Wait, you admit that she's forward looking, but you still think we should "move on" from her?
And how exactly am I supposed to support the efforts of a Senator from NY when I live in another state? It's not like I can vote for her. Sending her money is about the only thing I could do (well, and sending letters to my own congress-critters urging them to support her legislation, but I already do that with legislation I like anyway, so that wouldn't be for Hillary directly.)
Actually we don't have any idea if it's true or not. It's just a theory like the five thousand others out there.
If he does pick Hillary and gets a 10 point poll leap from it, then yeah, it's close to guaranteed. If not, then not. But you can't prove it's false any more than the OP can prove it's true. We don't even know that Clinton would help Obama (though I believe she will.)
I guess my point it, your factless bloviation is equal to everyone else's factless bloviation, so don't get on a high horse about it.
"Move Forward" -- with, say, Joe Biden? Yeah, that's my definition of "moving forward".
Hillary Clinton would be moving forward. She's be moving health care forward, and the rights of women and children, and the environment. What exactly is backward about Hillary Clinton except your view of her?
One gets the impression that had you been around at the birth of the country you'd have failed to vote for a relative of George Washington's because it's "not moving forward."
You see it as moving on; I see it as losing the White House to four more years of Rethug rules.
That's not a direction I want to move.
No, I don't know whether or not Obama can win without Hillary, nor whether putting her on the ticket guarantees a win; I just believe his odds are much better with her on the ticket than any of his other choices, who bring minimal, if any, votes with them.
Are you saying state officials aren't connected to Washington at all?
I hope you're not one of those touting Obama's STATE legislative experience as being useful in Washington then.
You can't have it both ways.
To put it in other words, what exactly have Kaine and Sebelius done to show they're in any way different from the rest of the pack? I haven't seen a single thing. This isn't to run them down, but just to say that there really isn't any such thing as a "change" VP unless he picks a non-pol or a someone like (ugh) Nader or (double ugh) Ron Paul.
Abstention is not the same as a vote for McCain. A vote for McCain requires TWO votes to make it up, one for the lost Dem vote and one for the gained Rethug one.
Say four people each vote for Obama and McCain. Then one person switches from O to M and we now have 3 to 5. Needs two Dem votes to make it equal. Now, if we just have, say, and M staying home, it's 4 to 3, and the Rethugs just need one Rethug vote to make it equal again.
An abstention only requires one vote to replace it. So while I would rather people voted Obama, if they can't, I'd much prefer they stay home than vote McCain.
"First, I don't think the polls accurately reflect reality, since they really don't count the NEW voters that Obama has turned out in big ways."
These "new votes" are from groups that have never actually turned out in the numbers people expect. It doesn't matter what they do or don't tell pollsters if they don't get their butts into the election booth on that Second Tuesday in November.
"Second, I really think Hillary Clinton would hurt, rather than help. You can site polls that support the notion, as I've also seen polls that reflect the opposite."
Can you please cite the polls that show that Clinton as VP would cost Obama even 1% of votes? He stands to pick up way more than that by putting her on the ticket. I'm willing to live with a 1% or 2% loss if it means a 15% gain from Democratic women. That's a good trade-off.
"More important, Hillary Clinton not only stayed above the fray (from Republicans) during the primaries, she was propped up by them. This was to drag out the primaries and feed on the animosity. Also, to help her beat down the likely winner."
I debate the truth of much of this (it's opinion, not fact), but even if taken as true: Why are you holding what the Rethugs did against Hillary? And how does it explain how she got 18 million votes? All her voters were duped by the Rethugs, is that what you are claiming?
"This has continued after the fact, with McCain outright courting Clinton voters."
Whom he is likely to get, since Obama refuses to court them. Why are you surprised that voters who are spurned and taken for granted might look elsewhere? If you are expecting the average American voter to vote on the issues, you are expecting too much. They want to vote for a candidate who wants them.
"All that would change in a big way, as well as stimulate McCain's Republican base who, in truth, still view anyone with the last name Clinton in low regard."
What do we care who the Rethugs like and don't like? I think putting someone in the VP slot the Rethugs hate is an EXCELLENT idea. Are you contending that there are a significant number (like, at least 5%) of Republicans willing to vote for Obama, but not willing to vote for Obama/Clinton? If so, I would like to see where you are getting these numbers from.
"Wes Clark or Jim Webb are the who most solid candidates in my opinion."
Why? Webb is a total loss (no way he passes vetting with his record), and while I rather like Clark, he's taken himself out of the running.
You should at least be backing a horse that is still interested in the race, or, at a minimum, willing to serve. (Yeah, it's possible Hillary falls into the "not willing to serve" with Obama by now, and I wouldn't exactly blame her, but we don't know that for sure.)
Obama isn't going to have a legacy to worry about if he doesn't get elected. Does he think that if he loses in 2008 he'll be able to run again in 2012? Not gonna happen. If he wants any kind of legacy AT ALL, he needs to get elected first.
I want to believe he'll be smart enough to bring the ONLY proven vote-getter on board as his VP, and that's not Biden. The votes are what matters (And no, I don't the the few "We won't vote Obama if Clinton is on the ticket!" folks come even remotely close in number to the folks who will be much more inclined to throw the lever for him if Clinton is also on the ticket.)
Please, please, Barack...be smart. Please. I don't want another four years of the Rethugs. I really don't.