Obviously, I want Hillary to help Dodd and Feingold filibuster, but if she makes a big public deal about the bill, then the media will go crazy about a big, high profile split between Obama and Hillary. And I don't think that's a good idea.
Better for her to stay in the background right now, give us her vote, and let Dodd and Feingold grab the headlines.
The say or do anything to win ad ran in South Carolina. It was a key part of Obama's narrative all along and they were using it (not in paid communication, but certainly through surrogates as early as October or November to discredit her.).
It's simply false to say they didn't adopt that narrative until PA because they were on the air with it right after New Hampshire and that was long before what you call the kitchen sink was thrown at him (e.g. before Rev. Wright, before "denounce and reject", before 3AM ad, etc.). She had really only been hitting him on health care at that point and Bill had hit him on it being a fairly tale that he would have voted differently from on the Iraq War because he once admitted he wasn't sure he would have voted no on AUMF (an attack unfairly used to brand Bill as a race-baiter).
Agreed. I'd also add that I don't think Obama has the confidence to pick her. I think he'd be too insecure to pick someone who would get as much attention as she would. Not necessarily a knock on him -- most nominees would be loathe to pick someone so outspoken and with such a following -- I think if he picked her it would be a tremendous sign about his own confidence in his ability to lead and control the agenda.
One other thing -- I'm always curious about those "more likely" or "less likely" polls how many of the people saying that are already partisans.
For example, if all of the 23% who say it "less likely" are already voting for or against Obama regardless of who he picks, it doesn't really matter whether they say it makes them for or less likely. But if half of those 22% who say more likely are undecided or leaning McCain, that makes the state very different than just the no net difference suggested by the topline results.
Hillary fired Patty Solis Doyle. Most of her campaign blames her (along with Mark Penn) for the decision not to compete in all those small February states, especially the caucus states.
The odds of her being hired to clear the way for Hillary to come in seems pretty slim since it's doubtful Hillary would want her running her VP campaign after firing her for her failures on the Presidential.
In fact, it's hard to see any VP nominee simply accepting an Obama person being forced on them rather than making their own choice for Chief of Staff.
I hear you. But I also ask you to put the shoe on the other foot.
Many Clinton supporters felt like she was defeated because Obama chose to adopt the right wing narrative and use it against her. His message about her was basically, "she'll say or do anything to win.." He even ran a radio ad about it in South Carolina -- the only explicit negative attack on character from either side during the entire campaign.
Had Hillary won, Obama's attacks would have weakened her significantly by, to use your language, validating the right wing spin about her.
Further, when someone uses the language of the right and especially uses right-wing generated character attacks to defeat someone you admire, it tends to leave you unenthusiastic for the victor, just as I gather you'd have had a hard time being enthusiastic for Hillary had she won.
Ultimately, Hesiod, I think the best thing you can do to promote unity is to stop slamming Hillary. Stop accusing her of hurting Obama, of doing this or that in her campaign. It really only pisses her supporters off further and does nothing to help Obama.
Even if you believe it all, it really doesn't do any good to post it, especially in response to an embittered Hillary supporter who does support Obama but hasn't been able to muster the hoped-for enthusiasm yet.
Sure, continuing to rip Hillary or write (as if fact) how awful you think her campaign was will make you feel better, but it's not going to help elect Obama or encourage enthusiasm from those who will vote for Obama but can't quite convince themselves yet that he's the second coming of FDR.
This is so stupid. It's neither funny nor incisive.
The people who you are mocking -- apparently those who would seriously consider voting against Obama because of the way their candidate was trashed in the primaries -- are not going to come around because they are mocked.
So that means that you are probably terribly insecure and doing this to make yourself feel good about yourself. Certainly, you aren't doing it to to advance the women's rights you write about here -- because by just holding your fire and letting the hyper-partisans come to terms with their loss on their own timeline, you'd stand a better chance of winning their votes than by sticking your thumb in their eye.
And if the assumption that this is making fun of only to those who will NEVER come around no matter what, then it's really just pointless, uncreative drivel.