: A Draw (none / 0)

Hillary wouldn't take it anyway. I would bet ANYTHING she wouldn't take it. Not from Obama, not from anybody.


"Hey, check it out. You just had yourself a glue OD. So you're learning another lesson. Don't do too much glue, or your night sucks."
by vcalzone on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 09:02:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Draw (2.00 / 0)

Obama always drops early in the week, because the under 45 crowd misses the Weekend Polls

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/03-31dayof week_all-thumb.png


Bring Back MyDD - Just say No to Rec'ing Candidate Diaries.
by CardBoard on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:54:15 PM EST

day of the week (none / 0)

So, will the Obama campaign lobby to move the general election to, say, Thursday?


No way. No how. No McCain. . . . . . If you can ship a job to Bangalore India, you can ship a job to Flint Michigan.
by NJ Liberal on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:16:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

she will prevail; no need for Obama on ticket (2.00 / 1)


Landslide of lies
by engels on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:54:22 PM EST

She will prevail. No, REALLY! (2.00 / 0)


  ...The fanatical and misguided support of Clinton by her fans, combined with her very low chances of success, make it clear that her supporters are far more likely to be deluded by false hopes and pseudo-demagoguery than Obama's are.

The Cult of Clinton

by jwolf on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 09:45:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Draw (none / 0)

For Hillary to be the VP candidate would be ridiculous. That would be to explicitly send the message that she, of all people, accepts that again must a super competent woman step aside for a less competent man. Won't happen.

Besides, if Obama is the nominee, we need Hillary fresh and ready to take on President McCain in 2012.


Re-elect the President in 2012
by DemAC on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:55:37 PM EST

Re: A Draw (1.00 / 3)

For Obama to be the VP candidate would be ridiculous. That would be to explicitly send the message that he, of all people, accepts that again must a super competent black person step aside for a less competent white person. Won't happen.


by KTinOhio on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 09:00:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Draw (none / 0)

Amazing as it sounds, I take your word for it that anyone can truly think Obama more competent than Hillary.


Re-elect the President in 2012
by DemAC on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 09:02:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Draw (2.00 / 2)

Frankly, Hillary hasn't shown executive competence. She blew it on health care reform in the 1990s.  And her campaign organization has been very badly managed, with regard to personnel, finances, and strategy.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 09:05:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Draw (none / 0)

The executive competence and experience of Obama, on the other hand, is downright stunning.


Re-elect the President in 2012
by DemAC on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 09:07:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Draw (none / 0)

You're right that he doesn't have a whole lot of executive branch experience. I certainly won't deny that.  But his campaign organization has been brilliant.  And HRC has not run much herself and what she has run hasn't been successful.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 09:11:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Draw (none / 0)

So, I take it you will suggest Axelrod or Plouffe as his VP candidate then. One of those could surely be the Cheney to Obama's Dubya, so to speak.


Re-elect the President in 2012
by DemAC on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 09:21:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Draw (none / 0)

Actually, I think Jim Webb would be great.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 09:54:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Draw (none / 0)

... or Sam Nunn.  
This is what Clintonistas dont get - she, of front running status - ran the worst national campaign we have seen this cycle, including McCain.    When she needed to pivot after IA, we saw her continue to trust the folks who gave her that failed front-runner strategy ... sounds eerily similar to 'Rummy', 'Brownie' and the boys the past 8 years, eh?  So - when you tell me Obama is green - or hasnt done anything of consequence - I laugh ... and point to the abortion that is Hillary's campaign.   Experience gets us that?!?  Or wait - universal health care?!?  Oh, thats right, we tried that in 1994, ball of flames.   Please show me what she has accomplished of consequence, other than voting to go to war.

'The only people for me are the mad ones, desirous of everything at the same time, the ones who never yawn or say a commonplace thing ...'
by stryan on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 10:32:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Draw (none / 0)

Amazing then that she's managed to keep within a few percentage points of Obama in both popular vote and pledged delegates while being vastly outspent. You'd think with her awful management skills and disadvantage in money that she'd have lost by now.


Blogging politics and life in general at jimmy.bouma-holtrop.com
by forecaster15 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 10:49:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Draw (none / 0)

her last nmae hsa nothing to do with that I bet.


by edhula3 on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:26:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Draw (1.00 / 1)

Hah...hah....hah...hah....

Supercompetent! Sheesh....

Wright....

Rezko....

Auchi....

Fake legislative accomplishments.

A lower Progressive Punch rating than The Hill.

Real problems showing up to vote....

Pull your head out dude. Yer brain needs air.


by Pericles on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 10:15:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That's bullshit (none / 0)

KTinOhio

I'm an African American and I find your comments very offensive and quite frankly racist.

Racial Equality is about being treated equally. Obama is not entitled to be President because he's black. He is not an Affirmative Action president. If he wins the nomination he will have earned it. If he loses the nomination he will have lost it fair and square no matter how angry you get that fact will no change.

The vice presidency is a prestigious position any way that you slice it. To suggest that the democratic party is somehow filled with racists because some people are floating the idea of POSSIBLY making Obama VP IF he loses is pretty digusting.

You should be ashamed of yourself first as a democrat, second as a person any level of intelligence and third as a person who allegedly cares about race relations in America.

There's enough REAL racism in the world, we don't need you making some up.


by world dictator on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 10:37:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Dude... (2.00 / 2)

Three points must be raised here...

First, my post was a verbatim restatement of the previous post, except I changed the gender references to racial ones.  Sorry if you missed the humor.  I'll remember the sarcasm tags next time.

Second, I don't know how you inferred that  I think Obama would be an "affirmative action" president.  I happen to support Obama because I think he would make a fine president.  A brief look at my last fifty or so posts on this board should make this clear.

Third, lighten the hell up.


by KTinOhio on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 10:44:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Draw (1.00 / 1)

One could easily say the reverse about a super competent African-American having to step aside for a less competent Caucasian.

This hysteria about Obama playing the race card while Clinton's supporters whine about gender 24/7 is baffling.


by Skaje on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 09:01:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Draw (none / 0)

Point taken.

If he gets the nomination I'm all for him having it all for himself and his supporters anyway, while the rest of us are getting ready for 2012.


Re-elect the President in 2012
by DemAC on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 09:05:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Draw (1.75 / 4)

I guess you have your priorities in order.

You have to preserve 2012 for Hillary and let the war go on and on, and perhaps another one in Iran as well.  But, hey, you know what's most important.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 09:07:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Draw (1.00 / 2)

If Obama's nominated, for what strange reason shouldn't we challenge President McCain in 2012? May I remind you that it's you who are pushing the Wright Honorable Senator from Rezko...


Re-elect the President in 2012
by DemAC on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 09:13:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Draw (none / 0)

Perhaps I was mistaken, but since most people who say they won't vote for Obama assumes he will lose the election, I figured that the poster assumed this and so believed that McCain would be president in 2012.

I think Obama is more likely to win against McCain, just as most Americans do.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 09:16:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Draw (2.00 / 0)

And that encapsulates the entire problem nicely, doesn't it?


Re-elect the President in 2012
by DemAC on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 09:23:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Draw (2.00 / 1)

I don't think there is a problem. I think he's very, very likely to win against McCain.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 09:27:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Draw (1.66 / 3)

actually the problem is supporters (from both sides) who behave like you.

You behave like a child who threatens to take their ball and go home. It is sad really; and the blog you trumpet is right-wing garbage. Get over yourself.


Oh Mammy Dear, we're all mad over here livin' in America
by JDF on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 09:31:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Draw (1.00 / 0)

That content free petulant whining earned you a TR.


Re-elect the President in 2012
by DemAC on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 09:35:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You're Kidding...Right? (none / 0)

Hey Kettle.  Yeah, this is Pot.  Just wondering if you knew you were black?

Really, all he's saying is that maybe...just maybe...all this gassing about how we won't vote for the other candidate if our favorite choice loses may be harmful for the Dems.  

And frankly...as much as I'm frustrated with Clinton right now, I wouldn't link to a site called Bosnialiewatch.com...she's not the enemy (and can you honestly say that obama is yours and that you would prefer mccain...why? b/c of one questionable donor who also supported her?  b/c of things his pastor said?  really?).  If she wins...I VOTE FOR HER!  She's NOT winning (nor is an average 5.5 lead a draw).  If she wins every state from here on in and closes the gap to within, say 30 or 40, fine, she won fair and square (as long as michigan doesn't come into the equation short of a revote)...but if she doesn't and you have progressive leanings and vote for McCain or stay home (i'm sorry but) you're a fool.

Call me crazy, but something about the last 8 years makes me not want to have 4 more of them.


by thurst on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:43:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh man... (none / 0)

World dictator will be on your ass any moment now.


by KTinOhio on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 10:49:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Draw (2.00 / 1)

Your analogy between race and gender is a false analogy.

Whether you or I agree with these arguments the conversation about race and gender have taken place on two different levels.

The race conversation mainly focuses on how race can help Obama with focusing on African American turnout for Obama, "finally" a black president, Obama being articulate especially as a black person ( I'm not saying I believe this).

The conversation on Gender mainly has focused a fight to get a fair portrayal in the media. Defending her against days of coverage about her "cackle" or the blouses she wears. Defending her on whether she's effection enough like a "good woman" while still convincing people she's "strong enough" to be a man.

This is probably a far too intellectual argument to have in the comments section of this blog particularly given the irrational arguments of BOTH Clinton and Obama supporters but simply put the argument is that the evils of racism are a lot more transparent than the evils of sexism.


by world dictator on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:02:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Bullshit (none / 0)

We're talking about one candidate fighting gender bias and another fighting racial bias.  The last time I checked, every U.S. president from George Washington to George W. has been a white male.

And FWIW, Obama's eloquence has won praise from all corners, even among those who have no intention of voting for him.  He's not articulate by "black" standards, he's articulate by any standard you care to apply.


by KTinOhio on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:15:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Draw (none / 0)

Yeah, she's unable to beat McCain in most state polls now, but once he's the incumbent, she'll defeat him handily. PLEASE.


"Hey, check it out. You just had yourself a glue OD. So you're learning another lesson. Don't do too much glue, or your night sucks."
by vcalzone on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 09:04:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Draw (none / 0)

You truly believe in polls, do you? How come President Kerry isn't up for re-election then?


Re-elect the President in 2012
by DemAC on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 09:06:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Draw (none / 0)

Because he lost at a key moment. And because his likability ratings are godawful. Just like Hillary. She'll run again if Obama loses, and she'll probably get the nomination. But she won't win. This was her shot, and she made sure it was by refusing to run in 2004 because she was waiting for this cycle.


"Hey, check it out. You just had yourself a glue OD. So you're learning another lesson. Don't do too much glue, or your night sucks."
by vcalzone on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 09:10:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Draw (none / 0)

You do realize that Kerry's (2004) and Obama's (2008) likeability ratings are roughly about the same, don't you?


Re-elect the President in 2012
by DemAC on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 09:14:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Draw (none / 0)

I don't know if that's true.

But I do know that Clintons are at 37% -- below McCain and Obama.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 09:17:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Draw (none / 0)

The Clintons respect rating is likely 80% if you asked people with a lie detector on and stayed strictly to how the GOVERNMENT functioned under Bill Clinton.

Lots of GOP hate the Clintons because they still have shoe laces coming out their rears from the royal butt kicking Bill layed down on them for 8 years and as long as the history of that 8 years is remebered.

But deep down its fear....Fear of another history making 8 years....fear of the shoelaces...


by DTaylor on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 09:31:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Draw (none / 0)

The GOP beat the Clintons like a drum in the 1990's.  Remember the 1994 elections?  


by Toddwell on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 09:52:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Draw (2.00 / 0)

Ah...there's a super secret poll where people had lie detectors on...who knew?


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 09:55:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Draw (none / 0)

That's not accurate. No one has that a precise number when it comes to approval ratings. You have to look at multiple polls over a period of time to get a grip of the approval rating. If you look at a relatively credible snapshot in time, SUSA for example, all three candidates have basically the same approval rating, McCain's being the (statistically insignificant) lowest though.


Re-elect the President in 2012
by DemAC on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 09:32:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

If ever there was a campaign that was (none / 0)

demonstrably incompetent, it would be Hillary's.  From the complete lack of a plan after Super Tuesday (viz Texas)to the squandering of immense sums on luxury accomodations, donuts and high-priced "talent" such as the incredibly slimy Mark Penn, to the jaw-droppingly idiotic four-time recitation of the Bosnia lying fest, it's all Hillary's fault in the end.  She took a sure nomination and screwed it up six ways from Sunday.  And we're supposed to give her the most powerful position in the world?  I think not.


by ReillyDiefenbach on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:23:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Draw (none / 0)

how about a mccain/clinton or clinton/mccain ticket.

that makes sense


Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.
by lori on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:58:38 PM EST

Re: A Draw (none / 0)

I don't know since Obama has said that his foreign policy would be RWR and GHWB don't you think a McCain / Obama ticket would be more realistic?


"Do you know the difference between a War Story and a Fairy Tale?"
by RedstateLib on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 09:05:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Draw (1.00 / 1)

Obama /Huckabee would make more sense.

Both of them are weird.They complement each other

lol


Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.
by lori on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 09:11:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Draw (none / 0)

I was surprised at how likeable Huckabee was, and how funny.


by mady on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:19:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Draw (none / 0)

Why do you keep repeating this nonsense? As has been explained to you already, Obama was referring to realist foreign policy views, which have been held by every president from Truman to Bill Clinton. HRC is also a realist.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 09:19:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Works For Me (none / 0)

Nobody said they have to be BFFs; they just need to draw as much people as possible.  JFK didn't like LBJ, and FDR hardly ever spoke to Truman.  Obama and Clinton have different strengths and different weaknesses, and they would complement each other.


by Blue Jean on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 09:01:08 PM EST

Re: A Draw (1.66 / 3)

Obama has a pledged delegate lead of 6%. That is not a draw.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 09:01:25 PM EST

Re: A Draw (none / 0)

Only if you don't count all the votes...

If you count Florida and Michigan Hillary is winning pledged delegates.


by DTaylor on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 09:33:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Draw (2.00 / 1)

That's creative... even giving Obama 0 delegates from MI (which in any given compromise isn't going to happen), I don't think that's even accurate.  Obama leads by around 160 pledged delegates.  If you include the "imaginary" MI and FL elections that nets Clinton something like 111 delegates, so Obama still comes out ahead.

Still, when you make stuff up, it's clear that you can shape reality to say whatever you want!


by leshrac55 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 09:41:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Draw (2.00 / 1)

That is a lie.

Hillary 'won' the Florida election (the one where the population understood that the vote wouldn't count and the candidates didn't campaign) by 17 points, times the 185 delegates at stake = 32.

Hillary 'won' the Michigan election by 55 points (the one where Obama wasn't even on the ballot) times the 128 delegates at stake = 71.

Even if we were some kind of banana republic were people voted under gunpoint and therefore we would count both of these as real elections, then Obama still has a pledged delegate lead of 68 delegates--AND still an overall delegate lead including superdelegates.

Of course if we were to do that, what's the fucking point of having a democracy. Why not just make Hillary the monarch? It would make about as much sense as counting votes in an election that wouldn't be certified in the Sudan, much less in the cradle of democracy. The whole world is ashamed of you right now.

Elections matter. Not just when the candidate you like wins, but even when they don't. Elections matter. Rules matter. This is disgraceful behavior.

Think that over.


by Brannon on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:48:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Draw (none / 0)

It is comments like this that really bring down this blog.  A commenter makes a blatantly false statement, with no numbers to back it up (because, of course, if you show the underlying numbers it reveals the statement to be false), and then when others point out the error, the commenter is silent.  Basically just throwing a grenade out there and hoping it makes an impact, then walking away, cowardly not admitting to the factual error.

People on this blog often criticize the "MSM". Clearly, the Mainstream Media is not perfect, but one thing the Mainstream Media has going for it is that it has fact-checkers and editors, who can weed out most blatant mis-statements of fact.

In many ways, blogs have a tremendous advantage relative to the MSM in that they enable a broad range of opinions to be expressed in an open forum.  However, when a blog gets continually soiled by mistatements of fact, it creates so much trash that it obfuscates the true diverse range of opinions expressed.


by Onward Virginia Democrats on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:42:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Draw (none / 0)

One of the problems with that is that the Clintons tend to function as a couple.  I'm not sure it would be any easier to serve as her VP with Bill around than it was for Gore at times with Hillary.  This is not impuning any bad motive to any of this, it's just that they work together that way, they did in his administration and I think they would in hers.  That doesn't leave a huge amount of room for a third party who had competed for the top spot.  

As far as her serving as VP with Obama at the top of the ticket; I just can't imagine that is what she wants.  He is younger.  She would not really ever have a shot at the presidency again.

It just does not seem to make much sense.


by mady on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 09:02:36 PM EST

Re: A Draw (none / 0)

...that's impugning.


by mady on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 09:06:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Not gonna happen. (none / 0)

Hillary wouldn't take the #2 spot, and Obama wouldn't give it to her. But that's likely going to be her only option; close is still second place.

Besides, Hillary would be short-sighted to take a post that is as filled with meaning as the President says it is. She has more leverage for her agenda in the Senate.


"This election is not about ideology, it's about competence." -Michael Dukakis
by MBNYC on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 09:03:16 PM EST

The only chance we have to win (none / 0)

The only chance we have to win is for them to run together.  Too many people saying they won't support the other candidate.


by nascardem on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 09:19:27 PM EST

Once again and again and again (2.00 / 1)

Hillary has said she will support the nominee.  Probably even campaign for him.  The diehards and the fruitcakes won't follow her lead, but they will be a tiny minority by November.


by ReillyDiefenbach on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:27:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Draw (none / 0)

We are seven months from the election. Who thought we'd be where we are seven months ago?

No one can really know who will sit out this election come November.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 09:20:55 PM EST

Re: A Draw (2.00 / 2)

This is more than a little bit silly. Clinton has spent the last year-plus touting her experience, and Obama has spent the last year-plus touting his ability to bring change. You can maybe invert that, and offer experience with a side order of change. But you cannot have someone on the bottom half who clearly feels (and openly states) that she is better qualified to be president, nor a "change" candidate who would be bringing the biggest players of the 90s back into the inner circle. You just can't.

And Hillary/Obama is moot, because (a) those polls aren't tied, and (b) Obama is already leading by so much that a tie is a loss for her. He has for all intents and purposes won the nomination--it's entirely and absolutely a matter of when she lets go.

The joint ticket will not happen--but leave it to MyDD to get the Hillary fans creaming themselves over that possibility once more. This is veering away from "wishful thinking" into "mental illness."


by epenthesis on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 09:32:19 PM EST

Thank you (none / 0)

We try to be civil, but it ain't easy when you're covered with pie.


by ReillyDiefenbach on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:29:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Draw (2.00 / 1)

Full Disclosure: I'm an Obama Supporter who is trying to do his best to be fair and even handed in his assessment (famous last words).

I disagree with your central thesis. It seems to me that the "dream ticket" has several problems:

1. I'm not convinced that either candidate's supporters would be happy with this so-called compromise. It might be a case of splitting the baby in half and no one is happy. I know that if Obama is winning delegates come December I'm not going to be happy with him being anything less than the nominee.

...but more importantly

2. You say the dream ticket compliments each others constituencies. I think that rather than compliment them it by-and-large duplicates them. What states does Clinton give Obama that he wouldn't already win or at least come close to winning. I think once the nominee is decided, there will be time to heal and HRC's base supporters (or BO's supporters) will support the other. Voting for McCain or staying home (ie voting for McCain passively) is ridiculous.

3. (And this is the BO supporter in me) Obama has been critical of HRC's "old style divisive politics" (as he fairly or unfairly characterizes it). It seems contradictory to then add her onto the ticket. Her unfavorables are high so why would he want that baggage to just mullify the pundits, insiders, and most zealous Hillary-or-high-water supporters.

Of course my belief is predicated on the fact that I firmly believe that once the nominee is decided that the loser's supporters will by and large support the Democratic nominee. Yes, I know that maybe swear that they will stay home or vote McCain before voting for BO (or HRC). But I think, as time passes, and the consequences are clear that the Dem base will vote Dem. I think the losing candidate will also advocated HEAVILY for the winner....


by bigdaddy on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 09:32:44 PM EST

Re: A Draw (none / 0)

Obama at the top can't win.

Obama gives Hillary the AA vote and the liberal foot soldiers.

Hillary gives Obama 4 or 8 years experience, exposure to how the Clintons operate in office and support from the moderate wing in 2012 or 2016.  The clintons for all the negatives are the most successful presidential branch in recent history and have a record for supporting the VP.

Believe it or not but if Obama goes it alone and loses his career is OVER.  Too many infractions as candidate and movement to survive 4 years of 2nd guessing and press criticism.  He just doesn't have enough positives going for him other than fresh and new to withstand that.


by DTaylor on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 09:39:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Draw (2.00 / 1)

"Obama at the top can't win"

Based on what? I understand (and hopefully others here do as well) that this is all opinion. But what is this opinion based on? His negatives are no higher than hers. He polls as well or better than she does. He has more financing. He attracts new voters and has strong grass roots support. Look, I'm not even going to argue he's got a better shot than she does, but by what objective criteria do you claim that he can't win (and conversely that she can).

I've read that a bunch on MyDD recently--that he can't win. Why? Its a pretty bold claim and one that seems to be rooted in nothing other than, "I like Hillary better.," which is fine, by the way, but you should at least provide some sort of evidence beyond proof by assertion.


by bigdaddy on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:29:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Draw (none / 0)

It's a good thing that we elect our nominee based on Rasmussen and Gallup national tracking polls.

Oh wait, no... we don't, which is why this isn't actually a draw even if we were to assume that todays' tiny tick back in Clinton's direction was a tick back towards the "mean" of both candidates with equal support.


by leshrac55 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 09:33:47 PM EST

Richardson seems a stronger veep (2.00 / 0)

I don't really see a draw. I don't think Clinton should resign; she does have a path (a valid one, too) to the nomination, hinging on persuading the superdelegates and swinging the Credentials committee in her favor. However, by all metrics Obama is leading and Clinton's chances are a genuine longshot. Yes she can win, but a longshot does not equal a draw.

As far as veep goes, Obama would be a great veep for Hillary, but the reverse is not really true. I think Richardson complements Obama far more effectively, helps make a play for the Latino swing vote, and also is a strategic play in the border states and mountain west. With a Obama Richardson ticket, theres a real possibility of a map-changing election.


by azizhp on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 09:48:20 PM EST

Re: Richardson seems a stronger veep (none / 0)

Agreed, she - and her 58% unapproval rating -  does not help him with right-center Independents.  I like Richardson, I like Sam Nunn, I LOVE Jim Webb.  Or - how does Janet Napolitano sound?  Of the West, female and great on Immigration.  
He needs a bit of blue beard over of his shoulder ... someone that has fought the battles, pragmatic and plays well with others in the sand box.  Jim Webb or Sam Nunn make alot of sense.  

'The only people for me are the mad ones, desirous of everything at the same time, the ones who never yawn or say a commonplace thing ...'
by stryan on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 10:17:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Richardson seems a stronger veep (none / 0)

Richardson was awful during the debate I actually watched live. Maybe he was sick during that one debate and great during the other debates, but, if that one debate was representative, I think he needs to sit down with some coaches and stylists and whatever before he could be viewed as a serious VP contender.


by sclminc on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:31:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Draw (2.00 / 1)

Kathleen Sebelius kansas governor as VP.

She is smart with a good head on her. One huge plus she is not a clinton. But she will also pull alot of women voters from both sides. And she rocks the pantsuits. win win

I know Clinton is perfect.....  yada yada yada

Can anyone here say Clinton is running a perfect race....... or even a pretty good one.............or a kinda ok one.

All I know... Mr dont know what he is doing. Has run a much better ship. Than Mrs 35 years of bringing peace to ireland, Being pro and anti nafta at the same time. All while dodging sniper fire.  


by goalie40 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 10:38:25 PM EST

Re: A Draw (2.00 / 1)

First off, yes, I'd say Clinton has run a good race -- not a perfect one -- but a good one against a formidable opponent with a great deal going for him -- star power, big endorsements, big symbolism, incredible orator, great fund raising.

She, on the other hand, came into the race with ridiculous negatives, the party leadership hating her, dragging a ton of bad baggage and she's no great public speaker.  And yet, with all that, she keeps bouncing back from defeat, hanging in there in the national polls, winning big states by wide margains along the way and her support among more than half the Democrats out there is rock solid.  I'd say she may not have run a pretty campaign, but she is one hell of a campaigner.

I think the majority of Democrats would like to see them run together even as the polarized die-hards on the blogs don't agree.  Bill is a non-issue -- she effectively muzzled him during the later part of her campaign and certainly Obama can control Bill Clinton, especially if he's president or vice-president of the United States.

The diary is calling for BOTH candidates to set aside their egos long enough to look at where we are and where we need to get.  The ticket would be magic and historic, no matter which way it was stacked.  It could go a long way to heal the growing divide and pull the party back together uder one banner.

I wouldn't expect Young Republican trolls and those driven solely by hate for the other side to get that and agree, but anyone truly interested in the health of the party should at least entertain the idea.


Sexism is real.
by grassrootsorganizer on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:29:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Draw (2.00 / 1)

Good post.

I think, however, as I stated previously, that the goal of a VP selection shouldn't be to "unite your base"--it should be to expand your base and, more importantly, win independents, moderates and undecideds. If a large proportion of the Democratic base in HRC's camp decides to stay home, well than that's the ballgame.

But I'm figuring that time will heal most if not all wounds and that 95% of HRC's base will support BO. That means his VP choice needs to expand that base to include moderates, indies, undecideds and maybe even some Republicans. I don't think she nets him any demographic/state/votes that he can't get on his own. Richardson, for instance, could help him with voting segments and states that might otherwise not be in play.

Bottom line, is that whomever wins--BO or HRC,--the Democratic base needs to get over it and support the candidate regardless of the VP choice.


by bigdaddy on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:40:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Draw (none / 0)

I still have to disagree.  

I think the nature of this race requires thinking beyond conventional wisdom.  Obama is already pulling independents and moderate Republicans.  He should already do well in the west.  

where he's weak is in the rust belt and the GE can't be won without Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania, especially if we give up on Florida.  I wouldn't say any one of those three is solid in the fall against McCain.  Obama's "patriotism" is going to damage him badly with the white working class who can easily vote McCain without blinking.  Someone is going to have to "legitimize" Obama for them.  Clinton is the only power out there that can do that.

I think there is a significant slice of the HRC base (not to be confused with supporters on liberal blogs) that can more easily transition to McCain than they can to Obama -- folks who are confused about the war and which way to go with it, who prefer "experience" over "change", who see McCain as a moderate above party politics and can more readily identify with McCain's age and background.  That and the "energized youth" thing and liberal stamp of approval, all mixed up with 527s pounding the "patriotism" angle could cost Obama three must win big blue states that are traditionally closer than most people realize.

Only a big name is going to hold those people -- and it isn't Gore, Carter or Kennedy.  Edwards could help, but our best bet is a Clinton.


Sexism is real.
by grassrootsorganizer on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:11:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama is blackmailing the Super Delegates (none / 0)

Either the Democrats nominate him, someone who can't win because of his lack of experiece and the Wright tapes, or they will lose their most loyal constituency for decades.

Can Obama win the presidency? I believe the answer is yes, but only after he's VP. Even before the Wright fiasco, it was thought that Obama needed more seasoning and experience. After he's VP, he will have that experience and he will not be vulnerable to the unpatriotic attacks that will surely be coming his way this time.

The Wright tapes are so bad it is a deal-breaker for too many people (along with the church's anti-semetic writings). The Republicans have no incentive to take Obama out now. They milk the Wright tapes at a time of their choosing and it will do the trick. Obama is already struggling to win working-class white support and hispanics.

He can win the nomination but he can't win the whitehouse or help his party in the down-ticket races. Check out the current head-to-head polls in the red states Obama has won, he's loosing to McCain by 20-30 points. The man has lost the white vote big-time. Hillary does better in many red states now, even the ones she lost.


by mmorang on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:10:44 PM EST

Re: Obama is blackmailing the Super Delegates (none / 0)

I agree.  Obama's only road to the White House leads through Number One Observatory Circle.


by dwmorris on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:23:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Draw (none / 0)

I completely agree with you, Todd...


by nikkid on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:11:02 PM EST

Give this a rest (none / 0)

Mario Cuomo and the other Clinton supporters should just try to win because the only way that there will be a Clinton on the ticket is if she runs the table.  Not likely but it's the only shot she has.

As for the sore losers remember this; President McCain means 4 more years of death and destruction.

If you want to pray for Hillary 2012 you are putting a lot of other people's children at risk from San Diego to to Tehran.  


Maryland Democrat
by jproctor on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:17:10 PM EST

Re: A Draw (none / 0)

Speaking of close contest . . . does anyone know how often MyDD updates their delegate tallies on the right column??
NO 100 year WAR, NO McConnell run Senate, & NO GOP-led Supreme Court!!!
by Veteran75 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:27:00 PM EST

Re: A Draw (1.00 / 1)

There is NO way that America is ready to elect someone who has done nothing in the Senate, brought no one together for anything, and no one had ever heard of until 2 years ago.  He's too young, too inexperienced, and Rev. Wright and Michelle have made him too scary.  

Obama should have waited until 2016, at least.  He has no experience!  He looks like a goofy kid compared to McCain.  If he gets the nomination, he will go down in flames.  

This should have been an EASY win for us and we're totally blowing it.  When will our party EVER show at least a bit of organization?!  I hate this mess!!!  


by SueBee on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:25:22 AM EST

Re: A Draw (1.00 / 1)

There is NO way that America is ready to elect someone who has done nothing in the Senate, brought no one together for anything, and no one had ever heard of until 2 years ago.  He's too young, too inexperienced, and Rev. Wright and Michelle have made him too scary.  

Obama should have waited until 2016, at least.  He has no experience!  He looks like a goofy kid compared to McCain.  If he gets the nomination, he will go down in flames.  

This should have been an EASY win for us and we're totally blowing it.  When will our party EVER show at least a bit of organization?!  I hate this mess!!!  


by SueBee on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:26:19 AM EST

SueBee Don't hate (none / 0)

He has outsmarted your canidate at every turn and has inspired millions.

Hillary should bow out gracefully but she won't.  No other candidate would be allowed to soak up so much money for intra-party fighting.  

This isn't baseball she is fighting the clock and even though is possible to recover 8 straight onside  kicks she won't.


Maryland Democrat
by jproctor on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:31:14 AM EST

Re: SueBee Don't hate (none / 0)

Maybe the money is the key.

It sounds as if HRC is in debt.

If she stops running, the donations all dry up.

If she keeps running, some donations come in.

Could it be that easing her out of the race might be easier if Obama promised to pay her campaign debts?

Also: it seems to me that HRC herself might graciously bow out -- if she gets to bow out on her own. If I were here, and I saw all of those vitriolic diaries on Daily Kos insisting that I had to bow out, or else the diarists would all collectively hold their breaths till they turned blow, I would keep running just to spite them and make them turn blue. Those diaries are really irritating.

If people back off and leave HRC alone and give her space to think for herself, maybe she'll do whatever turns out to be best for the party as well as for herself.


by sclminc on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:29:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Draw (none / 0)

To me, the huge problem with an Obama/HRC ticket is that neither of them has any military experience or foreign policy.

I think a lot of swing state swing voters (translation: one of my parents) are really Goldwater Communism fighters who have no compelling reason to stick with the Republicans now that the Soviet Union is gone. But these people still care about foreign policy.

Even if Obama and HRC would agree to be running mates, I think they'd be much better off bringing in someone like James Webb, Wesley Clark or someone who has served in Iraq or Afghanistan and can explain what's going wrong there.

Realistically, Obama might be good as an attorney general, and HRC might be good as an attorney general, an HHS secretary, or maybe the secretary of some other department that requires a lot of wonk power.


by sclminc on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:24:42 AM EST

Re: A Draw (none / 0)

Candidates need to refocus on issues.  They both have significant differences on some important issues, health care reform is a good example.

Part of the "draw" effect, IMHO, is a failure of the news media and blogosphere to keep covering issue and policy differences between the candidates. Voters aren't able to draw distinctions between the candidates and too many  assume both candidates will govern the same. That's not the case.

We need much less focus on the horse race and much more on public policy.


by Betsy McCall on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:27:56 AM EST

Re: A Draw (none / 0)

Hillary Clinton has run a good campaign. She was blindsided by the racist accusations from the Obama Camp. That message to blacks stuck. If Obama is the GE candidate, expect to hear alot more about the good Rev. Wright, Ayers, Farrakhan, the radical black power groups on Obama's website. Quite a few of the youth voters weren't around to see the corporate media destroy Al Gore with innuendo and snarky comments that enabled not one, but 2 terms of George Bush. I never would have beleived he would be elected once, much less twice, but there you go. I urge these young people to look up a little history. The media is NOT on your candidate's side as long as there is a "D" beside his/her name. They are all war profiteers.


by glennmcgahee on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 10:32:08 AM EST

Tracking Polls? Tracking Polls?!?!?! (none / 0)

Can someone please point me to a piece of evidence that says that tracking polls mean anything?  Especially when the candidates are essentially statistically tied??? (within the margin of error)?  

I'm a statistician by trade... and the tracking polls just seem to be noise to me.  They're meaningless.  They don't tell you a goddamn thing from one day... or one week!.. to the next.  Where's the proof that they do?    

They are a good conversation piece to have when there's nothing substantive going on in the campaign (ie. actual people going out and voting).   Obama's on vacation right now... probably a good choice given the press environment.  The press love the polls because they have something to talk about and it gives the two sides something to posture over.  If you like the horserace aspect of it then it can even be fun.

To me it's all meaningless.


by wintersnowman on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:28:32 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.