If people are worried about Obama being swiftboated, they should hear the clips from his town hall today.  He's been impressive, showing the emotion that he sometimes seems to suppress too much.

He kept linking George Bush and John McCain over and over again.  "If George Bush and John McCain want to have a debate on protecting America, that's a debate I'll be glad to have happen."  "Our Iran policy is a complete failure...  I'm running to change course, not continue George Bush's course"

Moreover, he's on top of things.  He pointed out the McCain Hammas video that's been making the rounds on blogs.  He mocked McCain's 2013 ad, pointing out that McCain pointed to goals but didn't say how any of them were happening.

It was great.  It's going to be fun to watch over the next few months.  

Like most of you, my reaction to the ending of the same sex marriage ban was mixed.  Most of me was excited than an obvious case of discrimination was struck down.  A small part of me was still worried about November.  We've already seen the God and guns; here comes the gay issue.

Of course, even if this meant President McCain, I couldn't say this ruling was wrong.  You can't keep oppressing a minority out of fear of the voters.  In that case you won't stand for anything other than winning.  Fortunately though, I think this time, it's not going to be that big of a deal.  Follow me below the fold for the reasoning.

So Todd today has given us a poll showing that the Obama/Clinton ticket is a somewhat overwhelming favorite among registered Democrats. The VP spin is going around and around and around now, as Barack has more or less clinched the nomination.

So where do we go from here? I think the Veep discussion is still partisan, and I can admit that I am somewhat involved in that partisanship, as I am a militant Clintonista, and will be, even if I admit that Barack has won and she has lost the battle for the nomination.

Time to go UNDER THE FLAP...

Just a request for those on this site who like to spread gloom and doom about Sen. Obama's chances in the general against Sen. McCain, should Obama win the nomination.

Could you tag your dire pronouncements of the end of the Democratic party, Obama's surefire crushing loss, and the inevitably barn-red electoral map come November with a little disclaimer as to whether this is something you desire?

It's easy:

"McCain is going to crush Obama this fall, no contest, the Democratic party is toast for the next quarter century, you'll never get the Clinton coalition back." (^)

(^) I do not wish for this to happen.

Or:

"McCain is going to slice through Obama's weak-ass coalition like a hot knife through butter, the Democratic party has been irredeemably destroyed." (^)

(^) I do wish for this to happen.

It would make it easier to know who to respond to.

For those who don't want McCain to beat Obama--and I must give props to Alegre here, passionate Clinton supporter, who has declared she will support the eventual nominee--I feel you!  Let's make sure it doesn't happen.  It sucks when your candidate loses--or is currently losing--and especially when your candidate is as skilled, passionate, and intelligent as Sen. Clinton.  It's hard to switch gears, and I don't expect many will unless/until Clinton concedes.  (Which she really has no reason to do until PR has voted.)  So, I'm glad to know we'll be on the same side soon enough.  Some of your pessimism may be warranted.  It will be a tough GE, no doubt.  Let's get on it.

For those who claim to choose McCain over Obama: could you briefly summarize Clinton's agenda, and then explain to me how a McCain election will help further that agenda?  

Because it seems to me that Clinton's agenda presumably includes withdrawing troops from Iraq (something I don't support, by the way), her health care program (which I do), SCOTUS appointees to counteract the originalist coup and preserve Roe v. Wade, and (gas tax holiday aside) reasonable and progressive economic policies.  

I find John McCain an admirable man in many respects, and I'm not looking forward to the prospect of Democratic sites using the same bullshit tactics on him that they decry when used against their own candidate.  (If it's bad when they do it then it's bad when we do it, and don't even get me started on nicknames like "McSame" . . . weak fucking sauce.)  But a McCain administration would actively defeat and/or set back every single aspect of the agenda Clinton is running to implement.  Can you explain how helping elect McCain will, in any way, help the things Clinton's running for?

Cynical Koan wants to believe that, for many Clinton supporters wailing about a McCain landslide, it's not about getting a Democratic agenda enacted.  It's about some sort of personal validation.  Reasonable Koan would like to be persuaded otherwise.

Todd Beeton is dead on. (I wish I could comment here, I would have left him a comment, but for some reason my ability to comment on posts has disappeared).

His post "The will of the people" reflects precisely that. Clinton is a candidate that , to many Americans, reflects a strong drive to accomplish key initiatives that they are truly interested in - if, falling short of speaking for them as their diplomat, and commander in chief.

But why? Well first, because the polls reflect a strong and non diminishing trend to have Clinton on the ticket as the VP. Second, it just makes good sense - Hillary knows how the white house works. The office of the Vice President has grown in relevance under the unitary executive initiatives of the past years - and many would even say that this office rivals that of the presidency, post-Bush Republican / Dick Cheney.

The idea that an extremely well qualified, popular presidential candidate that has shown strong polling against the GOP matchups  smacks of pure victory.

Of course, Obama could always nominate Joe Lieberman.
But then we'd probably have to invoke the 22nd amendment.

What do you think? Did Todd finally get it right? Is Hillary
the cat's meow for VP? If not. Then who?

People have been talking about this for a while now, the party has some serious divisions which lead to normal supporters wondering if they can even vote for the standard bearer for President, let alone donate money.

Today though, the posts aren't coming from the Democrats.  In an installment of, "I'll go there, so you don't have to," let's look at some leading Republican blogs.

Jerome's post this morning, hinted at the biggest danger facing Democrats in the likely McCain-Obama general election match up: both candidates will be using the same overarching themes and narratives throughout the campaign. As he notes,

I haven't seen much of a dent being put into McCain's core brand (war hero, reformer, maverick) to date...If McCain is able to leverage that into becoming a "change Republican" he'll have done what Matzzie says, which is pointed out in the above examples: "Sometimes being the first person to adopt a message isn't the winner--your opponent can hijack the dialog in the media and turn it to his advantage."

This misses, however, the other massive overlap between their messages: both lay claim to the mantle of bi-partisanship, of being able to bring people together despite their differences to work out functioning compromises. For Obama, this is encapsulated by his theme of "Unity," whereas for McCain, its in his branding as a "Maverick," as distinct from the ideological, far-right Republicans. As one Republican consultant told the NY Times, "I think that by rook or by crook or by providence or just dumb luck, we nominated the one guy who continually outpolls the Republican brand."

Good Afternoon,