The hatred of Clinton runs deep among the Obama supporters

I'd also like to ask, when are you going to start trying to heal the divide instead of widening it?

Jerome, I assume you put on your asbestos suit as soon as you posted this. :)

the last post?

In any case, you're right about 1 thing.  The top four picks for VP are Sebelius, Richardson, Kaine, and Webb.  (Sorry HRC supporters, it's just not going to happen.)  I'm hoping for Sebelius, and I believe you are wrong.  She will deliver Kansas.  She's an extremely popular governor in an extremely Republican state.

If we were going by demographics or states picked up, it would probably be Richardson or Kaine.  But I don't think that's how Obama will pick his VP.  It will be the person who best fits with, supports, and yet complements and enhances his stances.  I think that will be Sebelius.

I don't even like to imagine an Obama nomination

You should imagine it. Really. And tell us what it looks like.

I think Obama's strategy has always been to seem GOP and try and pull some GOP votes.  That is after all how he beat Hillary with non democratic party member votes.

To that end Bloomberg or Powel are his best bets If he could get them

Looking at his map if he ran with murtha he would cement PA and may get enough carryover to hold Ohio which are his weakest states I think.

Will the popular vote totals from four caucus states (WA, IA, NV, and one I cannot remember) ever be released?  It's still conceivable that Obama could win the popular vote if the popular vote totals from those four states are included in the popular vote calculation, even if you give him zero votes from Michigan.

It's a shame that his team underestimated his own political talents by not agreeing to the revote on Hillary's terms; she would have only been able to beat him by ten points at most.  Agreeing to the revote would have guaranteed him the popular vote win.

Hey Jerome,

You know what?
You're totally full of shit, saying that "the hatred of Clinton runs deep among the Obama supporters".

I know you're one of the big shots on this blog, and go ahead and censor me for my raw language.

But what you said in your last paragraph above is,
in all due respect, total crap, kaka, BS, poopoo, and just not true!

If you're going to be a moderator on a respected, progressive, Democratic blog that hopes to have credibility with intelligent blogers, than please raise the standards of your own comments on the front page, please!

The last polls in Michigan put Clinton and Obama level 42-42. Obama will pay for a new election rather than have them seated according to an election he wasn't even on the ballot on (talk about a disregard for Democracy).

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c ontent/politics/election_20082/2008_pres idential_election/michigan/election_2008 _michigan_democratic_presidential_primar y

Either way. Michigan would be no landslide.

It is not possible for Clinton to overtake Obama in the popular vote. His lead is currently 800,000. She won by 300,000 in Florida, where Obama didn't even campaign and he was registering 35% in national dem polls.

So how on earth can she get 500,000 from West Virginia, Kentucky, and Puerto Rico? It's impossible. How can Mydd make a categorical statement that in August she'll be ahead in the popular vote.

This is raising tensions and threatening to hurt the party on purpose.

Hahahaha.  Way to prove him wrong!

Come on people think of the possibilities! Jerome Armstrong could be Barack Obama Vice President. There is the true dream ticket! You get someone who is as smart as Clinton and can bring a blog full of Clinton supporters to the Table. Why can't we give a blogger the Vice President for Obama? That would be a true Unity ticket. The Blogsphere RULING THE WORLD! Old Media beware!

just reads like concern trolling.

I'm just exhausted with the whole process at this point and want it to be over.

"The hatred of Clinton runs deep among the Obama supporters"

the Obama supporters? I assume you mean some Obama supporters. After all, rightly so generalized "accusations against West Virginians as being racist" are a bannable offence.

"I don't even like to imagine an Obama nomination, but since the numbers are still headed in that direction"
"... especially if, by August, Obama is on the ropes"

Only headed? Obama on the ropes by August? I admire your optimism.

One thing missing from the analysis, if Senator Clinton agreed with  thrust of it, would she accept a VP slot? Would she risk poisoning her own reputation.

I thought this was a race for delegates? Did the rules change?

The two most obvious candidates for VP are Bill Richardson and Wesley Clark.

Personally, while I like Richardson better, Clark is the better choice--he gives you a solid Clinton connection (reaching out to her supporters) and defense cred.

For all of you who may or may not know, AK Gov. Sarah Palin, while a wonderful woman and adequate Gov. of one of the smallest (and most conservative) states in the country, is singularly unqualified for even the most remote VP consideration.  She appeared on the Feb 2008 cover of Alaska magazine with the headline:  America's Hottest Governor.

I saw a post above suggesting Powell. I think that's bad news because of Iraq. The connection, after he spent months hitting Clinton on her vote, would not be good.

Strickland would be a good pick. His nomination would really help Barack in a state that has been on the fence for him in terms of polling. Sebelius is a bit dull to me, and I think some Clinton supporters may take that as a slap in the face, just as I think some Obama supporters would be pissed if Clinton were to win the nomination and pick Ford as her VP. While I don't think I'd be that angry if Sebelius was selected (I actually don't mind her), I think it's best to stray from nominating a female VP for Obama unless it's Hillary, because it will be seen as a "Well, they'll support any woman" type of nomination, even if that's not his motivation. With that being said, I have a thing for women in power, so I wouldn't mind that nomination. It might make KS competitive, but that's real shaky, I think. But her image would fit in well with Barack's image; they compliment each other, so not terrible.

I'd like to see Barack back up his national security cred. Wes Clark would be a good start on that. I've always been a fan of Wes and he would have been my first choice if he decided to run this time around. His campaign in 2004 was lackluster but at the same time, the Obama campaign is amazing at shaping image, so it could work out really well.

With that being said, my Hillary slant still says she'd be the best pick for him, but I can see why that isn't necessarily possible. I will say that it could be much more possible depending on the nature of her departure from the race.

My top 5 goes something like this:

1. Hill
   
2. Clark
   
3. Strickland
   
4. Sebelius
   
5. George Clooney (mmmm...eye candy in the White House...)

"I don't even like to imagine an Obama nomination..."  Jerome Armstrong 5/11/08

"At this point, I'm personally about as detached from whomever wins as I've ever been. If Obama gets the nod, that's fine with me..." Jerome Armstrong 5/7/08

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/7/10541 5/6583

Noted without comment.

Once again, if you persist in counting Michigan's popular votes for Clinton while giving Obama zero, and excluding caucus states that actually had contested elections that followed DNC rules, I can't take your claims that popular vote is a fairer representation of the people seriously.

Any calculation that thinks 328,000 votes for Clinton and 0 votes for Obama is a fair and accurate representation of the will of the people is an exercise in stupidity.  And it is so obvious that no one outside of the fringe Clinton supporters thinks that is a serious count for the superdelegates to decide by.

We use delegates to decide our nominee, giving Obama zero popular votes in Michigan invalidates any claim you have to picking a more accurate indicator of the will of the people.

But whatever.  If you find any superdelegates willing to believe your math just let us know.

I don't even like to imagine an Obama nomination...

Yeah, because your political instincts are lousy (see below)...

I do believe the chatter that the Obama's detest everything about the Clinton's and though its the best ticket...

Hahahaha. Yeah, the best way for Obama to win his most problematic demographic (elderly whites living in rural areas) is for him to place on the ticket one of the most radioactive politicians in America and someone who, despite her recent make-believe, is about as far removed from poor people and rural people as a politician could be (she represent NY, for christsakes!!!). I'm not trying to be rude, but what in God's name, Jerome, is the advantage of Obama putting Hillary on the ticket in lieu of Kaine, Rendell, Edwards, Strickland, Webb, Biden, Clark, etc.?

Kaine, while popular, is no Warner, in VA.

You're right, he's far less wooden. I know Warner has a pretty impressive resume, but I just don't understand the hype -- he lacks charisma.

I doubt either of them would help Obama even compete in VA, which has been pretty much taken off the map recently, with double-digit leads by McCain in the state.

Brilliant. You've decided that we can't win a state that's soon to have two Democratic senators and a Democratic governor based on polling done seven months prior to the election.

That might be a big thing, but other than that, she won't deliver Kansas. Plus, there's something there that the media will binge over the couch-- Obama choosing a older white woman from Kansas, where his now deceased mother is from originally.

?????? With the exception of some sort of demented oedipial narrative, I have no idea where you're going with this.

Obama's only regional strength at the moment, in regards to the '00 and '04 maps, is in the southwest.

You're so full of shit. In addition to the Southwest, the Upper Midwest and the Northwest are both areas of regional strength for Obama at the moment.

The hatred of Clinton runs deep among the Obama supporters...

Hahahahaha. Do you even read some of the things said about Senator Obama here at Clinton central, Jerome? Have you ever ventured onto Hillaryis44, No Quarter, or Taylor Marsh? There are unhinged folks motivated by hatred on both sides of this political divide, but thankfully, they're in the extreme minority. Making blanket statements such as this, however, is a surefire way to establish yourself among the aforementioned fanatics.    

Gov Richardson, from New Mexico. This is the one that makes some sense. Obama's only regional strength at the moment, in regards to the '00 and '04 maps, is in the southwest. NV, NM, and CO. Richardson could help some in those states, theoretically. But this ticket of racial change is going to make those white battleground states of PA and OH even more problematic for Obama.

So white voters in PA and OH would find the addition of a popular governor who served in Clinton's cabinet, was the US representative at the UN, negotiated with North Korea for the Bush administration, etc. a negative as Obama's VP because...?

Obama is eye candy that is for sure!

Obama wins Ohio. He is Mr. President.

Strickland is my top choice. Purely for tactical reasons.
I don't mind Clinton. But she has said nasty things, she has done herself no favours.

Did it ever occur to you that Hillary would never accept the VP spot? You seem to forget the fact that she has been in the white house for 8 years before. I am sure she has much better understanding of the position of VP than most Americans including Sen. Obama. Been there done that.

Today (re: Richardson/Obama):

But this ticket of racial change is going to make those white battleground states of PA and OH even more problematic for Obama.

Yesterday:

I also suggest that you refrain from accusations against West Virginians as being racist, or you'll join the other 6 previous users here, whose offensive comments were deleted on Friday, and that were themselves banned from the site.

So it's okay to claim that PA and OH are racist but not WV?

Are you sure about that?

I don't hate the Clintons.  My county went heavily for Obama but (I was a party insider) most people were undecided between the two candidates until the last minute.

I'm not happy with the way her campaign was run and not happy with the persona that was chosen for her in the campaign.  But not for the reasons you may think.  As someone who loved the Clinton's in the 90's and really thought I would vote for her for president, I saw her chances ruined by those who were advising her.

Really, in the current political climate, with a war that a vast majority of people want out of and a rogue administration that is talking about invading yet another middle eastern country, what consultant in their right mind would decide she should run as a female Rambo?  An exaggeration but you get my drift.

And foregoing a 50-state strategy to go with the one that lost for Kerry was another blunder.  There were assumptions made that she could wrap it up early, which is understandable.  But there appeared to be no Plan B if she didn't.

BTW:  I've been giving the Obama/Clinton ticket some thought this evening and it does have some merit.  Obama is very popular west of the Mississippi and Clinton has some states in the East that she might help him with.

http://www.wikihow.com/Use-Apostrophes

I don't hate Hillary, I feel bad for her.  I was VERY angry with her for a while, but I swore I would vote for her if she won and that was the truth.

As for the VP, I really don't think that Hillary would make a good choice.  The last poll I saw had Obama ahead of McCain 46% to 40% in spite of whatever hurt feelings are out there, and even though McCain has been given a huge pass while Obama has been under fierce attack.  While she may have some appeal with Democrats, her high negatives wouldn't be an asset to Obama in the general election.  His entire presidency would be overshadowed with questions about who was running the show, with attacks on the Clintons by the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, and questions about whether or not she truly supported him.  The one major way in which I think she would be a good VP candidate is that she is completely willing to be the bad gal.  She has no problem attacking or going negative.  This is exactly what we want in a VP candidate (neither Liebermann nor Edwards did this effectively).  Although they may have the right credentials, I don't know whether Richardson or Clark have that talent special talent in them.

Who wrote this? He can't reason or write for shit. I haven't seen so many, extraneous, commas, grammatical errors, apostrophe-less possessives and stylistic missteps since helping my companions with their homework in the 7th grade.

I'm an Obama supporter and I don't have "hatred" for Clinton, let alone "deep running hatred." If Hillary Clinton is the nominee I will support her as fervently as I have supported Obama in the primaries.

That aside, I don't think Clinton would take the V.P. slot if Obama is the Democratic nominee because of her husband. The decision would ultimately be up to her but she would also have to ask Bill how he would feel about it and it would be odd to go from President to the spouse of the Vice President, no? I think Hillary would make a great Vice President, but I don't think it would be great for the Clintons...but I could be wrong.

The more I consider this post the more I think it is a Karl Rove/Bush strategy being employed of divide and conquer. It's intentionally provocative. Hillary's only hope is to have a party bitterly divided and fighting with each other.

I truly believe Obama will make all Democratic supporters very proud as President, and most Obama supporters/surrogates certainly do not hate Hillary. I started out supporting Hillary but after Iowa I felt truly inspired by the possibilities for the country and wider world as a result of Obama. I feel so insulted by how this post diminishes mine and others preference for Obama. But, as I said, I think that is the intent.

until you can say what the popular vote was in Iowa, Maine, Nevada, and Washington.

I hate how Clinton supporters throw in the popular vote including Florida and Michigan so nonchalantly...this is what pisses me off about the Clinton campaign.  I was for her when the campaign started out.  But she pledged to follow the rules.  Then when it suited her, she broke them.  Had Obama and Clinton been allowed to compete in Michigan, I am sure he would have beaten her there...She probably would have won in Florida, certainly by less though.

Nevertheless, this is what pisses Obama supporters off...one of many things, but this is the most egregious.  If the shoe were on the other foot, you guys would be raging and you know it.  Obama played by the and you guys are using that against him.  The better known candidate will always win when no one can campaign.  SO STOP SAYING THAT MICHIGAN AND FLORIDA SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE POPULAR VOTE!  I am not stupid.  I would expect this from the Bush campaign.

The hatred of Clinton runs deep among the Obama supporters

Nonsense, the hatred runs deep from the clinton supporters, so much so that Saturday night live has a great spoof on the current situation.

In fact, Clinton's recent statements on why she thinks she still has a chance at the nomination is  becoming fodder for all late night talk shows.  

1.  The vast majority of Obama supporters do NOT hate the Clintons.  The vast majority of us supported the Clintons through thick and thin.  We just PREFER Obama's message.  As Frank Rich said, 2008 is really a CHANGE election and Obama's narrative fits perfectly with this particular time.  Even Frank Rich noted that if Obama had run 4 years later, it may not have been the right time or the right moment.  It was the "moment" that has chosen the candidate not the other way around.

Hillary's time perhaps may have been 2004.  She perhaps could have won that election over George Bush.

I just want this primary season to be over but I will not partake in any Hillary bashing.  She has won my respect as a fighter for me to do that.  I respect her too much.

2.  Why do you think that Obama will be on the ropes in August?  He may not be actually.  Once we are united we Dems can then go and fight McCain as a united front.  Right now we are not.

3.  In terms of Virginia, I still think that Obama can win that state.  I really think one of the reasons why the majority of these pollsters got Indiana and North Carolina WRONG was they were using the old paradigm of voting to weight their polls.  Again Frank Rich said that the electorate has changed and I feel will NOT be reflected in polls.  We have A LOT of new Democrat voters including a huge surge of African-American and young voters that will again not be reflected in polls.  I think that pollsters may be surprised come November.  

4.  In terms of Vice Presidents:  Kaine is a very popular governor in Virginia.  He has many strengths that will compliment Obama:  Catholic, pro-guns, more conservative, small town guy, and particularly is PRO-OBAMA.  They would really compliment each other.  I think he could help carry the state for Obama.  Again polls in May do not reflect what will happen in November.

5.  Other Vice Presidents that could work is Webb (help bring home Reagan Democrats), Strickland (help with Ohio, rural America, economic voters, help unite the party since Hillary supporter), Sebellius (don't know if America is ready for an African-American and woman on the same ticket.  It may be too much change but Hillary is different since she is already well known), Clark (obvious reasons), and even Hillary.  I don't think that Obama has ruled her out yet despite that STUPID Bob Novak article.

6.  I predict that to deal with Obama's relative lack of experience the Obama campaign will not only role out their VP choice but most likely will role out their cabinet choices as well.  Thus America will know who will be their Secretary of State (my choice is Richardson), Secretary of Defense (my choice is Hagel), etc.

7.  Finally it's time to UNITE the party and put aside NEGATIVITY on BOTH sides.

Every time I read a post by Jerome Armstrong, I think its time to hold an intervention for him.

"The hatred of Clinton runs deep among the Obama supporters..."

I started out supporting Edwards, but when it became clear he would not win, I switched to Clinton. But when it became clear she was willing to destroy the part rather than lose, she lost my support. We need unity to defeat McCain and people like Jerome Armstrong are part of the problem. I have taken MyDD off my daily blog reading list and I hope Mr. Armstrong will snap out of it and start healing the wounds HE has caused. Although since he doesn't recognize the damage he's done, I doubt this will happen.

Perhaps not vs. the GOP, but in terms of uniting party.

First, I'm a Democrat, and will vote for the party's candidate come November.

I'm old enough to remember a dozen presidential elections.  I campaigned and volunteered in most of them.  One of the darkest days in my life was when Nixon won in 1972.  The darkest was when Bush won in 2000, because I knew we would soon be at war with a wrecked economy and a right-wing judiciary.  (I thought the silver lining would be Hillary voting in the Senate on his impeachment, alas...)

Prior to our primary in California, my wife was for Clinton.  I thought she had a slight edge in electability, but voted for Obama because he had the good sense to see in advance what a debacle Iraq would become, and because I was optimistic enough to gamble that either would win in November.  I had no overriding beef with Clinton: her history with the health-care debacle and her votes on Iran made me question her judgement, but some people learn from their mistakes, and if I had thought her chances in November were meaningfully better than Obama's, I would have voted for her.

Now, watching Clinton in action, I've pretty much lost all respect for her, and my wife regrets having voted for her.  We both think she'd be vastly better than McCain, and we would vote for her if she won the nomination, but we would be deeply saddened at the scummy choice.

If (and I think realistically I should say when) Obama becomes the nominee and President, I'll feel really good about an election for the first time in my life.

It would be really nice, just once, to get a candidate worth cheering for that can actually close the deal.

But at any rate, on to November as allies (reluctant or not), and (to stick to the theme of this thread) with the VP that will make winning most likely, be that Clinton, Richardson, or whomever.

I think we all need to remember that this is, in all seriousness, about saving the nation, and fratricide (sororicide?) could cost us that.

Peace (well, except to the neocon scum whom we plan to obliterate, but you know what I mean)...

Wow, just wow.  I don't even know what to say in regards to the OP.  Bashing literally every VP choice except his candidate, saying Obama now has no good shot at a win and saying apparently that only Obama supporters hate Clinton, when if Jermone looked at his own website he would see Clinton supporters have much more hate and vitriol for Obama.  This saddens me.

Hillary Clinton is owed the VP slot? She is the inevitable VP candidate?

Give me a break! The tunnel vision of some of Hillary Clinton's supporters on the blogs is far far not representative of many of the Clinton supporters I know in the reality-based world.  

As for Jerome, I say ignore some of his posts. He's writing in a position of FAILURE in his constant attempts to bring Obama down. He's become a caricature of himself, and no one respects him anymore.

If Hillary is not the VP choice it will have nothing to do with 'hatred' for the Clintons or animosity between the campaigns or any other such nonsense. If Obama calculates that Hillary as VP is his strongest suit in the GE he will quickly put the primary behind and pull out all the stops to make it happen. Both Clinton and Obama are politicians and adults and will do whatever they perceive is in their best interests vis-a-vis their political futures.

It is however not at all a given that Hillary as VP is a good idea. It is a bit simplistic to think that you can just add up the two voting blocks by 'combining' the candidates. As a matter of fact it may be a really rotten idea.

The media always looking for a soap opera angle to avoid having to cover the issues will be focused 24/7 on 'friction' between the camps, can Obama control Bill?, does Michelle dislike Hillary? Do the Clintons resent playing second fiddle. It will make TMZ and the National Enquirer look like serious news. Forget about McCain they can just continue on with the Obama/Clinton media circus. That would be a disaster for the Dems and a bonanza for McCain and it's not soemthing Obama or Clinton will be able to control as the media will just invent conflict even where none exists. Witness Novak claiming Michelle nixed Clinton as VP. It's started already.

In addition to that Obama may wind up inheriting all of Clinton's negatives and few of the positives. For all the talk about the Clinton's being vetted there is a pile of oppo the Republicans have compiled that make Rezko, Wright and Ayers look like pretty thin gruel. For sure Obama may have revisit Wright but does he really want to also be defending his running mate and her husband 24/7?

I expect Obama may go for an old white guy in the political mold of Sen. Casey or Gov. Strickland (though maybe not those specific names) or even an ex-general like Clark or Zinni although Sebelius or Napolitano are very attractive possiblities.

The only things I hate are intolerant people and the Dutch.  As far as Clinton goes, if I never heard from her again I would be happy.  That isn't hate.

Also, the popular vote thing is a joke.  It is all you guys have left so I understand why you cling to it so tightly but please don't expect the rest of us to ignore reality.  The only thing that matters is delegates.  According to the Great Orange Satan, Obama is 160 delegates away from passing the nomination threshold.  I am curious about what arguments the Clinton dead enders will make when that happens.  

Respectfully, or not, it apppears that you are the joke. Is there anyone who has read your post that would believe that your critique of Mr. Armstrong's writing has anything to do with anything other than your support for Senator Obama?  Of course not; so you are exposed as yet another partisan using anything, even grammar, in a futile attempt to toot your own candidate's horn and to ridicule those who don't agree with you.  So, the question is, who are you and why are you here?  There are myriad blogs, dozens, nay hundreds, where the daily fare is hate Hillary, hate her with passion, where you can dwell with like-minded spellers.  Go in good health.

Bill Richardson is a poor choice because he could not even fend off the challenges from James Carville, who succeeded in making Richardson's endorsement of Obama a joke or worse.  Richardson clumsily took the bait and got into the sandbox with Carville and Carville made him look like a court jester lacking loyalty.  His presence on the ticket would be a punch in the gut to many of us who have and still support Hillary Clinton but who are committed to supporting the Democratic nominee.  I think Governor Richardson needs to grow his beard and reflect a bit.  He would be a lousy, sort of clownish type of candidate at this point.

"I don't even like to imagine an Obama nomination,"

I mean, what has Barack Obama done to you to warrant this level of toxicity?

Jerome,

I haven't known for awhile why you insist on having every single one of your posts help to frame the "Obama is a weak candidate" frame, when even you have admitted that since Ohio he had the largest chance to get the nomination.  Of course, as a blogger, you can post whatever you want to, but this website isn't meant to be a politico-like site that merely watches the election, but a site to boost the Democrats chances of winning.  Even if you're distressed at the possibility of Obama as the nominee, you have to make due with the thin gruel you're offered.

So, while you're still being dismissive and framing absolutely everything in a negative light for Obama, I'm glad you're beginning to offer some constructive criticism for Obama.  I hope that as the months roll on you'll offer more advice to how the Obama campaign can retool rather than just document what you believe will be its ultimate demise.  

Seriously, this smacks of Cheney's VP task force.

And really, Jerome:  I am so damn sick of the meme that whites will only vote for Clinton.

This is is concern trolling.  I expect better of you, though I don't know why.

No way will Hillary be on the ticket.  Her white workers line did it in for her.  Even SNL see the writing on the wall.

Jerome, what's so objectionable about Obama getting the nomination?

From early in the process I thought Obama was the natural pick for VP for any Dem nominee b/c he's not offensive to any major Dem constituency.

Obama, and his campaign team, have been able to fuse energizing volunteers and contributors in record numbers while staying inoffensive (except to HRC partisans).

Isn't this the textbook definition of running a deft campaign?

I don't get the people who have such intense dislike of Obama. Almost all the people criticizing Obama had no beef with him until he stood between HRC and the nomination.

Jerome, when did your objections to Obama start? And when did they harden? Was it about the time when MyDD became a refuge for the "striking" HRC supporters from the Orange Satan?

Evan Bayh. He solidifies Ohio and Pennsylvania because he has the backing of the Unions.  He is a Clinton loyalist who knows how to unite the party.  Obama is going to carry the coasts anyway.  Bayh helps in the Midwest and as an ex governor can address the economy.

...this primary season, I suggest one take this diary with a few million grains of salt.

"The hatred of Clinton runs deep among the Obama supporters"

Hillary Clinton has been extremely irritating to me.  When Paul Begala goes on CNN and calls me an egghead (which I am not) its offensive.  I do not drive a Volvo either, I drink my coffee black with no sugar or cream, I do not drink lattes, my bowling score is higher than McCain, Clinton and Obama combined.  My version of gun control is squeeze the trigger, don't jerk it.  I am a white male and I work for a living (who doesn't?).  So kiss my ass Hillary and stop pissing all over me.  I was ok with Hillary, not highly opposed to her, but not any more, she has really gone out of her way to make me mad at her.  Since South Carolina she has been doing stuff I don't like, and it has been getting worse and worse.

As for Hillary being the VP, the problem isn't Hillary, the problem is Bill.  Bill will NEVER step off the stage if Hillary is the VP.  He will be a loose cannon and will disagree with administration policy all the time and would potentially undercut an Obama administration.  I think Obama/Hillary would be ok in the interest of unity (not great, would rather see Edwards, Webb or someone like that) but Bill Clinton really screws that up.  At this point, the only way there could be a Hillary VP is if Bill agreed to shut the hell up for 8 years.  Fat chance of that happening, and even if he did agree he can't control himself, so there is no point in even going there.

I don't want to see Clinton as VP because it's another example of an experienced, savvy woman training the younger guy who gets the promotion over the woman who trained him.

Having been through that crap myself, the scenario makes me sick.

My favorite choice for VP is Richardson.

In general, VP choices do not make a big difference, except in the same way that endorsements do: they reinforce the message or shore up message deficiencies.  These effects are not regional.  For example, Kennedy endorsing Obama had a lot of value in convincing people that it was okay for true liberals to support him, something that had been somewhat in question.  This made a lot more difference outside of Massachusetts, where Kennedy is more of a symbol of liberalism, than in Massachusetts, where Kennedy is more of an actual person rather than a symbolic concept.

Now, Richardson is one of the rare exceptions: New Mexico has been so ridiculously close in the last two elections that someone who can sway even a few thousand votes can make a big difference, and being a very popular current Governor, he can actually probably net tens of thousands by campaigning there (that doesn't apply to Senators, and usually doesn't apply to past Governors, but very popular current Governors can net real votes).

In addition to that small bump in electoral votes, Richardson has some real value on the message front: Despite Obama's significant and successful legislative experience as well as his varied other sorts of experience, he chose to run on a Hope message and downplayed all of that, while Clinton ran on an "experience" message and attacked him on that front.  As a result, popular perception is that he's "not experienced".  It's meaningless, and false, but it affects voters' choices.  The mere addition of a Governor to the ticket blunts that somewhat.  When that Governor happens to have the insane amount of real, successful foreign policy experience that Richardson has, it blunts it by a lot.  So Richardson would shore up Obama's primary weakness more than anyone else (it's like combining Clinton + Wesley Clark + a Governor, for perception of experience).

DICK GEPHARDT. DICK GEPHARDT. DICK GEPHARDT!

1. He is older but not too old at 66.

2. He is from Midwest Missouri and is popular and prominent enough to possibly put that state in play in his own right.
   
3. Gephardt is probably the most qualified person who could be President than any of these people that ran.
   
4. He is popular with working glass whites and older style Democrats (not just older in age but older in philosophy hence Clinton's voters).
   
5. He brings an older more established and parental attitude to the ticket same idea that was used with Dick Cheney in 2000.
   
6. Probably the most important thing is that he captures Hillary's strengths without inheriting her & Bill Clinton's baggage.

Other choices:

TED STRICKLAND (brings in Ohio)
ED RENDELL (brings in PA)
KATHLEEN SEBELIUS (white woman from Kansas where his mother is from)
BILL RICHARDSON (unites the two major minority groups in the US with Latinos being the swing group)

Really I think if Obama chose Dick Gephardt it would just wipe out the entire argument that Clinton's supports could have as Gephardt is the Holy Spirit of the working class element of the Democratic party. Voters vote for the top of the ticket first so Gephardt being "old school" would be less of an issue than Hillary's baggage itself.

Clinton makes no sense at all. She has extremely high negatives and no candidate inspires the GOP and republicans in general more than Hillary. If you want to see conservatives, centrist republicans and independents flock to McCain, than put Hillary on the ticket. Further I dont believe that Obama, nro his wife trusts or likes the Clintons at all. Her inclusion on the ticket is completely nonsensical.

What does makes sense is a VP candidate who has very good foreign policy and executive experience. The most obvious candidate is Richardson...

No U.  Just stop.  No one hates Clinton.  Clinton's supporter's are the ones that will not vote for Obama.  Just stop.  You embarass yourself.  Ban my account if you want.  I am done with MyDD.  

One thing to remember about Clinton's poll numbers is that right now Obama is being attacked by both Clinton's supporters and the Republicans.  At the same time, Clinton is pretty much being left alone, at least by the right.  So it's not surprising that she has decent poll numbers.  What would happen when the Republicans turn her sights to her (not to mention the anger of the Democrats over what it would take to get her the nomination), well that's a different story.

This site, and Jerome Armstrong, are pathetic!  

She lost.  Either grow up, or go post on Red State!

But this ticket of racial change is going to make those white battleground states of PA and OH even more problematic for Obama.

Ummm... why? You yourself have said there's no racism in Appalachia. So if it's not racism, why would those "white battlegrounds" have a problem with a black/brown ticket?

Here's what I don't understand.  You rail on Obama supporters for hating Clinton, but your very first sentence you state "I don't even like to imagine an Obama nomination".

Listen pal.  I'm a American first, a Democrat second and an Obama supporter third.  If Obama wasn't in the lead, I'd be happy to vote for Clinton.

In the regards to the VP choice, I think Richardson makes sense.

makes me think Markos wrote your  book. It's really inconsistent with Crashing the Gate. Why should anyone take you seriously?

And the shark has been jumped.

"At this point, I'm personally about as detached from whomever wins as I've ever been." - Jerome, a week ago

"I don't even like to imagine an Obama nomination" - Jerome, today

I don't see what Hillary brings to the ticket except baggage. The biggest foreign policy decision of her career (the war) was wrong. The biggest domestic issue she dealt with was her health care attempt, which failed becasue she wasn't strong enough to take on the health care lobby.

Let's face it, the three front runners for the Democratic nomination are all untested and not one had a particularily long list of accomplishments. (no, you can't claim credit for your husbands work, and no, catching the glancing blows from a smear attack on your husband does not count as being tested)

Also, the Clinton brand name isn't what it was, even on the economy. A lot of people remember that the huge wave of outsourcing started during the Clinton years, not to mention NAFTA.

Please give a concrete example of something major that Hillary has led and succeeded on(Hillary, not Bill - we're not voting for best groupy). It seems to me the  biggest argument for making Hillary VP is that if she's not, her supporters will take their ball and go home.

Of course, my opinion probably doesn't matter. I'm from Wisconsin, and that's apparently not a state that Democrats need to win in November.

I've got a few thoughts, if its a GE composed of Obama vs McCain.

What if the SECOND part of this matchup doesn't materialize?

If McCain keeps displaying his complete unsuitability for the Presidency and his extreme deficiencies as a candidate, the Republicans will begin to notice. In fact, I bet they already have.

If they decide to push Johnny overboard, I think almost anyone else they choose will beat Obama. At which point Obama's supporters will blame the Clintons.

Again.

At least this post begins with some acknolegement of the political realities of the democratic race, so thanks for that. I am still amazed that you, Jerome, could feel so embittered by an Obama nomination, but that's neither here nor there in terms of your analysis. I think there is too much water under the bridge here to reconcile to the degree needed to form a unity ticket. And the presence of Bill Clinton makes it that much harder for Obama to establish himself. So I just don't think this is a realistic option.

That said, there needs to be some serious diplomacy between the two camps and a clear plan for how Clinton's accomplishments in the race are honored, so that she can be a plausible advocate for him, and her supporters can feel that there standard-bearer is given the respect she deserves. What form this diplomacy takes is anyone's guess, but hopefully smart people are working on this right now.

she wants to be governor of texas and is already gearing up for a run. rule her out.

I would be immensely dissapointed if Hillary agree to run as Obama's VP.  First of all, I doubt he would want her but if he asks, I pray to God she declines.

I want Hillary to run again in the future and she does NOT need to be attached to Obama's loss in the general election.

And lose he will.  The millions of Hillary supporters who will stay home or vote McCain if Obama is the nominee, are not going to change their minds.  Some of them will, but most of them won't.  Obama trashed Bill Clinton's record, even his economic record, and for that there will be no forgiveness.

Circular argument there. You want Hillary not to be attached to a loss, a loss which will happen because you love Hillary so very much that you won't vote for Obama even if she asks you to do so, even if Hillary herself is on the ticket.

"Obama trashed Bill Clinton's record, even his economic record, and for that there will be no forgiveness."

The amusing thing is that even with statements like these, it's Obama supporters that are accused of being cultish.

He disagreed with the Clintons' policies and for that he needs to request "forgiveness"? What does "forgiveness" have to do with Obama's views on Clinton's financial record?

Disagreement isn't something to "forgive" or "not forgive" in a democracy, it's something you accept.

"....  But this ticket of racial change is going to make those white battleground states of PA and OH even more problematic for Obama."

Um, weren't various Obama strawmen warned yesterday about discussing the racial politics of West Virginia?

I don't even like to imagine an Obama nomination.

followed by.....

The hatred of Clinton runs deep among the Obama supporters.

no to richardson. No way .no how. no nothing

I think McCain will pick Romney as his running mate. McCain knows the economy is his weak point so he will pick a VP who can help. Romney has enough business experience and govenor experience that some voters (dissatisfied republicans, indies, swing voters) will see Romney as a plus when it comes to the economy. While I do not think MA will be competitive with Romney on the ticket, I think it will help in heavily Mormon populated states like Colorado and Nevada. My guess is with Romeny on the ticket, CO will stay red and Obama can write off the state.

Jerome,

I like you and all, but No.  She doesn't take the lead in the popular vote except in the minds of a deluded few.  NO ONE except those fews are counting the Michigan Pop vote.  If one does, then you at the VERY LEAST have to give Obama either the undecided vote OR using polls, extrapolate what percentage he would get.  Doing this, proves she ISN'T THE POPULAR VOTE LEADER AND NEVER WILL BE.  Further more, since accurate numbers from caucuses don't exist it makes that statement an impossibility.

If Hillary would have dropped out a couple of months ago when it was pretty clearly over then she would have been a great choice for VP.  As a former Hillary supporter and current Obama supporter I don't begrudge her for it, but there've probably been too many negative attacks from her to be 2nd on the ticket at this point.  

The stuff about not liking to even imagine an Obama nomination is petty and misguided.  How about this instead:  I don't even want to imagine a McCain presidency.  Let's hear everyone say it.  

For the record I live in WV and I don't know a single Obama supporter who "hates" Hillary.  To make this broad generalization is again small and misinformed (and counterproductive to beating McCain).  

If caucus states had thought that the metric that would be used was going to be popular vote, they would have held primaries.

This is just another case of redoing the rules that everyone agreed with.

The Clinton campaign could have used a great staffer like Jeff Berman -- If you have time for only one thing to read today, read this piece on Obama's director of delegate selection: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/050 8/10249.html

"....  But this ticket of racial change is going to make those white battleground states of PA and OH even more problematic for Obama."

"Um, weren't various Obama strawmen warned yesterday about discussing the racial politics of West Virginia?"

It's OK to say, "Obama has a problem with some Euro Americans."

It's not OK to say, " Some Euro Americans have a problem with Obama."

Which I find especially curious since Obama himself is a Euro African American.

This is the best blog on the net!  I agree with poster who suggested Sam Nunn as VP. True, he's bland and conservative. Nunn has a wealth of knowledge about military/foreign matters and won't be "in your face" the way someone like Biden would. Nunn would fade into the work and wouldn't outshine Obama. He also doesn't have further aspirations and might well help carry GA, but I don't think it will be any kind of carry over into other states. He's kind of like the quiet secretary who is loyal, efficient, and saves his incompetent boss's rear end.

I can't stand Obama and will not vote for him, but I still think the Obama - Nunn ticket is the most practical.
'

"I can't stand Obama and will not vote for him."

hatred of clinton. project, much?

it's really off the table.  She and her court have declared "No Unity Party for You."

We're going to have to face the fact that this is the attitude of the current Democratic party leadership and too many superdelegates.  They don't listen to anyone (except maybe the media).  They are strongly afflicted with beltway madness and they are so full of themselves that they don't realize they were tasked with getting us out of Iraq, reversing the economic disasters and holding the Bush admin. & Co. accountable.  They don't realize that people meant it when they sent that message and they're not going to wait forever before they throw them over too.  They don't realize that they weren't elected because people thought they were wonderful but instead because they had little choice.  Worst of all, they don't realize that they really could lose the election in November.

They won't realize what happened until six months after the election is over and we've lost. And even then, they won't realize that it's their own fault and they could have seen it coming if they had listened.  Instead, they'll blame it on Clinton.

Great post as usual Jerome.

I can tell you have not drank the kool aid and tell it like it is.

Clinton will unite the party and would have to train Obama.

It is a common sense ticket but the Dems never use common sense.

There is NO WAY Obama wins the general without putting Hillary on the ticket.  Jerome is right Hillary WILL have the popular vote after Puerto Rico (if MI and FL or included) and Hillary's appeal brings the 16 million voters who have supported her in the primary to the ticket.  The other possible VP's honestly can't deliver a state for Obama.  Strickland in my opinion could NOT deliver OH for him.  OH will go DEM if the economy continues to tank. HRC will be the V.P. Great post Jerome.

I don't think Obama has any good choices out there, except maybe republicans like Colin Powell or Chuck Hagel.

If he is the nominee, he will start with a deficit of states because he's alienated people in them.  So he's going to have to make it up somehow, bring in more people to vote for him because many dems will not.

The only way he makes up the vote difference, and gets those red states that he wants, is by choosing a republican.  He's basically indicated that all along, being the "post partisan" candidate he claims he is.

He would only choose Clinton if he was forced too. Michelle hates Hillary even more than most.  That said, I don't want Clinton to accept a VP with Obama.  Why? (1) I don't think obama deserves her, (2) if obama loses he will blame it on her, (3)he'd actually have to apologize to her for calling her a racist.  Obama has too much pride to do that.

I would expect you to be above the fray on this Jerome. Your intro sounded like a bitter 8th grader that lost the science fair.

I think you got the memo that Obama is a Democrat, and that it is OK to use MyDD in a positive way to support him . . . instead of throwing gasoline on our party.

I know it must be painful to watch your candidate leave the race.  If it were the other way around, I would be devistated.

That is why, as an Obama supporter, I really don't mind alot of the comments around here.  People need time to heal, and that probably starts with some venting.

However, Jerome is different.  You are the leader on this site that many users look to for cues.  When you post unecessarily hurtful things about Obama on the mainpage, it only fans the flames we will all have to put out together over the next few months.

Unlike ordinary commentators on this site, you need to rise above your personal emotions and act like a leader.  I'm not saying jump full force on the Obama bandwagon while Hillary is stil out there campaigning, but the negative comments about Obama are an abdication of your responsibility to the party.

"Clinton will unite the party and would have to train Obama."

Clinton couldn't even put together a winning campaign when she had every conceivable advantage. So what could she train him to do except to lose?

And by what we're hearing from Clinton and her operatives, they would actually be a drag on Obama's ticket rather than a plus.

On This Week this morning someone suggested Gen. Jim Jones as a VP pick. I didn't know much about him but looked up his bio link here. He sounds like a great pick.

Obama's campaign has done a masterful job at everything so far; so I expect the same from them when it comes to picking the best VP for him from among many good choices.

jerome, my fears of mob rule have now been fully realized.  reading the comments here is overwhelming; i feel like there's no longer any place for me here as a clinton supporter.  you can't even get a word in edgewise because the obama trolls have COMPLETELY overrun this place.  as lambert puts it:  "It's like the whole country is turning into a giant caucus, isn't it?"

http://www.correntewire.com/some_people_ think_its_all_good

It's difficult, if not impossible, to analyze and intelligently respond to the type of posts Jerome has been making as of late... "delusional" would no be a hyperbolic descriptive.  

Jerome, take some time and get a grip.  Your sense of this massive hatred of everything Hillary emanating from Obama supporters is strangely ignorant and smacks of pure propaganda.  Sure, you may find some anecdotal evidence to support your claims, but it's no where close to being there as a general dynamic.

It was to be expected that as Obama wrapped up the nomination many Hillary fans would either wander off or switch to him.

That explains why Obama's fans seem to be dominant on this blog lately.

I actually look forward to the very near time when we can all ignore the Clintons.

I see detached lasted four seconds and now we're back to denial.  

Good Lord - You really have to try to be this stupid.

First of all, Jerome, delegates decide the nomination
(remember when Hillary used to agree with that?).  There's no way she can catch Obama, even with MI and FL.  Therefore, he wins.

Second, she won't even catch him in the popular vote, even counting MI and FL (remember when Hillary used to say they broke the rules and shouldn't count?).

Third, Hillary does nothing for him as VP, certainly nothing that another candidate won't do.  Webb, Richardson and Sebelius would all be excellent picks, whether because of the woman factor, the Latino factor, foreign policy experience or bringing a state.

Seriously, some objectivity from you would be nice for a change.

where Mccain has a double digit lead on Obama.  Once again, very astute and unbiased reading of the polls.

Viriginia will be fought for this fall.  With Warner running for Senate and Webb, Clark or Kaine as real possibilities for VP, Obama will make Virginia competitive.

I'm an Obama supporter. I do not "hate" Hillary Clinton, despite the assertions of Mr. Armstrong that this is a primary characteristic of Obama supporters. (He's finding his pre-determined conclusion by reading nasty stuff posted on blogs, and concluding that this nastiness is universal.) I simply concluded a few months ago (post Super Tuesday) that I preferred Obama to Clinton. Developments since then have cemented my preference. Sorry to disrupt your tidy "hatred" narrative. Mr. Armstrong.

Armstrong: I do believe the chatter that the Obama's detest everything about the Clinton's and though its the best ticket, it won't happen unless its forced upon Obama by the SD's.

"Chatter" is certainly an appropriate description. I would add the qualifiers "self-referential" and "self-validating". But since you've chosen the word "detest" to characterize the way that Obama allegedly feels about Clinton, please tell us what word you would use to describe Clinton's feelings about "Obama". "Respect"?? Consider me skeptical about that....

As for polls: Those taken now are clearly infallible, as they always are. You will recall, for example, the way that Bill Clinton was #3, behind both Bush Sr. and Perot, at this time in 1992. You will also recall the way that Bush Sr. crushed Clinton in the general election.

Reading these recent posts, it seems clear that Jerome  probably realizes that his 15 minutes of being taken seriously in the Democratic party are about to expire.  So it appears that he is trying to re-frame himself as an amateur-hour version of Ann Coulter -- someone who tries to get attention, and make money, by making the most outrageous out-of-the-ballpark assertions that he can.  Because attention leads to web hits, or book sales, or whatever.  

And, in the short term, he is being successful in this measure -- a lot of people stop to read this blog to see the latest ludicrous statement Jerome is making, followed by the inevitable demolishing of his arguments by writers actually basing their comments on the facts.  It's the same phenomenon as  as a lot of people who stop to look at a car crash.  I expect that he will not be very successful in this regard after Hillary is out of the race -- a "pundit" who is both anti-Obama and anti-McCain really will have a dimishing audience in the general election.  

Jerome, like most Clinton supporters whose posts I read on various blogs, is just upset that he gambled on the wrong horse and lost. Tis the season for bitter recriminations in Camp Clinton.

Jerome betrayed us and our cause because Hillary was promising him influence. Now Hillary can't deliver anything to anyone.

So here we are "crashing the gate" with Obama and there Jerome is whining about why Obama and his hateful supporters should put Hillary on the ticket for if he doesn't they, the virtuous Clintonites, will withhold their support for him in the fall.

Politics by blackmail. The beginnings of a beautiful partnership.

How the mighty have fallen Jerome.

Wesley Clark. He has a virtue of a pro Clinton background as well has a lot of national security cred. I listened to Sibelius in a Democratic radio reply and she was a serious dud. If he were to reach across the aisle, I think maybe Chuck Hagel would be a better choice than Powell.

The hatred of Clinton runs deep among the Obama supporters,

What utter nonsense! There is no hatred of Clinton among Obama supporters. I would drink battery acid before I voted against Hillary in the general election.

There is anger towards Hillary because she's run such a negative, divisive, dumbass campaign and continues to do so even now. Anger is what you feel towards someone you love when they let you down.

The actual "hatred" here is towards Obama. Much of it is fraudulently generated by gleeful trolls, but a lot of it is real. And he's hated at mydd not because he's black, but because he's not female. At mydd, Obama is a victim of sexism.

But wake up people - breaking down the race and gender barriers is an amazing and exciting development, but equal rights for blacks and women won't mean much if all the rights guaranteed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights are negated by a third Bush term.

That's what's at stake here - don't take your eyes off the ball. That's the goal of the trolls here (and there are many more than you think - trust me on this - mydd has more trolls and much cleverer trolls than any other site on the net. We're all being made fools of - Obama and Hillary supporters alike.)

It's frustrating that your post regarding potential Obama vp picks is laced with snarky comments which are then coupled with references to the anger of Obama supporters.

Drop the tone and focus on the issues.

before discussing her vice president?

Hillary would be an utter disaster as a VP pick for Obama:

1) She completely invalidates his promise to bring change to the way things are done in Washington. She has well known ties to big money lobbyists, and is the epitome of the status quo establishment among Dems.

2) She is a turnoff for the moderates that Obama seeks to atract to the party. There are millions of voters (my mother among them) who like Obama but would never vote for a ticket with Hillary on it.

3) It would be a massive distraction. Not only would  they have to deal with Hillary talking out of school, they'd also have Bill's oversized ego and mouth to keep in check. Good luck with that.

BTW: Your argument against Sebelius is ridiculous. So what is she's an older white woman from Kansas like his Mom? She would help with the female vote, she has a history of attracting moderates to the Democratic Party, and she would reinforce his message of change. She may not win Kansas, but I'm sure she'd help in Missouri and Iowa.