Precisely, Michael. If he selects Hillary as his no. 2, his slogan would become "Yes we can have business as usual". Big Bill would be the wild card in the deck; imagine David Plouffe waking up every morning in terror and wondering what kind of damage control he might have to practice that day. Hillary herself has acquired an increasing taste for hyperbole that she might employ to ill effect in the general. Her Zimbabwe remark was simply over the top. I had been hanging on by my fingernails as a supporter of hers but after that comment I signed off publicy on her candidacy out here earlier this week. Bad, bad idea, her as Veep. I'm really alienated now. The Great One puts me off tremendously with his flighty rhetoric and McCain - however attractive he was from 1999 to 2004 - has bartered his soul to the Grover Norquists of his party.

Who gives a shit?  

Even if the Clinton's going "all out" for Kerry in 2004 could've made a difference to the outcome, and I seriously doubt that it could, in the past six months both Hill and Bill have shot through whatever political capital they might've had.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, somebody's going to step up and say "What about Hillary's primary supporters?  Obama can't win without them!"  Well, Hillary is going to say the requisite kind words about Obama, but beyond that, he neither needs nor wants her out there stumping for him.  She's just as likely to lose Ohio for him as win it.  For every blue collar union Democrat she draws, she scares away two exurban Republicans-leaning towards-Obama tired of the Iraq War.

This is all filler.  On to the main event!

(BTW I'm going on record--and out on a limb--to predict a Democratic blowout.  Obama by 7 points nationally, and in addition to Democratic strongholds, he takes PA, OH, MI, VA, CO and FL.)

aero, I agree.

Hillary brings nothing to the ticket. Now that she's discovered that it's over, she's reaching for the VP slot. No thanks. Biden, Webb, another half dozen picks bring somethng to the ticket that she can't. And in the end, it will not matter; McCain is going to get murdered in November. He's the Lou Holtz of politics. Time to retire that old playbook and that tired schtick. We've all seen it before.

Can you imagine how many ads  McCain and the RNC could put together of Hillary's greatest hits on Obama during the primary season?  "Even his own VP doesn't think he is up the job."  It would be an endless parade of Hillary and Bill driving Obama into the ground.  

Also, what is the upside?  I really don't think that the white-working class of Appalachia is going to go for the ticket simply because Senator Clinton is on it, as I don't think that they were all that excited about voting for her in the primaries.  They were voting against the 'other', regardless of how they defined it.  Women?  I really don't think that Democratic women are going to abandon the party in the fall.  Spite may be a powerful bit, but not when confronted with the alternative.  Gore had votes chipped away from the left in 2000, not the right.  I don't think it will be different for Obama.  Other than that, what gain to the ticket?  New York?  Solidly in the blue column on Election night.  What else is there?  I mean that, I may be missing something, but I really cannot see the benefit.  If someone were to take the time to make the class, I am still interested in reading it.

Finally, as others have noted, her increasingly hyperbolic nonsense in these closing days of the primary season is poisoning the waters.  Why would anyone pick the junion senator from New York when she implodes like this in the last days of an election cycle?  Yeesh.

take half of floridas delegates away, then add Obama and Clinton to the vote in Michigan on August 6. The total needed for delegates would be about 2170. It would take away Hillary's vote total in Michigan, eliminate her from VP consideration (he obviously couldn't look at her while she was running against him) and after June 3, he should be able to persuade enough supers to go his way. Michigan will get its vote, but it won't matter. Hillary can then run around Michigan all summer screeching for attention and Obama can announce his (presumptive) VP pick before Michigan. Hillary can too (although who would subject themselves to the humiliation. a Clinton-Ickes ticket, or Lanny Davis). Hillary would not be able to "offer" Obama VP either since he would still be running against her.

As to an election so late, Hillary is going to run regardless, saying it isn't over until the convention casts their vote, so bury her under her own bullshit.

"Should Barack lose to McCain, prepare yourself for the loudest I TOLD YOU SO in political history. Hardly a motivator for them to pull out all the stops on his behalf--though one would hope they're not that self-interested...."

What have they left *but* their vanity?

What white working class voters ca Hillary win over that, say, Jim Webb can't? And I honestly don't see vast swaths of women voters who were inclined to vote for Hillary either staying home or switching to McCain. Unless they would for racial - not gender - reasons, in which case, neither Jim Webb nor Hillary nor Kathleen Sebelius will help.

Aero, I would go out on a limb and predict, except I predicted McCain would drop out of the race by Halloween. My record is shaky!

The big upside of having her on the ticket is not the blue collar workers, but her female supporters, who claim they are going to stay home if she's not on the ticket. Apparently they don't much care about the supreme court or anything else, and are motivated by the resentment that her campaign has explicitly worked to gin up about how unfair Obama has been to her. That's what she's really holding hostage- a lot of female dems. I have no idea how he gets around it, and I agree that she's a disaster as a veep, but that's the cost of not going with her. My big hope is that she doesn't really want it, and she has the modicum of class to publically let people know that he offered and she turned him down.

Ugh. She can say I told you so all she wants, but she has specifically set things up to make it as difficult for him as possible, and most people are going to know that. Good luck with that NY governorship.

The big upside of having her on the ticket is not the blue collar workers, but her female supporters, who claim they are going to stay home if she's not on the ticket. Apparently they don't much care about the supreme court or anything else, and are motivated by the resentment that her campaign has explicitly worked to gin up about how unfair Obama has been to her. That's what she's really holding hostage- a lot of female dems. I have no idea how he gets around it, and I agree that she's a disaster as a veep, but that's the cost of not going with her. My big hope is that she doesn't really want it, and she has the modicum of class to publically let people know that he offered and she turned him down.

Ugh. She can say I told you so all she wants, but she has specifically set things up to make it as difficult for him as possible, and most people are going to know that. Good luck with that NY governorship.

I wonder what the over/under is for Hillary pulling a Lieberman.  

kgrant, your comments weren't posted yet when I wrote mine...obviously, I agree...

aero -  bold move, my man.  I hope you prevail, but once Mugabe was mention, I knew the time had come to cease making assumptions about anything anymore.  Literally nothing would surprise me with this campaign anymore...I have given myself over the Gods.  

I had dinner with an old mogul friend of my Dad's last night, an over the top Zionist guy - grew up in Queens, sweet and hilarious and very out of bounds rude and un PC on just about everything.  Untame-able.  Right wing on the mother land (both - US included in there).  I'm a big pinko to him but he likes me anyway.  He's a lunatic winger to me, but he's open about it and very very funny (which goes a long way, you have to admit).

When even he said he thought Obama was going to squash McCain, no question (he even LIKES Obama, suspicious but likes him - "There IS a jerk in there somewhere you know") I wondered if it wasn't as crazy out it sounded.

Just shoot me about Hillary.  I think Obama needs to outmanuever her on this one for the respect of world leader, all of whom are watching, I'm sure Putin is having a ball laughing through CNN every night.  I'm hoping for a Zen double whammy (or just continuing to stumble through with Hillary dooming herself, either scenario comes out the same in the end).

tomeg, if she says "I told you so" we all need to shout her down "no, you helped make it happen."

Micecelf nailed it -- if Obama supporters think that the sexism in this campaign (and yes, it was there) won't matter because Dem women only vote abortion rights/supreme court, they're mistaken.  (For the record, had Clinton won then the racism of the campaign would have come back to haunt her even more).  I don't know if HRC should be veep (I'd still go with Biden or Webb and say you want Bill for secretary of state), but denying the upside and going nuts over this Mugabe quote is wrong.  

Question: Do Hillary's supporters even want her to be the VP choice?

From the aggrieved-woman standpoint, I think the narrative of Hillary gets the consolation prize and takes a backseat to the man might actually be harder to swallow than the narrative of Hillary finishes a close second and takes charge of her destiny by campaigning hard for her party without being on the ticket.

Also, Hillary has had opportunities these last few weeks to demonstrate that she is capable of leading the white working class folks and older women who support her so strongly. She has chosen not to test her ability to lead them. So we don't actually know whether they would follow her.

Hillary Clinton as VP nominee?  That would so, SO suicidal for Obama.  Talk about alienating the core of his support...

And as far as aeromonas's prediction, I can buy all of them except FL...

I think (hope) that aggrieved women right now are a vocal minority. I also think (hope) that in a month or two, once the nomination is settled, everyone will get some perspective.

I wonder if allowing Hillary on the ticket wouldn't hurt Obama with some men, for sexist reasons. Everyone knows he doesn't really want her on the ticket. If she gets on the ticket, then he has been outmaneuvered by a woman. Men, correct me if I'm wrong, I am led to think this makes men think another man who gets outmaneuvered by a woman is a neutered fool.

Even without the sexist angle, it still might make him look weak. It made him look as if he can't go full steam ahead, running the campaign that he wants.

I read the arguments regarding Senator Clinton's support among women, but I still don't really buy the notion, at least without some kind of evidence,  that the resentments built up over the last two months (or at least since the Ferraro imbroglio erupted, I cannot remember when that happened exactly) have grown fatal.  

Also, do the staunch female supporters of Clinton have any proof that Obama has uttered anything sexist? (Beyond Ferraro's rather dodgy examples, at least one of which reveals a lack of knowledge of pop-culture (the brush off stuff was from Jay-Z, no?))  Or is the argument simply that it does not matter what Obama has said or done, and this is simply resentment based on the fact that a generic 'man' has 'robbed' Hillary of the nomination?  How can that argument be made if Obama locks up the nomination via delagates?

So, will women really hold on to the grudge from now until November?  Some, perhaps, but I really don't see this as a wide-spread phenomenon.  And again, when these women begin to think about the choices in the fall, what will they do?  Simply stay home and allow a Republican to get elected, and watch everything they support go down the drain?  Really?  

Somebody is really going to have to spell this out for me, because I just cannot fathom that kind of spite.

epic, if she ran a good campaign (and elements were good, I thought the 3 AM ad was fair game, same with health care) then I would have seen no problem with a joint ticket, the runner up has very often gotten the number two spot but she has run a truly vile campaign in so many other respects and seems to have no awareness how bad it was. I would say the same thing if she were a man. However, Obama has run so good of a campaign, I really am in no position to judge him weak or strong in either case. The fact that he has walked this tightrope of dealing with a batshit insane woman for so long and has done it so well...

lymon - there are just as many women out there disgusted with Hillary crying feminism, I guarantee you.  The perma-offended in no way own this debate.

kgrant- the two most comomnly cited examples are Obama referring to the "claws coming out" and to him using the word "periodically". I can KIND OF see how one could twist the first into something sexist, but the second just baffles me.

The bigger argument they typically make is that Obama hasn't BEEN particularly sexist, but he's benefited from it which is as bad in some of their minds. "he stood by and did nothing.." kind of thing. It's an absolutely insane argument, particularly given the Clinton's race record in this primary. But there are a LOT of vocal feminist bloggers and writers out there who absolutely believe it and cliam that they won't vot for Obama unless he puts her on the ticket (and others absolutely won't vote for him at all). Their argument is that it won't be their fault if Roe goes down, it will be Obama's because he forced them to not vote for him by using the word periodically or referring to a reporter as sweetie.

I have NO idea how many people there are out there, but they are certainly loud.

I'm not sure she helps him.  In a way, it gives biased people of various kinds a choice of what to dislike.  So you lose not only all the people who can't abide the idea of a black guy as president, you additionally lose that segment of the populaton that couldn't abide a woman ever being president.

wandrey, yeah, and crying feminism against who? The media? The voters? If she could point to a real pattern of sexism coming from Obama's campaign, and give us examples, then I would get her point, but to take it out on the person who beat you because of the actions of others is just childish. It would be like the spurs trying to injure Kobe because a few fans in the stands taunted them.

We all know that Obama lost KY and WVA because of racism, but he didn't cry and whine about it, he worked around it by winning in Oregon. Hillary has been a disgrace as a candidate, and has doubtlessly made it much harder for other women Presidential candidates in the future, people will say "do we really want to risk another Hillary?" Luckily though, they will doubtless be selfmade women worthy of respect.

Consider the upside to saying "no" to Hillary.

Some on this blog and elsewhere have been waiting for Obama to have a "sister Souljah" moment--a chance to both differentiate himself from constituency politics AND simultaneously show the cold, cynical calculation necessary on occasion in politics.  Jeremiah Wright does not seem to have met that criterion, at least for some.

I say making it clear to HRC that she will not be the VP--even while praising her trailblazing, thus killing her with kindness--could be just such a moment, if handled properly.

African-Americans, after all, didn't have any place else to go after Sister Souljah, despite Jesse Jackson's complaints.  Where are the over-fifty women going to go?

If is it possible to politely throw someone under the bus, I say HRC is a prime target.  Allow her name to be put in nomination, give her and Bill a  prime time speaking spot at the convention, then tell them to get lost.

OK Obama, you're fully suited up now - this is it - time to step up, vanquish.

Wandrey -- hear, hear! And *love* the phrase "perma-offended."

Jesus. "Periodically," my tush.

I'm perma-offended by Hillary Clinton. Even if he were  to offer her the nomination having secured a private [but legally enforceable, written] promise that she would reject it, just to save her face and unite the party, I would be offended. I don't even want him to do that.

To add to to kgrant1054's ad's he think the republicans could run, what about this one "His VP said I'd be a better candidate than Obama. His VP fantasized about him getting assassinated."

No way. These people should not be coddled or enabled one more day.

Let 'em go kicking and screaming if that's the price of the divorce (hell, they're already kicking and screaming) -- the louder they go, the more their more sane supporters will realize it's a good thing she didn't win. The real loonies? Who wants  'em anyway?

Wow, it's amazing how much of the electorate is either females over fiftyor buffoons who can't read or write or think.

Clinton has won a higher percentage of college graduates since the Texas/Ohio primaries than before (from 42-44%). She won the *majority* of voters making over $100K since that time (having lost them 47-51 in the overall primaries).

So since the Obamatons have declared the campaign over, Clinton has dominated the white vote, picked up a higher percentage of college grads than before, and beaten Obama in the rich category.

Who knew that women over 50 were so rich, or that so many college grads were buffoons that can't read or write?

Which is not to say that Clinton should work for Obama's victory or seek the veep nomination. No. She should, metaphorically speaking, kneecap and disembowel his campaign, leaving it decomposing by the side of the trail for McCain to wrinkle his nose at as he walks by. It's her best move. But more importantly, she's doing the country a favor. Anything that does more to provide for the crushing defeat of the Great Vapid One is a great deed.

I like Hillary. However, even if I didn't like her, you guys here at TNR are so repellent, so fanatic and mendacious as Obama supporters that you drive anyone but the true Obama believers into contempt for yourselves and your candidate.

It's not that you support him, you actually venerate him and you smear everyone who criticizes him. Obama is a smart and ambitious politician, but also one with deep flaws. He has associated with more terrorists and anti-Semites than any other US presidential candidate: Jeremiah Wright, Billl Ayers, Rashid Khalidi, Zbigniew Brzezinski. Instead of confronting these issues, you guys, in true Communist style, brand as racist anyone who criticizes him. Sorry, Him.

What are you going to do at general elections? Do you think this kind of browbeating will work then too? What if the American voters decide that Weather Underground is too much for him? What if the voters decide that twenty years in Wright's black racist church is too much for them?

Then we'll have been wrong.  But perhaps we will have been right, and it will turn out to be the case that Ayers is an acquaintance from Chicago who has a good reputation as a professor and civic activist, and that Wright is a blowhard who has sunk his own ship on national tv, and that Brzezinski is a kind of acerbic Polish asshole but one who has a clue of sorts about f-p, and that nobody knows or cares to know who Rashid Kalwhatever is because it's totally effing unimportant.

ironyroad "Brzezinski is a kind of acerbic Polish asshole but one who has a clue of sorts about f-p"

Yeah, some clues. Zbig showed it abundantly during Carter's presidency.

Rashid kalwhatever  is Rashid Khalidi, PLO's newsman in Beirut circa 1982, currently holding the Edward Said Chair at Columbia University (a very fitting position). I'm sure a man who has initiated various boycotts of Israel and denies the very right of Israel to exist will bring many Jewish votes to Obama.

irony, may it be that I am wrong in November - on both counts.

The first one is that I think Obama cannot win the election.

The second is that I doubt his abilities as a president.

Both misgivings are because of his association with many far-left bastards of the highest caliber, which denote, if not far-left beliefs, at least a spectacularly bad judgment. If Hillary associated with David Duke, would you respect that? Listen to Jeremiah Wright, he is exactly that type of toxic racist consumed by hatred. That's what I mean by bad judgment.

Zbig understood at least that the Soviets were digging their own grave in Afghanistan.  However, you might be right that Obama will not be elected because enough Americans give weight to the things you mention.  I'm optimistic, however, as I strongly suspect that they have a more realistic view of how social life works than you do.

On Khalidi -- as far as I know the PLO was/is the military wing of Fatah, the organization with whom Israel has negotiated at several points, most notably in Oslo, and that forms the government in the West Bank.  I think one should take things in a wider perspective.

irony, Tell me of one thing that went well under Zbig -  in his domain. One. Maybe his liking of Khomeini?

Don't make a mush of the facts on Khalidi. The man was the newsman of PLO at the time when PLO was listed as a terrorist organization by the US, OK? Second, he does not recognize any historical presence of Jews in Israel and he has opposed and opposes the RIGHT TO EXISTENCE of Israel. No matter how you try to minimize it, this Obama friend is as evil as evil can be (within legal limits). I understand that perhaps the existence of Israel is nit a major concern for you, but it really is for American Jewish voters.

And so it should be.

First, Israel is a strong American ally. (It is also possibly the only ally that actually like the US. You guys have liberated Europe and left 5000,000 American soldiers dead on the fields of Europe. You then helped them rebuild their economies with the Marshall Plan and gave them a nuclear umbrella for 45 years, so they are not invaded by Communist Russia. For that you are hated and spit in the eye by Western Europeans - nice thanks!  By contrast, you have never fought a war for Israel, you have not rescued Jews from the camps (your military didn't even want to bomb Auschwitz while it was bombing the rubber factory two miles away). All you did was to give the Jews military aid in weapons - a little more than you give Egypt, which in return sent you 15 suicide bombers on 9/11.  And for that military aid we Israelis are still grateful.)

Second, Israel is the place where American Jews will have to go if someone like David Duke or Louis Farrakhan ever reaches significant power. So American Jewsih voters would be damned right to look out for Israel. Spare me the paranoia argument. German Jews never thought it possible that civilized Germany, where they excelled, would kill them. I don't think Americans are German, but I don't believe either arguments such as "Americans would never do that". Human nature is plastic enough for the worst things to happen. After the Holocaust, no Jew should trust arguments like :"oh, they would never do that". THAT would be madness. Second, and closer to the point, David Duke is not close to anyone this election. But Louis Farrakhan is - to Jeremiah Wright, Obama's mentor. If Obama dislikes these radical racists and anti-Semites, he gave precious little indications. Why, he even compared Wright to his own grandmother.

You know what irony? Please don't make the argument about respected civic activist anymore. You made it for Bill Ayers. Hamas and Hezbollah make it as well - they provide social services 9so they can't be all bad). Farrakhan makes it too. Yet to me, they all are scumbag terrorists, starting with Bill Ayers, a man completely unrepentant.

It remains to be seen whether the general American voters will swallow these associations of Obama with assorted first-rank bastards. Perhaps he will renege them by then. So far he has only done this to Wright and even that only when he understood it was hurting at the polls (so much for the principled and clean man). Before that, Wright had been evil for the twenty years he ws the Anointed One's mentor. But no, Obama didn't see it... He didn't see Bill Ayers was bad either... The case remains to  be made for why the Americans should vote for such a man.

"irony, Tell me of one thing that went well under Zbig -  in his domain. One. Maybe his liking of Khomeini?"

Did he like Khomeini?  I see no evidence of that, but I see a lot of ignorance about Iran.  But funny you should pick on him of all people, sleepy.  I mean, let's get real here:  elements of  the Reagan campaign were the people who did the deal with the Iranian leadership not to release the hostages in fall of 1980 so that Carter would not benefit from such an event.  At least the Carter administration tried a special forces action to free the hostages.  

Support the troops!  Yeah.  I'd be interested to hear from the Republican who wanted that operation to work.