Wow...what an election season! For a political junkie like myself this was truly the gold standard of a primary season.

As we enter the final contests there are powerful statistics out there we would be wise not to ignore...

The fact is that nearly one third of Clinton supporters and nearly one third of Obama supporters say they would NOT support the other in the general election.

The days of "I'm sure her supporters would vote for me but I'm not sure my supporters would vote for her" are long...long...gone.

I am a strong, strong Hillary supporter. However, I am well aware of how catostrophic a McCain presidency would be. Therefor, I do not fall into the above category. That being said, I know many, many people who feel DEEPLY offended at the way she has been treated by the media, the party leaders, and many of Obama's supporters. They plan to either stay home or even go so far as to send a protest vote to McCain.

You know the "outrage" people say African Americans and young people would feel if Obama was "denied" the nomination. Well...millions of Women, Latinos, and Older Democrats feel that way right now.

I truly hope that should Obama win; his campaign realizes this outrage is both real and heartfelt. Personally, I cannot see any solution other than the two of them running together.

On that note, both have ammassed enough delegates that neither could be denied the VP slot IF they wanted it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For those of you who want to see a democratic unity ticket of Obama/Clinton this November, you may be interested in the group Draft Obama/Clinton http://draftobamaclinton.com/petition/ The group also has a petition going calling for this unity ticket. It is addressed as "We the People," and sets forth:

"Millions have participated in Democratic primaries and caucuses this election year. We have infused our nation's democracy with new energy.

......then he should offer the 2nd place Democratic primary finisher, who'd have finished mere percentage points behind him in both the delegate count and popular vote (w/ about 15 million votes total), the #2 spot on the ticket.  I'm talking Hillary, natch!

Of course BHO is under no obligation to do so, but it would be a brilliant and bold communal move, one that would indeed bring the party back together and focused on a singular common goal, defeating Sen. John McCain in November!  There's no way McCain could survive a battle w/ the 4-headed monster of Barack, Hillary, Bill & Michelle, could he?  

If Hillary were to be VP, it's doubtful she'd ever make it to the Oval Office, but being the first female Vice-President is not a bad way to go down in history.  Not to mention she'd be a real ball-buster in our do-nothing Democratic Congress, doing whatever it takes to redeem her legacy by finally getting health care passed.  If BHO were to be VP, he'd gain valuable experience and be in spectacular shape for 2016, when he'd be around the same age John Edwards is now.  His popularity and Congressional allies will ensure him the clout to keep Bill at a distance, which, well let's face it, would be beneficial to Hillary as well.

NOTE: This is my first diary here at MyDD, and I'm glad to be here. I'm a big fan of Hillary Clinton, and I would be devastated if she were to not become the nominee...but I'm a realist, and I know how to do math. So, in the interest of the party (long-term), I'm proposing that we end up with the "unity" ticket of Obama/Clinton, if he goes on to win the nomination, and the same vice-versa if she were to somehow pull it out. The reason I've joined MyDD, and am joining over at DailyKos, after just being a reader for months, is to promote this idea amongst the blogosphere. I really do think that this is the only way to save our party now. So, here goes: my first diary, excerpted from my blog, Progressive Thinker.

First of all, the party has not been torn apart yet. So, quit it, Obama supporters, and deal with the fact that 48 percent, yes, almost half of the voters in the Democratic primaries have supported someone other than your demi-god. Do you honestly think Obama will have a problem raising money for the general election if he's the nominee? Would Hillary? I don't think so...look at the torrid fundraising pace they're both at, and all that money is for the primaries! Obama would outraise McCain at least 2-1 even if we didn't know the nominee until the convention because general election fundraising would start soon after Pennsylvania. So, cut out the whole "the party is being torn apart" thing just because Obama didn't close the deal last night. It's simply not true.

What is true is that the supporters of one of the candidates are going to be EXTREMELY unhappy when their candidate loses the nomination. Right now, it looks to be Hillary. It isn't just Obama supporters that "passionately" back their candidate...while he is in the lead, and it's most likely insurmountable, there is a chance that Hillary could take the popular vote lead with a Florida revote and after Pennsylvania goes, and argue that delegates aren't democratic, using the results of Texas and Washington's split contests as an example. You're just going to say that it's playing dirty, but I think it's a legitimate concern and shows one thing: our primary system is fucked up, seriously. Imagine someone winning the popular vote yet losing the nomination...it's like Gore-Bush 2000 all over again! Not saying it necessarily will happen, but it's a possibility that must be considered.