If Hillary Clinton wants the job, she should drop out of the race, endorse Obama, and campaign for him throughout Kentucky and West Virginia.  If she can win him huge majorities with high turnout there, she can make an argument for her value.  But her opportunity, such as it is, is quickly slipping away.

And even under the best of circumstances, it's hard to see her advantage over Wesley Clark, Ed Rendell, or Jim Webb.

"The Democrats could use identity politics to move beyond identity politics"

That might be the most fatuous statement I've ever read in TNR. Well, this week, anyway...

"But these are the two most talented politicians the Democrats have, one, as it happens, adept at the high road, the other at the low." So we'll have one undermining the other's message? How is that a coherent argument?

You're right letsinb, but as TNR editors have noted before, the VP is often the 'attack dog' allowing the President to position themselves above the fray working towards solving what ever the issue of the day is.

At one point I thought this was a good idea and then the sangria and tequila hangover went away and I realized that it would not be the best ticket. If anything, Obama needs a good VP who's capable and able to provide counterpoint to McCain and his VP pick. Webb, Salazar, or a strong D governor like Schweitzer. Give Hillary a cabinet position or something.

But I think Obama and Democratic party would be best served by bringing in a VP that represents the new guard of Democratic party. And Obama needs to look beyond the east coast & southern states for the VP. Head West young man.

As tempting as it would be to pick a Western senator like Salazar, I think Obama needs to find someone who isn't also a freshman senator.

Strong governors are a good idea. Bredesen strikes me as a potentially excellent choice, for instance.

This "Unity" thing is, in no uncertain terms, the dumbest Idea conventional wisdom has produced since the war.

Obama has a blatantly obvious choices at his disposal that won't spawn rampant cries of hypocrisy the way choosing Clinton would. He could for instance, pick Mark Warner and thereby flip VA and NC, or Kathleen Sebelius and thereby flip Kansas, Ohio and maybe Nebraska [she's quite popular there].

Why would he trust his future to BIll's zipper?

Hillary's political style undermines Obama's message. He cannot have her on the ticket.  He needs a (relative) outsider.  There are dozens of capable women if that's all it takes.  Kathleen Sebelius is on the short list.  Other than the number of syllables in their two last names, Obama/Sebelius IS the dream ticket.

Obama/Webb ticket would have problems with women voters.

Obama/Clark is my second choice, but Clark is such a hardcore Clintonite, he would have to go through a careful compatibility testing before Obama selected him.

"The Democrats could use identity politics to move beyond identity politics. The country would be better off for it."

OH yes, and under communism the State will just wither away.

She would have to be promised a significant role in the Obama administration, something like VP/Foreign Policy Advisor.  Could the VP also be the Secretary of State?

Oh, sure, Obama should buttress his weaknesses--inexperience and being black in a country where a small core of voters don't like blacks--with a woman who has less actual legislative than he does and no executive experience at all?  Who more than half the country views unfavorably already, before the Republicans really let loose?  Who has a husband that is constitutionally incapable of playing second fiddle to anyone?  Freaking brilliant.  I can't imagine WHY the Obama campaign isn't out in front on this one.

Seriously, do you guys in the media really believe the unity ticket crap, or are you just running out of things to say?

idle speculation, but what about Obama/Gore? And if things look really dicey in October they can just flip positions. Al would also add a lot of gravitas to the ticket, be viewed as a steady hand in the administration, and as VP he could call his shots on a whole host of issues. He also doesn't need vetting, and since he was Clinton's VP can be seen as the bridge between the two campaigns (at least by many of Hillary's supporters).

HRC probably does not make the most sense from a raw strategic point of view… That said, I think it would go a long way in accomplishing a number of other important things:

1) A huge number of Clinton supporters say they will not vote for Obama. Most probably will in the end, but picking her would consolidate and heal the party in a way that could not otherwise happen at the end of this tough race. It would be the only answer for the many rabid Clintonites who do not like or trust Obama. Remember, this was a very close race. Though you would never know it here at TNR, about 50% of democrats supported Clinton.

2) I also think it makes sense from an electoral point of view in that she complements his strengths. Losing Ohio, Fla, PA etc is a real possibility and she legitimately helps him there. Dems have been trying to “swing” VA, NC, etc for years to little effect. What makes Jim Webb (a stale plastic speaker) any more likely to bring along VA than Edwards could bring NC?

3) He would elevate his stature beyond where it has ever been. He would take a page from Lincoln and show that he is indeed beyond partisan. What better way to show the American people that he can work with Republicans (as he claims he can) than to embrace his bitter rival and say to the country that he is picking the best candidate for the job whether and not picking his best friend.

The issue of whether she takes it is real, but he should offer and he should do so publicly.

I dunno blackton, since Obama is getting tarred as too eggheady, Gore doesn't seem to be the way to go.  Besides, I get the feeling Gore is having too much fun being an elder stateman and making lots of money to jump back into the fray.

It only makes sense until November 4th (and I'm not really even convinced of that). But once the marriage vows are exchanged, you have to live with the other person and every instinct says that this would be the union from Hell.

If you really, desperately crave a "unity" ticket, then pick someone who was a key Clinton supporter (an Evan Bayh, perhaps?), not the woman herself.

blackton,

Do you think Gore would take the job?  

The visceral hatred of Hillary by TNR bloggers is really depressing.  It's not really inexplicable, and it's not entirely despicable, but it has hints of both.  She voted to authorize the war, at a time when the recently-elected Commander in Chief insisted that he would use the authority as a bargaining chip to open Iraq to inspectors?  Oh, that was pandering to the GOP.  She has been a magnetic and energetic campaigner who has won roughly half of all the votes in the Democratic primary?  It's because she took the "low road" -- despite the fact that she never attacked him early on, and none of her attacks have come close to modern presidential standards for negativity.  As I've said before, I'm not necessarily a big Hillary backer, but it seems to me that she's been suffering from the application of a double standard in terms of the slights she deals with and the media coverage -- related to her gender.  

I am equally bummed about the slavish devotion to Obama on these pages.  I remain unsure about Obama, about Clinton, and about McCain.  It is notoriously hard to predict how Senators will act as presidents, when they are true executives (not campaign executives) and buffeted by events.  On the one hand, Obama's speech on race after the first Wright problem, and his position on the gas tax holiday, were both inspiring.  So was his 2004 convention speech.  And, yes, I like the fact that he is young and hip and handsome and erudite.  His 100% partisan voting record, his earmarks for Illinois projects, his favors to folks like Rezko and even Blackwell, are less inspiring.  Least inspiring?  Perhaps the fact that of all the things Wright said, the thing that MOST angered him was his attack on Obama as a "politician" -- arguably, the least offensive of Wright's many tirades.  I am just not sure whether he's JFK (who was a horrible president), FDR (good), or Lincoln (our greatest).  Remember, George W. Bush similarly wowed the right-leaning part of our country with praise to be a "uniter not a divider," with inspiring speeches (didn't he even end his first state of the union with "together we can"?), and with a limited track record.  If the liberal intelligentsia finally gets their dream candidate, because their Bill Bradley dream was united with the black vote, they better hope he lives up to the challenge.  

In that context, I return again to the Hillary bashing.  The TNR pages have been filled with bloggers and contributors who've taken great umbrage at her temerity in challenging their beloved candidate.  It is a level of deification and demonization that is simply inappropriate for this type of forum.  This is our president we're talking about.  Some vetting is appropriate.  

The idea of a Barack Obama-Hillary Clinton "unity ticket" has been floated quite a bit the

Webb is not  a great speaker, but Clark is even worse.  If Obama wants a governor on the ticket and/or someone prominent from the Clinton camp, who better tha Ed Rendell, which would pretty much ensure PA.  And lest we forget, if Obama decides to cover his foreign affairs flank, Joe Biden, with his fine, Old Testamant prophet speaking style, might be a savvy choice.  (But, Lord help us, please not Hillary!)

DMehlhorn, pardon me, but screw you. Her gender makes her offlimit to bashing. I bashed the hell out of Rudy Guiliani early and often, and mocked Edwards $400 haircut and 20,000 square foot palace and didn't hear a peep out of anyone (although I certainly would have voted for Edwards had he won the nomination). I would have voted for most of the Democrats had they won, Richardson, Biden, Dodd, Edwards. I wouldn't have voted for Kuchinich because he is a crackpot. But I would certainly never have taken offense if people mocked any of the candidates, nor have I ever claimed that criticism of Obama equaled racism. But I personally think Hillary is batshit crazy. I feel it is my obligation, and is certainly my right, to state how I feel about this woman. And I have seen my views vindicated time and again, and have watched once erstwhile Clinton supporters turn against her completely. And why is this so? Because we here at TNR are politico junkies, we pay attention. We know the truth. Many of Hillary's supporters have no idea the shit she has been doing as they are not political junkies.

And if you call choosing to be informed by reading a variety of opinions and facts "elitist" then hell yeah, I am elitist.

I don't care about Obama, I hate Hillary for Hillary alone because she is deserving of being hated, as Guiliani was deserving. Or will you be consistent and come out in praise of Cheney and Bush and Guiliani and how we shouldn't bash them. How we should have decorum. I think not.

Blackton, that is indeed the most elitist load of crap I have read in a long time (and there is plenty of it around here). And oh by the way, get a life.

clifton, as I said, idle speculation. I have no idea if he would but it would be pretty stunning if he would take it. I am sure Obama and Gore have talked about it. Obama had to mention it if only to butter up Gore for his endorsement.

eweiss, thank you, but I already have a life, around two I will have my nice afternoon swim in a pacific lagoon nearby my home (playa congrejo). After that I will play on the beach with my two young sons, 5 and 3 years old. Life is good. Now get back to work Eweiss, while I continue to enjoy my far more interesting life than yours ever has been or ever will be. (how is that for elitist?)

Elitism is good.  If you don't like it, read Newsweek for insight and get your news from USA Today instead of TNR.

oh and eweiss, I will be more than happy to compare biographies anytime. I know absolutely nothing about you but I know hands down I am better looking, more interesting, and more intelligent than you are. I am sorry your jealousy of my life has been projected onto the pages here. Might I suggest in the future you try a put down that has a tad more witticism than "get a life" which I haven't considered meaningful since the 8th grade? No, you get a life. How is that for a snappy comeback? And the scary thing is, you are probably too dense to realize I am taking a complete piss on you. (nor do I think you really even understand what I just wrote)

blackton,

I've read many of your words on these blogs, and you're often quite reasonable.  Certainly, you have an open audience with me any time.  So, help me understand two things:

(1)  What, specifically, has Hillary done that makes you think she's "batshit crazy?" I want more than pandering (i.e., the flag-burning amendment she knew was doomed), since I can give you plenty of examples of pandering during Obama's short career (i.e., Iowa and ethanol, or coal-fuel in Illinois).  

Indeed, please give me more than just the case for "batshit crazy" -- give me the case for "hatred."  And specifically for having had your "hatred" of this woman validated.  Since so many TNR bloggers share your hatred, I want to understand it.  I do not personally know Hillary, but I know many people who do and who have worked with her, and have admired her bravery and courage and compassion towards individuals and in difficult situations.  For example, she has made room in her campaigns for maternity leave and for part-time work for new mothers -- something that is very hard to pull off during campaigns, and for which there is no precedent of which I'm aware.  For another example, her speeches from the woman's day in China during the 1990s to her commencement speech in college, and in between, have often been insightful and powerful.  

I can understand people not wanting to vote for her; I can understand people not liking her politics; I can understand people disagreeing with her as a potential VP.  What I cannot understand is the vituperative hatred; the dismissal of her as a potential VP out-of-hand.  I simply cannot understand it.  

(2)  Along the same lines, help me understand the deification of Obama.  I turn to TNR among a small number of sources to help me understand politics.  I am honestly trying to understand who the best president would be after 2008 -- not just between Clinton and Obama, but between either of those candidates and McCain (who is the only national Republican figure I have admired at all in recent years).  The stuff I get from TNR posts and blogs is not sufficiently specific.  Is it his oratory and the bully pulpit?  That's a strong case, I agree, but not enough for me -- especially when I see historically great speeches by the likes of JFK and George W Bush paired with near-criminal incompetence in office.  Is it Obama's personal story, including his race?  His personal story is great, but nowhere near as compelling as McCain's.  Is it specific things he's done in his life?  That last thing would be very good to hear about, but seems to get little discussion.  

Blackton,

One more PS on the whole "decorum" thing -- don't you see any irony in backing Obama as a candidate of unity and cool and healing, and doing so by absolutely demonizing his strongest remaining opponent?  Doesn't that worry you at all -- especially you're not the only one doing it, but rather that this is a huge part of Obama's support in the primaries among the media and intelligentsia?  

Dmelhorn, thanks. Actually I am a swing voter who as I have said before would have preferred Gore first and thought Obama was originally running to be Gore's running mate. I also admire McCain a great deal and for many reasons (too many to list here) feel he would be about as good a President as we can have around now (I am not optimistic about the economy for the next few years, hence a steady hand looks good). So if a lot of Hillary supports get all pissy and vote for McCain, fine by me. I think Roe Vs. Wade was bad precedent, and I support our continued troop presence in Iraq (disagree as you like) but I doubt most of Hillary supporters feel that way, so they will only be spiting themselves, not me.

So I think you are confused about me, I am not so much an Obama man (although I like him a great deal) as I am against Hillary, so my demonizing of Hillary is and should be regarded only as an example of my own opinion. Why anyone would take it as signifying anything else is not my problem. As I said, Obama McCain is win win for me.

I don't care what Hillary is like to her domestic help, her giving maternity leave is simple decency and being that none of it comes out of her pocket not particularly praiseworthy. Her speech in China was a farce, you should read about it, she went out of her way to exclude china from blame. google it and you will see. You should also know that the Chinese themselves found nothing whatsoever objectionable about the speech, and you can google the chinese translation of it (or maybe find in on the China Daily archives) Hillary's auto was a big seller there. Suffice it to say, her speech doesn't deserve any particular acclaim and I can prove it if you want.

Why do I dislike her, because she has consistently been terrible politically. Her health care reform in 93 was a disaster. She has also claimed credit for SChip, but Bill was resistant to it, it was only after Congress moved on it that Hillary got on board and talked Bill into it. That is nice, but not all that wonderful. In addition she has claimed credit for many things she had only incidental involvement in. For example, I work with people from Ireland, they found it hilarious the credit she has taken. And if you want to know what the world thinks of Hillary, read Euro papers, they think she will say or do anything to win and hold her in little respect.

As to her being a Senator, I think she has been pretty good, I agree with her Iraq war resolution but it think it pathetic she doesn't just say the truth about it now. Some of the other crap, I don't care, yes, flag resolution was pathetic but doesn't really bother me. All politicians pander, but with Hillary it seems to be the default mode.

If she had decided to remain Senator I would have been happy for her to remain there for as long as she wanted to. It was her decision to become President that I disagreed with. One, after one dynasty the thought of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton is just an embarrasement. They had their 8 years in power, there is a reason we have a city called Cincinnati in America. Next, she was already disliked by 47% of America before the first vote was even passed. The notion of Democrats nominating a candidate as a kind of F U to Republicans is very dispiriting. And if she lost even moreso pointless. She had 47% unfavorables, plus a large segment of the Democratic party itself that was resistant to her, so push that 47% up to 63% and you can see my reservations about her from day one. So from day one it was incumbent upon her to lay these qualms aside, that we would not continue with the flame wars of the past 15 years. But she only claimed that these wars were the fun part.

Her campaign, presumptuous from the start, has only been a train wreck. That she is losing to a black man with little experience and a bizarre name like Barack Hussein Obama shows that she simply doesn't have what it takes. And if you have been reading TNR you know her countless examples of deceit, trickery, moving the goal posts, etc. etc. You know, after she lost Wisconsin in her speech she never even congratulated Obama, nor did she thank her supporters there.

It is also truly pathetic that McCain, and Mike Huckabee, have been far more gracious to Obama with regards to Rev. Wright or many issues. I disagree with Mike Huckabee on most issues but find him to be far more honorable than Hillary has ever been, and I supported McCain in the Republican primary. Is it too much to expect Hillary to act with the decency of Mike Huckabee?

Blackton,

Great post.  Thank you.  Still doesn't seem to rise to the level of hatred to me, but I appreciate the context, and tend to agree with much of it.  

"She voted to authorize the war, at a time when the recently-elected Commander in Chief insisted that he would use the authority as a bargaining chip to open Iraq to inspectors"

I do not think there was ever any doubt of Bush's intention to invade; it smelled like regime change from day 1 to me. You should reconsider this as a counter-argument because she, admittedly, voted to authorize without having read the NIE! Incidentally, neither did McCain, from what I understand. Which is why I feel all that more emphatic about BHO candidacy; he read the NIE, then took a public stand against the war when national sentiment was overall positive regarding the issue. Incidentally, I was saying pretty much what BHO has argued about why not, and I didn't get a copy (being just a citizen, and what not); I thought it was painfully obvious: two wars, inconclusive proof, regime change, etc.

blackton:

I'm with you, McCain has a lot of upside, McCain was originally my second choice. But I just don't know if there would be enough of the country left after another 4 years of Bush-a-nomics for 2012 to matter one way or the other; I realize the system will do what it can to maintain itself regardless of leadership, but how bad will it get before the system realizes what actually needs to be done to put things back where they belong?

To put it another way, how many "stimulus packages" will conservatives issue before they finally acknowledge that "Trickle-Down Economics" only actually works if the money actually trickles down, that the real key is getting money into the hands of the American people via jobs by which they can participate in, and improve, the American economic infrastructure? And the follow-up question, how far back would this scenario set back American Economics vis a vis China/Russia/Globalization?

And the follow-up question, how far back would this scenario set back American Economics vis a vis China/Russia/Globalization? that, my friend, requires a book to answer, and I ain't the one to write it.

Dmelhorn,

Like blackton, my extreme dislike for Hillary Clinton long antedates the appearance of Obama.  Like most people who support him, I do not think he is the messiah.  Early on I preferred Biden, then Edwards, then gave Obama a look.  But I will say that, but for my extreme dislike for Hilary, I might not have been willing to take notice of Obama.  When I did, I liked what I saw a lot: a gifted politician and speaker, not a policy wonk, incredibly smart (and by the way I do not accept the line that Hillary is very smart -- she seems to me to have an extremely pedestrian intelligence), and someone who I have no doubt is a genuine man of the left.  I would be happier if he had about eight more years in public office, but I think he knows how to work with subordinates who know things he doesn't know.  Overall, given his other qualities, I don't find the liabilities very large by comparison.

Now, as for Hillary, let me count the ways.  Overall, it is my perception that she does not care at all about the fortunes of the Democratic party or about the agenda of the Democratic party or about any of the principles the party stands for or about the people who toil without reward or honor or recognition to advance those things.  I think the only thing she cares about is Hillary Clinton and the prestige of Hillary Clinton.  This is not the opinion I have always held.  When she first ran for the senate in my state, I was happy to support a Democrat who could win.  Over the past eight years, my opinion of her has gone straight downhill.  With her conduct in this campaign, my previous extreme dislike has changed to detestation.  Why?  

1.  I am a local party leader.  Whenever our local committee has asked our other senator for assistance, he has been generous.  Whenever we have sought assistance from Hillary, we have gotten nothing.  On the one occasion where they did offer to do something -- make some important introductions -- they didn't follow through and stopped taking my calls to inquire.  Meanwhile, Hillary is happy to blow into my town to raise money for herself.  This behavior, at a time when we had a Republican governor making her and Schumer the de facto heads of the NYS Dems, was what first led me to think that with Hillary it is a one-way street.

2.  This impression was amplified by watching her behavior at county party events where she has spoken.  She blows in like the Queen of the Nile, doesn't pause to say anything to anyone sitting at a table, doesn't thank the people in the audience, just gives her boring speech like she is delivering news from Mt. Olympus and blows out again.  Bear in mind, all the people at this event are party activists who work to elect Democrats, including Hillary.  None of them gets paid to do it and, as I said, their labor is never recognized.  The only reward is the success of the Democratic party.  She treats us like we are her kitchen help.  I have stood next to Chuck Schumer and more than once heard him, with evident sincerity, thank and praise the party regulars for their service.  I have attended events where Bill Clinton spoke and heard him, with what at least seemed like sincerity, thank and praise the party regulars.  The year I ran for office, I as standing about 10 feet in front of him when he did that and, I am happy to admit, it made me feel good about killing myself for the party.  Hillary treats us like we are the kitchen help.  I don't give a fuck that she gives her staff maternity leave.  She treats volunteers like we all owe her and she owes us nothing.

3.  She came to the senate with extraordinary celebrity and as a senator from New York, necessarily a position of outsize influence.  She could have been, and should have been, a leader.  She has nothing.  I don't buy for one second the narrative that she has been a good senator.  She has accomplished nothing other than wasting the opportunity.  She might as well have been a backbencher from Arkansas.  Her singular accomplishment appears to have been sucking up to the Republicans who were initially nervous that she would use her power to make life tough for them, fighting for her party.  She's not a fighter, unless she is fighting for Hillary.  For the party, nothing.  The Republicans love her because she doesn't do anything to get in their way and visibly sucks up to them at any opportunity.

4.  On the important issues, her voting record stinks, her war vote, her vote on the bankruptcy bill.  The very thought of Hillary reincarnated as the champion of working people makes me ill.  I practiced a little bankruptcy law in my day and, let me tell you, when it was good for Hillary, she voted to fuck working people.  I don't buy her explanation for her war vote for one second.  Everyone knew Bush's intentions.  He was already lining up the troops.  If would have more respect for her if she had actually thought the war a necessity and was willing now either to defend that policy choice or explain that it was a mistake and how and why she made it.  Instead, it seems clear to me that her vote was purely about covering her own ass as part of her positioning to run for president.  I have no words for someone who would send young Americans to death not out of conviction but merely out of political opportunism.  It is utterly disgraceful.  Finally, we have her anti-flag burning amendment, part of her campaign to suck up to the right.  You can dismiss it if you want on the grounds that it had no chance of adoption.  But then, why put it out there?  It undermines the principle of free speech merely, again, to pander to the right in anticipation of her presidential campaign.  It was that piece of legislation, on top of her other behavior, that finally persuaded me that Hillary has no principles at all.  That everything she does is solely for the advancement of her own career and prestige.

5.  I attribute both 3 and 4 above to the fact that she apparently never for a moment saw the office of senator from New York as a job to be done for the people of New York.  It was only a stepping stone for her presidential ambitions.  Hence her extreme caution and unwillingness to fight for anything worthy.  No upside there for her.  In my view, she stole my senate seat.  I supported her to be my senator from New York first.  Do the job first, Then run for president if you want to.  She misappropriated the valuable opportunity for her own gian.

6.  She insults me at every turn.  I can accept that she didn't work her way up in politics.  I can accept that she has a very short resume in public office, just as I can accept it from Obama.  But don't insult me by telling me about your "35 years of experience" when you don't have.  Don't pretend to a public career when for most of the time your were married to someone in office, not doing the job yourself.  Don't tell me you are "tested, vetted, crossed the commander in chief threshold" when all that you have done is survive having Republican mud thrown at you.  That is not a test of your judgment, your abilities, your commitment or anything else.  It is a test of the strength of your ambition, and that is pretty clear anyway.

7.  She is a leaden, uninspiring speaker, although she appears to have gotten better lately.  This is a direct consequence of that fact that she never really had to earn public office.  If she had, she would either have learned how to speak or never gotten elected.  I have attended any number of events at which she spoke and her schoolmarm attitude, her condescension, her endless recitation of policy details have always been extremely irritating.  Even back then, she had a tendency to talk about herself rather than about us, the voters and party workers.

8.  All of her conduct in this campaign has lived down to my worst expectations.  Her fibs, her lies, her race-baiting, her constant efforts to manipulate the rules to her own advantage.  Her willingness to damage her Democratic opponent, and thus the prospects of the party, for her own gain.  That is the way the Republicans go about it.

With all of that, I have become convinced to a certainty that Hillary is the ultimate user.  She is using the Democratic party, and always has, as a vehicle for her benefit and glory.  I don't believe that she cares in the slightest degree for the party or its people or its principles.  Her lust is palpable and it is repellent.

Does that about explain it for you, dmelhorn?

Now Blackton, THAT is the measured mature response I was really looking for.  Better looking? Are you serious? I trust you are not, but I guess my 17 years of education has rendered me too dense to grasp your sharp humor. I take back everything I have said. You are indeed a genius. I will go home now and teach my kids that hating people is actually really easy and should not be reserved for nasty horrible people who purposefully hurt others. Oh and they should forget the bit about humility or putting themselves in others' shoes. They will learn that the nonsense about keeping an open mind is rubbish. Gosh, thanks Blackton! I just wish you could have come along sooner so my parents would not have wasted a few hundred thousand dollars on that useless education.  

The idea of a Barack Obama-Hillary Clinton "unity ticket" has been floated quite a bit the

The idea of a Barack Obama-Hillary Clinton "unity ticket" has been floated quite a bit the

The notion of a Barack Obama-Hillary Clinton "unity ticket" has been floated quite a bit the