Unity Ticket or Tooth Fairy?

Maureen Dowd yesterday explained why some of Obama's financial backers do not want a unity ticket:

She just urged her supporters to keep the dream alive, and talked privately about what she would settle for. She has told some Democrats recently that she wanted Obama to agree to allow a roll call vote, like days of yore, so that the delegates of states she won would cast the first ballot for her at the convention. She said she wanted that for her daughter.

Obama supporters are worried that it's a trick and she'll somehow snatch away the nomination. Just as Hillary supporters have hardened toward him, many of Obama's donors and fans have hardened against the Clintons, saying it would be disillusioning to see them on a ticket that's supposed to be about fresh politics.

"It would be," said one influential Democrat, "like finding out there's no tooth fairy."

This sentiment is echoed in a letter to the editor of today's New York Times:

To the Editor:

Re "Next on Agenda Is Clinton's Role" (news analysis, front page, June 4):

The idea of Hillary Rodham Clinton as Barack Obama's running mate is fundamentally flawed. While it might seem politically expedient, it would deny Americans of all political persuasions the very choice that Mr. Obama offers: a break with the partisan intrigues of the past.

As a Democrat and former Clinton supporter as disenchanted by her campaign as I am inspired by his, I hope that Democratic Party power brokers will find the courage to let this emerging leader strike his own course.

Mark Hugh Miller
Los Angeles, June 4, 2008

Is it that anybody but Clinton would allow this ticket to stay fresh? Or is it that as soon as Obama has to perform the quotidian duties of the job that the fantasy of Obama will come crashing down to earth?

Tags: clinton, obama, unity (all tags)

Comments

87 Comments

Re: Unity Ticket or Tooth Fairy?

He won.  He gets to pick.  If he thinks her best, fine.

Trying to convince him is fine.  Pressuring him is not.  I've seen both, frankly.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-06-05 07:13AM | 0 recs
OK but who then

Which veep would allow you to believe in Obama's freshness?

by catfish2 2008-06-05 07:16AM | 0 recs
Re: OK but who then

If I had my druthers?  A reformed Republican like Hagel, in the spirit of unity among all Americans.

That won't happen, of course.  I'm not sure, really.  To the victor go the spoils, you know.  He won't be stupid about it, and I don't want him to be stupid in his selection.

Clinton supporters deserve respect in this process, but they are not owed the VP slot.  She, or one of her supporters, may make the most sense, but this is Senator Obama's choice.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-06-05 07:19AM | 0 recs
Re: OK but who then

FYI, for Hagel to be on the ticket, I would expect him to disavow the Republican party first.  I wouldn't accept him if he did not.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-06-05 07:20AM | 0 recs
Re: OK but who then

HMMMM----You would choose Hagel? the man who has voted w/ bush 99% ( that's his record) of the time and only dissented on the war conduct?

by aliveandkickin 2008-06-05 07:29AM | 0 recs
Re: OK but who then

Yes, personally, I would.  But only if Senator Hagel could get on board with the goals of a President Obama, and publicly pledge to work his heart out for that administration.

This country is bigger than either party.  Someone asked for my opinion, and I gave it.  I'm not asking Senator Obama to actually do it, I'm just telling you folks my thoughts.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-06-05 07:34AM | 0 recs
Re: OK but who then

Thats fine... I'm not just sure how we can ask a 99% of the time bush voter to be on the ticket but fellow democrats who are already of the view similar to obama --- to take a seat.

by aliveandkickin 2008-06-05 07:41AM | 0 recs
Re: OK but who then

I think Hagel could be a good pick due to the fact that he would be a good symbol. Obama running with a unity ticket would be a good compliment to his New Politics theme.

Also, I think we all know that Hagel will not get the nomination in 8 years which would give the party the flexibility to run someone not attached to the administration which could: a) prevent a future candidate from suffering from administration fatigue, and b) opens the door for Clinton in 2016 without her having to be on the ticket.

by SFValues 2008-06-05 08:27AM | 0 recs
Re: OK but who then

How has Hagel reformed? he STILL votes GOP the overwhelming majority of the time. He's just acknowledged problems with the war, which is good, but its nothing every Democrat save Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller haven't done.

by Mayor McCheese 2008-06-05 07:57AM | 0 recs
Re: OK but who then

My opinion was requested, and I gave it.

Chuck Hagel is a good man who's willing to go against his party when he thinks they're manifestly wrong.  I respect that.  I think that having him on the ticket (or much more likely just campaigning for Obama with the understanding he'd be in the cabinet) sends a strong message to the "Obamacans" and potential Obamacans.

Inclusion, not exclusion, should be the watchword.  Not all Republicans are evil or bad people.  Hagel's a good guy, and I think there's room for him in an Obama administration.  Most likely he'll wind up in the cabinet.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-06-05 08:19AM | 0 recs
Re: OK but who then

Chafee is more of that kind of candidate than hagel.  I think if you are to put republicans in his cabinet ( note not VP slot). Then yeah sure there are many obama can select and arguably should select.

But hagel?

What would he push on the dem agenda other than get out of Iraq. He has voted against every dem agenda...

But IF going against your party if respectful then McCain and liebrman are heroes went it counted i.e how they voted in the past.

by aliveandkickin 2008-06-05 08:29AM | 0 recs
Re: OK but who then

Actually check that - a correction  ... Lieberman votes dem way 99% of the time (undisputed senatel record). He is just against the war policy. A chuck hagel in reverse of sorts

by aliveandkickin 2008-06-05 08:31AM | 0 recs
Re: OK but who then

gawd I can't type today... sry about all the typos. Just hurried / multi tasking. :)

by aliveandkickin 2008-06-05 08:32AM | 0 recs
Re: OK but who then

If it was Hagel, you lose more to McCain....I sure as hell don't want a R a heartbeat away...

Isn't Hagel anti-choice...wasn't that supposed to be why us women should not vote for McCain.  

by emmasaint 2008-06-05 08:35AM | 0 recs
Not a Cheney VP

Sheesh, check the indignation at the door.  This will be a figurehead VP not like Cheney.

There's quite a bit of difference between a McCain presidency and a Hagel vice presidency.

Unless you're going to bring up the assassination issue /snark.

by Regenman 2008-06-05 08:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Not a Cheney VP

No VP is ever truly a figurehead. And you can never be 100% certain that he won't take power eventually. Quite a few have. This might allow Hagel to run for President successsfuly some day in the future. Why not groom another Democrat for this and not a very conservative republican, who just happens to have come to his senses on one issue?

by Mayor McCheese 2008-06-05 09:06AM | 0 recs
Re: OK but who then

As much as I like the Hagel idea for its symbolic appeal rather than his stance on the issues, I think your comment demonstrates the real problem with such a pick.

by SFValues 2008-06-05 09:01AM | 0 recs
Re: OK but who then

I respect Hagel for that too. But he's still wrong on almost all issues that we care about. And this war will end someday. Issues like abortion, taxes, healtcare will always be with us and Hagel won't be on our side on most of them. I dont' see the point in winning the presidency just to hand a large portion of it to someone who opposed us most of the way on most issues. Is he a decent guy? I think so. But there are GREAT people in our own party. And we should be worried more about Democrats than "Obamacans" at this point.

by Mayor McCheese 2008-06-05 09:02AM | 0 recs
Re: OK but who then

You are correct.  This is the time to focus on uniting our own party.  I'm just looking ahead.

I think he'd make a fantastic SecDef.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-06-05 09:04AM | 0 recs
Re: OK but who then

Edwards, Webb, Warner, Clark and Schweitzer immediately come to mind.

But it's not a matter of finding the most outside-the-Beltway person he possibly can. Some politicians are more "insidery" than others. Richardson was in the Cabinet, but I don't think of him as a lifetime politician like Biden.

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner 2008-06-05 07:28AM | 0 recs
Re: OK but who then

what is a lifetime politican?

because all richarson has done is be a lifetime politican aka held political office for decades. Nothing wrong w/ it...

but I'm baffled w/ this anti-lifetime politican statement--- cause they all are / have been politicans for quite some time.

by aliveandkickin 2008-06-05 07:32AM | 0 recs
Re: OK but who then

I wouldn't pick Richardson anyway, nor was he in the list I gave, so that's not the point.

Yes, they're all politicians. We're not talking about a choice between a Senator and a local firefighter. But if you really see no differences in the prospective VPs' Washington entrenchment, as well as the public perception of it, then I don't know what else to say.

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner 2008-06-05 07:45AM | 0 recs
Re: OK but who then

Man it takes a Washington politician to pass the laws, know the rules and how to play it. That's why senior folks get to chair committees.

This absurdity I hear that they all bad guys is foolish. If you were one is so concerned ( just saying) then you should be up in arms about how all the 'Washington hacks' are on board the Obama train and he has gone after their endorsement.

I'm just saying this ' blanket' anti Washington politician uproar is bit cynical.

by aliveandkickin 2008-06-05 07:54AM | 0 recs
Was Clinton a Washington Politician in 92?

Doh.....

by Regenman 2008-06-05 08:47AM | 0 recs
Re: OK but who then

The VP doesn't do anything of that. Heck, the president doesn't do much of it. A president just works with legislators to help them write a bill that's as close as possible to what he wants to do. But the legislators work on the nuances, negotiate it in committee, work the rules to get it passed, etc.

In no way should we pick a VP based on their ability to navigate a legislative body when they simply won't be a part of it (aside from the VP's symbolic role as president of the Senate).

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner 2008-06-05 09:04AM | 0 recs
Re: OK but who then

You must be kidding. You haven't noticed how Dick Cheney has run rough-shod over our entire government for the last 8 years? Do you really believe he didn't learn a trick or two about how to manipulate Congress when he was the House Minority Whip? Have you completely forgotten that Cheney's has cast the tie-breaking vote as President of the Senate numerous times? The role of VP and President of the Senate is far more than a symbolic one.

by LakersFan 2008-06-05 09:38AM | 0 recs
Re: OK but who then

Schweitzer would be great.  That guy is really something.  I heard him on NPR a month or so ago talking about Real ID.  He make the Dept of Homeland Security sound like a bunch of morons in two sentences.  It was great.  

I guess it was more like six months ago.  You can listen to a recording of the interview here.

by Blue Neponset 2008-06-05 07:51AM | 0 recs
Re: OK but who then

Schweitzer would be a very good pick. He's a real progressive populist, has executive experience and represents the next frontier for Democratic expansion: the west and mountain west.

I would like to see polling on if he can turn Montana blue for Obama, though. It would severely diminish Schweitzer for future elections if he loses his home state (a la Gore in 2000, Edwards in 2004, etc.).

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner 2008-06-05 09:10AM | 0 recs
Re: OK but who then

I think someone who should get more mention is Bob Graham.  He would absolutely deliver Florida (he is the rock star of Florida politics), does well with working class voters, was never considered a Washington insider, was against the war and has impeccable foreign policy credentials.  

Polls suggest Edwards would be the best choice, though I'm not a fan that would be a choice more in line with Obama's campaign.

by Same As It Ever Was 2008-06-05 08:33AM | 0 recs
Re: OK but who then

As a Floridian, I adore Graham. Indeed, that is a highly intriguing darkhorse pick.

As I recall, he was on Gore's short list until his diary was published. The diary (really just a log of  his whereabouts) was meticulously comprehensive, practically down to the minute. And just like that, a terrific Democrat was pigeonholed as "kind of weird."

I would also caution against a couple other things. First, he's been out of politics for a little while now--out of sight, our of mind when it comes to politics. At the least, they'd need to spend significant time reintroducing him to the nation.

As for Florida in particular, you're right that he may well be the only other VP besides Hillary who has a strong chance of turning Florida blue. It's not nearly as purple as the media thinks.

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner 2008-06-05 09:21AM | 0 recs
Re: OK but who then

Nope.  It's got a definite red tinge to it these days.

by Same As It Ever Was 2008-06-05 11:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Unity Ticket or Tooth Fairy?

Come on. This should be great time for the party. Please. Let's have a nice week of shields down, guns in holsters. No digs.  Your last statement shows the intent of the diary.

by rf7777 2008-06-05 07:23AM | 0 recs
Nuance isn't your forte

I'd try a more direct attack which is befitting of your comment history.

by gchaucer2 2008-06-05 07:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Unity Ticket or Tooth Fairy?

Still tryin eh Catfish..
your song?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYRI2Re5d mo

by nogo postal 2008-06-05 07:28AM | 0 recs
Maureen O'Dowd is a troll.

Just a troll with a paycheck.  Pay her no heed.

by McNasty 2008-06-05 07:28AM | 0 recs
Whomever he wants

He's going to take the ethical stance of choosing someone who will keep his work alive even if he is not.

Expect someone like Feingold (though probably not Russ himself): someone who has a record of reform and transparency.

by Dracomicron 2008-06-05 07:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Whomever he wants

Feingold would be terrific. He also has no shot in hell. There are certainly some parts of the country unwilling to vote for a black guy (or a woman) for president. Now add a Jewish guy to the mix...

I'm sorry to say, but that's also a reason I'd be concerned about Richardson as VP.

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner 2008-06-05 07:47AM | 0 recs
I'm not too concerned

Feingold is probably better in the Senate anyways doing what he does best.

If he wants, he could probably run for president in 2016 on the ticket of continuing Obama's reforms.  By then I'm sure there'll be no compunction about a Jewish president.

by Dracomicron 2008-06-05 07:55AM | 0 recs
Feingold would be complementary

Feingold would get voters Obama wouldn't get, and vice verse.

by catfish2 2008-06-05 07:57AM | 0 recs
True enough...

...but the question is, would it be wise to inflame both racists and anti-semites?

Then again, if we can win without those groups, maybe we should.

by Dracomicron 2008-06-05 08:03AM | 0 recs
You know what?

This is so offensive to me. So now that we got the black guy nominated, we have to postpone advancement of women, advancement of Jews.

Not only offensive, I think it's politically inaccurate. I think now with people's minds open is the time to get Feingold in.

Also Feingold has experience in the Washington system and can stabilize the "change" fears of so many.

by catfish2 2008-06-05 08:50AM | 0 recs
I apologize

Quite honestly, there's nothing I'd want more than VP Feingold (outside of something even less plausable, like VP Gore or VP Dracomicron).

I'm just a little afraid of too much too soon in terms of change.

Also I don't think he wants it, for reasons I've ennumerated elsewhere.

I'm sorry for implying anything untoward.

by Dracomicron 2008-06-05 08:57AM | 0 recs
Re: You know what?

Change in people's attitudes rarely happens in drastic steps.

Think back to 2003, with the gay marriage issue. Newsom went for the gusto in San Francisco and our party lost some elections at least partially as a result. But what he and other gay-marriage advocates managed to do is jump-start discussion of the issue and shift the Overton window.

It became commonplace for politicians to decry gay marriage but concede civil unions were an acceptable alternative. People forget this, but it wasn't long ago that even civil unions were seen as a freakish, alien concept.

So to apply this to the Obama-Feingold discussion, having two minorities on one ticket very well could agitate enough people to lose the election, even if it paves the way for the success of future minority candidates.

But I'm not looking for political martyrdom in the name of a greater cause. We need to win this thing, period. It may be pandering to America's baser instincts, but I'll still take a white, Christian guy as a VP this time if it'll help ensure the election of a black guy as president.

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner 2008-06-05 09:00AM | 0 recs
Well I think it's a lost cause

Winning this thing. Sorry.

by catfish2 2008-06-05 09:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Whomever he wants

There really isn't anyone like Feingold, though, is there? Wellstone and Feingold seemed to be kindred spirits to me, but I can't think of anyone else that's even close.

by Mayor McCheese 2008-06-05 07:58AM | 0 recs
Dammit

Stop poking holes in my plan.

There's GOTTA be someone out there that's like Feingold but a protestant, right?  

Right?

Gah.

The real issue is that I'm not sure he wants the job.  It would mean taking his focus off of serving Wisconsin.

by Dracomicron 2008-06-05 08:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Whomever he wants

Feingold is on like his 3rd divorce...I think dating now etc.  Not gonna happen

Anyone but Hillary - I guess

by emmasaint 2008-06-05 08:36AM | 0 recs
In The Same Way

you will ALWAYS be able to find someone who says bad things about Clinton, we will be able to find someone who says bad things about Obama. We can keep on digging and flinging this negativity up here, or we can come together and put it behind us.

Ignore people like Dowd and pay attention to those of us who don't CONSTANTLY piss you off. Unless you LIKE to be constantly pissed off. In that case, carry on...

by RNinNC 2008-06-05 07:49AM | 0 recs
Hillary is too experienced

He needs to pick someone just as "fresh". I think they're vetting city council members from across the country as we speak.

by darwinism 2008-06-05 07:49AM | 0 recs
screw that

if he really wants some experience, he should be looking at those city council members' spouses.

by JJE 2008-06-05 07:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary is too experienced

No Quarter and Hillaryain't44 awaits you, Derwinism.

by LtWorf 2008-06-05 08:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary is too experienced

whatever. the article and letter is disrespectful to hillary and her qualifications. if people can argue that she is too negative to be VP, then i will stand my ground and say that obama is too unqualified to be pres. i think they're both valid arguments.

by darwinism 2008-06-05 08:05AM | 0 recs
they aren't arguments

they're assertions.

by JJE 2008-06-05 08:41AM | 0 recs
Obama's donors

don't want to lose their influence, that's all.  The VP spot is Clinton's if she wants it- so know that and don't worry too much about it.

by linc 2008-06-05 08:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's donors

It's really not, but by all means hold onto that thought.

The VP spot is for whomever Obama wants, and unless he OFFERS it to Clinton, it's NOT hers if she wants it.

And unless you have a link showing Obama offering the VP slot to Clinton, your comment is silly.

by Artemis Jax 2008-06-05 08:24AM | 0 recs
Its called political reality

wouldn't it be nice though if Obama could be king, eh?

by linc 2008-06-05 08:25AM | 0 recs
When it comes to picking his nominee

I see no chorus of party insiders demanding that she be the choice.  So the choice is completely his.

by Same As It Ever Was 2008-06-05 08:29AM | 0 recs
Re: When it comes to picking his nominee


party insiders?

How about electors? You know... people who vote.

by TaiChiMaster 2008-06-05 09:08AM | 0 recs
Re: When it comes to picking his nominee

The VP nomination is not subject to a popular vote.  

by Same As It Ever Was 2008-06-05 11:19AM | 0 recs
Re: When it comes to picking his nominee


You say that like it's a rule or something... very funny.

Let me give the only rule tht maters;
Do what your electors want.

by TaiChiMaster 2008-06-05 12:00PM | 0 recs
Re: When it comes to picking his nominee

Not a rule. Merely a fact.  But those don't matter do they?

by Same As It Ever Was 2008-06-05 12:09PM | 0 recs
Re: When it comes to picking his nominee

fact? yeah right...

Do what your electors want...
How is that for a fact? You didn't answer...

by TaiChiMaster 2008-06-05 12:18PM | 0 recs
Re: When it comes to picking his nominee

You don't seem to know what facts are.  Do what your electors want is strategy.  

The VP not being subject to popular vote it fact.  It just isn't.

by Same As It Ever Was 2008-06-05 12:34PM | 0 recs
Better than Queen Hillary

Dang, two can play at this stupid game?  For an alleged self proclaimed smart person, you are pretty obtuse.

by Regenman 2008-06-05 08:50AM | 0 recs
Hey wait a minute

I though Hillary supporters were all low information voters?

by linc 2008-06-05 09:29AM | 0 recs
Political reality?

You need a reality check. Since he is the victor and the leader of the party, he will decide who he wants to complement him as a vp.

I doubt it will be her...for any myriad of reasons.

by april34fff 2008-06-05 09:16AM | 0 recs
Where did this unpolitically savy

group of Obama supporters come from?  Is this the group that was energized by the change and hope thing?  Wow.  Unfortunately for your 'theory' there is a half of the party that supporter Clinton in this primary.  There is also a great deal of Obama supporters that would like to see Clinton on the ticket.  If HRC wants on and is denied, kiss the unity shtick goodbye.  It is political reality.  It would be absolutely arrogant and politically impossible not to give the person who had more actual votes the VP nod if said person wanted it.  Hate Hillary all you want, but thank god your naivety is running the Obama campaign.

by linc 2008-06-05 09:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Where did this unpolitically savy

It is not half the party anymore. Hillary did not get 100% of the female vote, nor did she recevie 100% of the white male vote. You're only fooling yourself with this half the party nonsensense. Also remember that the population of the USA is 300 million, so do the math and tell me how many people out can Obama still reach out to?

by venician 2008-06-05 10:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Where did this unpolitically savy

And your political shtick seems to be totally off the mark. Your numbers have no basis in reality and arrogance aside, Barack will choose whomever he wants to be his veep. The sooner you realize that, the less you'll suffer in disappointment later.

by april34fff 2008-06-05 11:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Its called political reality

if I recall correctly, the behavior of a large portion of Clinton supporters was indicative of a coronation.

But thanks for playing.

by Artemis Jax 2008-06-05 10:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Its called political reality

I see you are still having trouble coming to grips with your grief. I'll play nice, for now!

by venician 2008-06-05 10:07AM | 0 recs
what

a punk comment.

by linc 2008-06-05 10:34AM | 0 recs
Is this snark?

Serious question.

by Same As It Ever Was 2008-06-05 11:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's donors

It's not--at all.

The Nominee chooses.  You can be sure if Hill were the nominee she would feel free to exercise her own judgment (in her case, Obama would make perfect sense--in reverse, the ticket is much more cumbersome).

I really think Wesley Clark (with certain reservations) is probably the guy.

by AK Democrat 2008-06-05 09:22AM | 0 recs
That is not and never was the way it works

why do you think Gore was on Clinton's ticket?  Why do you think LBJ was on JFK's ticket?  The only way that Clinton isn't on the ticket, is if she doesn't want to be.  If she wants to be and she is denied it, all hell will break loose.  Do you think she will keep it under wraps if she isn't given something that she thinks she deserves  (if this is the case)?

by linc 2008-06-05 09:27AM | 0 recs
Re: That is not and never was the way it works

Really linc, just let go. It's time to move on. Obama chooses who he wants, NOT clinton.

by venician 2008-06-05 10:08AM | 0 recs
I don't think she wants it

I am just arguing the political reality.  The reality is that NO Nominee is as close a race as this one gets to be the decider.  

by linc 2008-06-05 10:34AM | 0 recs
Re: I don't think she wants it

Of course they do. Obama OWNS the democratic party now. He decides. Besides hillary is the only thing that can get out the GOP voters, if only to vote against her. She would do more harm then good as the V.P..

by venician 2008-06-05 10:38AM | 0 recs
wow.

and yuck.  You be OWNed, I will keep my individuality thank.  creepy, creepy, creepy.

by linc 2008-06-05 10:43AM | 0 recs
Re: wow.
Oh, please linc. All you have ever done here is parrot hillary's daily talking points. It clear you are lost and floundering and know not what to do. I suggest you take a few days off and deal with your loss in a way that helps you deal with the new reality.
good luck
by venician 2008-06-05 11:02AM | 0 recs
Oh, please venician.

You have never actually read a single one of my diaries- no talking points, just me.  I am voting for the nominee and eventually I will start to work hard for nominee.  I suggest that you take a few days off and pull it out.  You are right, there is a new reality- Obama is the nominee and many of his supporters truly are the worst portion of the party.

by linc 2008-06-05 11:06AM | 0 recs
Re: I don't think she wants it

Reality?

The nominee selects the running mate.  Period.

How "Presidential" is it to have a VP jammed on you?  That ain't gonna happen.

That said, there's no reason Hillary can't or shouldn't be the VP, but she certainly won't get it by lobbying for it.  If she gets it, great.  If not, fine.  But it's not a zerosum pass/fail dictated on her terms.

by AK Democrat 2008-06-05 11:07AM | 0 recs
I no that you lot

really don't like the other half of the party- those low information voters, all those 'racists' in Appalachia, but thats the political reality- they are HRC supporters and enough of them will be absolutely pissed off if she doesn't get the nomination if she wants it.  Its really not about what Obama wants, its about the electorate- that IS the reality of the situation.

by linc 2008-06-05 11:11AM | 0 recs
past tense slip there
'doesn't get the VP nod if she wants it...'  


I don't even know why you all are so offended by this statement.  Its like you all woke up in a different universe when you guy barely, just barely won the nomination.
by linc 2008-06-05 11:12AM | 0 recs
your argument

is a non-starter. As the leader of the party, the notion that the 'loser' of the nomination has a legitimate political right to be chosen for any position is folly.

In primaries, there is only one winner and one nominee and that gives him absolute authority in choosing what running mate is best for the party.

by april34fff 2008-06-05 11:53AM | 0 recs
Re: your argument

To be fair, the convention actually chooses the nominee so technically she could be forced on him.  It won't happen, but it is theoretically possible.

by Same As It Ever Was 2008-06-05 12:12PM | 0 recs
Sen. Patty Murray

from Washington is on the shortlist.

by Student Guy 2008-06-05 10:51AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads