Now, wait a second on that skepticism on Clinton... I haven't been a fan of hers this election cycle, but from a strategic point of view...should She be the nominee, do DEMs get Florida?  Unless McCain picks Lieberman (which he might do if Clinton is the DEM choice), Florida goes blue.  And then, all of those states where Hillary beat Barack (Ohio, arguably Michigan, Indiana) are fertile ground for DEM.    The only thing I am ascertaining from newer polls is that MCCain will pick Pawlenty to help win Minnesota and stay competitive in Wisconsin, MIchigan, Ohio and Indiana, but I don't see Pawlenty's appeal making any more bounds than in Minnesota  

The best defense for choosing Hilary, is that it gives the GOP a carrot to munch on: instead of focusing on Obama's history and his race, the qualities on which they have already begun sharpening their smear chucks, the  GOP hate machine will condense their negative narrative into commercials about the total irony that Obama and Hillary would want to even campaign together.  

Which is... FINE!  That argument is waaay too cerebral to change votes, and serves as a cover against McCain & Co. exploiting Obama on race and his background, because we know that tact is a far worse and effective smear.  

Then, if they want to stage a smear campaign against Clinton... Great!  That will piss of the Hilliristas who are still not onboard with Obama, and will usher them back into the flock.  That helps in Florida and Michigan.  With FL and MI (and likely OH, IN) back into the blue, Minnesota falls out of orbit.  But the trade off is GOOD!  And who knows, it could just convince enough Coloradans, between the white women and latinos who voted Clinton in the primary and are still wavering on Obama.  I mean, its a half pt. difference in Colorado in the polls, I don't see why that extra jump won't solidify Colorado as Blue.

Finally, this would actually achieve "Party Unity' (or some sort of semblance), which will only make the process easier.  

I never thought I'd say this, but hey, BO's campaign in hemorrhaging voters and this is the sure shot to getting victory.

Now could he live with his choice after the victory?  Well I suppose we'll post on that topic when we get there.

I think dylanposer is right. It's time to get serious - Obama does indeed look like he's in trouble. A Hillary pick would be a game changer and there's little McCain could do to react to it. In the end, it's about winning, and she's his best shot to do that.

I would be very surprised if Hillary wanted the VP nominaation at this point.

See the "Green Grudges from Bill" post over on The Vine.  

No way Bill goes live with back-handed complements like that if Hill had any shot at being the pick.  And anyhow this goes to highlight the reason Clinton would be a disastrous choice no matter what electoral college voodoo you choose to invoke: a little something that goes by the initials WJC.

I can't believe I'm saying this but...Clinton should be his pick. Hell, the lady knows how to play dirty. Obama is too passive, too intellectual in his approach to the election. He's letting McCain win news cycles, he's letting McCain go negative with only tepid counterpunches. He needs to change the tempo and put McCain on the defensive or he's going to lose this election.

"Obama is too passive, too intellectual in his approach to the election."

Mpatrick: this guy actually had disqualified his main challenger for the State Senate.  I hardly call that passive or intellectual.  And he managed to beat back Hillary.  His counterpunches have been "tepid" because, I think, he knows that too much negativism now, especially on his part, would not appeal to voters.

Remember what he said when he announced his run?  Michelle had said she would let him run, ONLY if he was serious enough, and by that she meant not just testing the waters, but being able to counter the Republican machine.  Someone who planned the under-the-radar caucus state grab of delegates and so effectively snookered Hillary, wuold have planned out the campaign roll-out of ads carefully.  I'd venture to guess that if there is a "primary colours" book about Obama's campaign, the only surprise would be Wright's stupid speech and television interview - beyond that, the Republicans are playing texas hold'em while Obama is playing the classical game, revealing his cards if and when needed.

His latest ad is pretty good - negative without being nasty.  His "Economics" ad was hardly cerebral and went to the point (and his smile at the end - man, I don't get besotted by politicians - OK, Biden in 88, but that's it - but that smile at the end of his ad is just magic).  No, the angry young black man routine won't work at all; HE needs to keep cool - and the campaign will hit hard, and harder, as it progresses.  Think of it as Bolero rather than the Fifth.

According to MSN today, McCain is now 5 points up on Obama in national Zogby poll. First lead for McCain. What is the silver lining?

Aeromonas,

What I'm saying is that having WJC as the receptacle of GOP spite is the positive here, because it keeps the GOP at bay.  If they spend their energy going after "Obama/Clinton irony", or trying to invoke WJC hatred, then they will be making few inroads with the electorate that still remains undecided--the smear will be too complicated to be digested as they'd like for it to be.  It's not a pungent negative campaign the way swiftboating was.  

I don't know... Biden might be able to shore up the undecideds too, but I think that Hillary puts FL back into the mix.  That's 27 electoral votes.  

I find this discussion extremely amusing. After the many months of cock-sure boasting and outlandish attacks on Hillary that some who post on Salon would actually say they need Hillary is rich. I've never been a fan of Obama and have always thought that his early wins in the primaries were hype. This whole idea of a new politics is pure folly which is a sucker play for liberals who want to stand above the fray and not get their hands dirty. Democrats are notorious for wanting to take the high ground and lose elections. All of the high minded stuff goes right out the window on election day with a lose. After loosing Democrats go through the whole cycle of recrimination and soul search then come right out in the next election and do the same thing all over again. Winning elections comes down to trench warfare, if necessary which Hillary can do but many Democrats hated her for it. Get serious. Now some will wish she were back in the game to supply the strength and doggedness to win the election. Good luck. I will vote for the ticket if she is on it but otherwise I want no part of this debacle. Bad choice #1 McCain, bad choice #2 Obama! I'm an independant.

We've arrived at the point I had been expecting for months: Obama and McCain are even and the trend of the moment is toward McCain. I'd expected it would come later in the campaign, but no matter. The silver lining would be that Democrats go into their convention not with the air of certain triumph but with the conviction to work as never before to elect Democrats up and down.

Obama will sink or swim on his own, that much is clear. It couldn't be a better time for the wake up call.

digression:

williamyard or anyone: could someone please upload Jackie Paris's version of Skylark on to youtube. I think it would solve the the U.S. housing crisis, and it's so beautiful and I don't know how to do it.

I can't imagine a worse idea than dylanposer's of putting Hillary on the ticket. Not only will it mobilize Republicans to rally 'round McCain, but it will cost Obama with crucial independent voters. Worse, it will change the entire tone of the race. You think things are nasty now? Just wait till the Clintons are back in the limelight. All the smears that Obama was too "passive" to launch himself will be daily fodder for the GOP. Her candidacy would be a gift to FoxNews, and, ultimately, McCain.

Let's turn the page on the Clintons, shall we? Are Democrats so enfeebled now that they think they can't win an election without them?

BHLnyc:  Can the Dems win an election without the Clintons?  Well, they haven't yet -- not coincidentally, they've rejected the blue dog territory the Clintons staked out during the 1990s.  That said, I don't think Obama should take Hillary Clinton even if it looks good on paper (see veep candidate Jack Kemp's performance).  

please, any polls nowadays are pretty meaningless. Dukakis was up 17 points against Bush and lost by 8. This will be one in the home stretch, the only question being are there enough people who are marginally racist going to say we need a real change, and who the hell can expect real change from a 72 year old 30 year Congressman? this is hope versus fear. If fear wins, well lets just say I am thankful I don't live in the states.

As to Hillary, hell she has been a train wreck from the start. Thank God even if Obama loses she will never be President. I, for one, would never vote for her as she is basically a soulless creature. In 4 years it will be Warner and a truly safe choice.

r-ennis: note the dates for the Zogby poll you cite: it ended on the 16th, though only published today.  Every poll since then has had Obama  up  by 1 to 2 points, and Quinnipiac, which started before but ended after the Zogby poll has Obama up by five.  See the RCP averages.

I agree with every point that blackton made and the sentiments behind them. Hillary ran an execrable primary campaign. What makes anyone think she would somehow get her act together for the general? Mark Penn is an absolute toad. That she entrusted him with a leadership position says volumes about her. I'm not saying she's a terrible person, but she wound up running a Nixonian, polarizing, personal-grievance based campaign, and she made the choice to do that after her own strategic choices ensured her loss. She remains a thorn in Obama's side and the party's side. In the end, I am glad that she managed to destroy herself. Strong and Wrong doesn't work for me.

Also, Al Gore trailed W for much of the 2000 campaign, and I don't recall anyone suggesting that we dump him in favor of some chimerical man/woman on horseback. Obama might not win, but if Democrats actually fall in line behind the guy, and he manages to win a majority of independents, then he will beat McCain. It won't be easy, but he can do it, and we as a people will be better off with him in the White House than Hillary Clinton.

Do we know if the Clintons provided enough info to be vetted? Would Bill's past eight years be out of bounds after the spouse in '84 became a fair target? Unless we know that Obama was given all the documents they wanted from the Clintons, we can't say she on any list.

Regarding Nate's latest, none of his work is seems to be paying off for #5 of his six step process:

"5. Projection: Translate the snapshot into a projection of what will happen in November, by allocating out undecided voters and applying a discount to current polling leads based on historical trends."

No, all Nate's data and his methods of manipulation have not provided "a projection of what will happen in November". I do agree "investments in the ground game may not show up in the polls in the first place". I think that is to large a piece of the puzzle to be without. Until and unless there is a way to account for the new voter (how many, where are they?) one can't be certain Obama isn't gaming the polls. His team knows how his "ground game" is performing and he doesn't appear to be abandoning it yet. I suggest Barack's data is more favorable than the polls and he's confident that it is more accurate. Yeah, Obama has the info that isn't showing up in the polls and it's powerful stuff.

BHL,

I do agree with you that it would be fodder for Fox and WSJ editorial and Limbaugh, but wouldn't they be doubling back on themselves?  First they liked the idea of Obama, because he wasn't Hillary, but then they tried to derail Obama's momentum by touting Hillary as the wiser choice than McCain.  Furthermore, don't they already preach to the choir?  If this can make the right-wing media hawks sound like they are stricken by a terrible bout of mental masturbation.  

I'm only making a suggestion.  I think that the best idea is to implement a strategy that promotes long term change (planting seeds in OH, IN and CO is ideal) and not just a last-second crutch (FL going blue again), but I'm not sure that this won't be a break-glass-incase election.

Sorry to fragment: "If this can make the right-wing media hawks sound like they are stricken by terrible bout of mental masturbation..." then it is a positive for team DEM.

Thank you, timteeter. I was just about to ask about the dates on the poll, and what the other polls are saying.

I think we now know how they decided when to start launching their attack ads. They did a good job of using sound-bytes of McCain to dig his own hole. If we continue to see this, and start incorporating more instances of McCain promoting his "crony creds" (I voted for Bush twice, I did everything in my power to help W get elected), that should pretty much wrap it up.