If Obama is the nominee, Hillary people will be angry (at least 30% claim they wouldn't support him in the general, but that's just people being mad right now). If Hillary is the nominee, Obama people will be angry. It could honestly get violent from the way that especially the Obama people have been acting in recent days toward Hillary and her supporters. I mean, talk about evil...just go to DailyKos and read some of the diaries written by Obama supporters about her. They're so immature and freaky...all of them are threatening to vote for McCain when they know he follows the Republican party line 90% of the time! People are being ridiculous right now because we're in a heated contest, but this doesn't even compare to 1960 or 1980, at least yet. The Kennedys and the Johnsons HATED each others' guts and wouldn't even talk to each other. Bobby even had the gall to challenge Johnson as a sitting president in 1968. Then, Teddy Kennedy challenged ANOTHER sitting president, Carter, in 1980, and seriously divided the party. I mean, come on...you don't challenge a sitting president when you know that doing so will ensure you lose the election! We're not talking about that. Right now, half of the party likes Obama and half likes Hillary, and neither has been able to really break that halfway mark seriously at any point during the campaign. Right now, as ironic as it is, Hillary is retaking 4-5 point leads in the national tracking polls (which shows you what could have happened if her campaign had competed seriously and not been stupid in the caucus/post Feb 5th states) and is pulling closer in places like NC and IN. Neither candidate will have a majority by the time of the convention, so Obama people, stop calling for a candidate who has 48 percent of the delegates to drop out when you can't put her away! Talk about arrogance...

The only thing we can do, and must do to save the party, is form not the "dream," but the "unity" ticket. Obama supporters have to put aside their Clinton hatred and arrogance about pulling in first-time voters for a second and realize that Hillary not only has almost as many delegates/votes as Obama, she's winning the traditional base, the fastest-growing minority group (Latinos) by a big margin, and is pulling in her fair share of Republicans and Independents too. Sure, Obama's winning there, but it's only 60-40...yes, 40 percent of the independents who are voting are going for her, not like 2 percent as it might seem by what you watch on TV. If you put the two together, in either order (although Obama should be on the top based on the fact that he'll probably lead in delegates by the convention), it would piss off each others' supporters for about 2 weeks, and then everyone would realize who the real target is: McCain. Running as more of a co-presidential ticket than a traditional Pres-VP, Hillary would help shore up the base and could deliver or ensure states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey where McCain could be competitive with blue-collar workers. She could also pull in Arkansas and make him more competitive in places like Virginia, Texas, and New Mexico. Obama, with the African-American support and all the young voters going for him, would not only lock up all the Kerry states but could take Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nevada, Colorado, and maybe even one of the Carolinas. We'd be looking at 350 electoral votes, an 8-10 point win in the general, and 16 years of Democratic presidents if things went well. With the combined fundraising power and the tenacity of Hillary, who as a VP candidate, would be an incredible go-getter attack dog, the entire party would at least be excited about one part of the ticket and would work enthusiastically for it. Sure, people would grumble, but it would be ok because both of them would "get their chance..." Hillary would become the presumptive nominee in 2016 if she didn't suck as VP and chose to run again, which she might not (although I kind of doubt that). Obama could use Bill Clinton as an ambassador to the world without any hard feelings, right alongside Jimmy Carter and Al Gore. The entire party would be working together. Sure, it wouldn't be exactly what Obama wants (change, opposed to the war) or what Hillary wants (experience, fully-covered healthcare plan) but it would be a GREAT COMPROMISE to save the party, with Obama coming out slightly on top just as the results of the voting show. It could break two barriers at once and would put all the resources behind the ticket.

Imagine how unmotivated the supporters of each of the candidates would be if their candidate wasn't on the ticket. Think how Obama people would feel if Hillary got it...you would hold your nose and vote for her simply because you think she'd be better than McCain, more than likely. Believe me, many Hillary supporters feel the same way about Obama. It certainly wouldn't help Obama's whole "change" thing by having a purely change ticket, but it would signal a change: a policy of working together, despite our differences. As I've said before, if Obama truly wants to become post-partisan, and has all this hope and kindness, he should have the maturity to say "Ok, I won, but she almost won too, so why can't we do it together?" As his first step in attempting to unite the country, he reaches out to unite the party, and we go TOGETHER into November, not leaving anyone out. What better symbolism could there be? None, in my book.

Here's what people are saying about it right now:

http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stump er/archive/2008/03/05/an-obama-clinton-t icket.aspx

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnews/20080229/ ts_usnews/obamaclintonticketdrawsmoreint erest;_ylt=AsC4.2nJvvo8oDP1Xdl82DC63q8F

http://thecurrent.theatlantic.com/archiv es/2008/03/the-case-for-obamaclinton-08. php

"Consider the unheralded virtues of an Obama-Clinton ticket. First, politics. Both durable, distinct factions of the Democratic party -- united, and working at full throttle. McCain's national-security edge -- blunted overnight. Obama's domestic-policy edge -- sharpened instantly. Ohio, Michigan, Florida, New Mexico -- suddenly, much less a worry for Democrats.
Now, governing. Obama, by the admissible evidence of his own career, is not an executive. A Vice President Clinton would be a prime minister, tending to Congress and health care reform and trade agreements while Obama travels and inspires and thinks. She would tarnish none of Obama's luster; the qualities he embodies -- that make him so attractive to Democrats here and, well, in the rest of the world -- would be undiminished by the brass-balls first minister he chooses to get things done.

And then there is the personal. Would Clinton survive the humiliation? Could Bill be contained? Is Obama humble enough? The reality is that Clinton has earned something. Her millions of votes, the states she has won, the demographics she commands -- Obama can't dismiss these. At some point, he will make a gesture. Why not the ultimate gesture?"

Why not? Can we do it? Can we win, together? Can we ensure we have a chance to unite the country by achieving unity with ourselves first, fairly with Obama at the top, but not discounting the incredible run that Hillary has had and the millions of new people SHE has brought into the process? Can we satisfy not me, who would be that disappointed, almost crushed Hillary supporter who wouldn't be extremely excited about Obama, but the same Obama supporter who wouldn't vote for Hillary as president in a million years?

Yes, we can. Yes, THEY will. At least, I hope so.