8.17.2008

On Obama-Clinton

In today's VP speculation thread, I had the following to say about Hillary Clinton as a prospective running mate for Barack Obama.

Boy, would this be dramatic. And perhaps exceptionally smart. I think Obama might get an immediate 10-15 point bounce if he named her. But I don't know how well she'd hold up after coming under attack in September and October -- remember, she hasn't really been the subject of a negative campaign since late February, when the Obama folks decided they had the nomination locked up and started to play it safe. It's a crazy scenario, but the whole Obama veepstakes has been crazy enough that I wouldn't rule it out.
Armando at TalkLeft takes issue with my statement:
Emphasis supplied for sheer incredulity. How would Hillary hold up under negative attacks? Are you freaking kidding me? This is an open question for Poblano? Sheesh.
Let's look at two simple pieces of evidence.

#1. An analysis of press releases that I conducted in May suggested that there were in fact virtually no negative attacks on Clinton from March 1st onward, at least not originating from the Obama campaign, the McCain campaign, or the RNC.
Clinton's incoming hits peaked in January, and have since dwindled basically to nothing. She hasn't been the subject of either an RNC or a McCain press release since March. Overall, since March 1st, Obama has taken 151 incoming hits, McCain has taken 144, and Clinton has taken 9.


#2. How did Clinton fare when she was the subject of negative attacks, such as during December, January, and the first part of February?

Her numbers against John McCain were quite poor. She was consistently trailing him by approximately 3 points in the Pollster.com averages during this period. Her numbers improved only AFTER the negative attacks stopped in March and April.


I have come around on Clinton. I think she would at least be a decent VP choice for Obama, and possibly an excellent choice.

But let's not get into revisionist history. She remains a candidate with significant negatives and, when those negatives were being leaned upon, her electoral position was vulnerable.

UPDATE: Steve Clemons, who posted that odd item on Wesley Clark on Saturday, reports that a decision has been made on the VP slot. He says it WON'T be Bayh, Daschle, Reed, or Clark. He thinks Joe Biden is the most likely choice, with Kaine, Hagel and Sebelius still possible but less likely. And he thinks we shouldn't discount the possibility of Clinton, Gore, or Kerry.

114 comments

John Nail said...

Please Barack - just say No!! Bill has been on Air F**K One with his old buddies and 8 years of philandering is in RNC files ready to go and God knows what on Hillary..

DCM in FL said...

Nate,

Good of you to post commentary that appears to rebut your own opinions.

Both sets of arguments make sense. Clinton has high negatives of course, but in a short heightened dash to November her pluses might out weigh her negatives.

If you had asked me in May, no way would I support Hillary as VP. Now in mid-August ? Maybe if Obama can handle her by choice then it is more than a fine choice for me.

Last year this did seem like a Dream Ticket, so maybe enough time has gone by for it to work.

But then, no landslide of 350 EV or more. Probably under 300 or a very close win only.

This would be the safest bet perhaps [after Gore] IMO.

Then of course, McCain will choose Romney, so it will be a lovefest all around !

Jyrinx said...

I'm absolutely certain that the GOP is sitting on a nice, big pile of oppo research that they've been keeping around to use on Hillary Clinton's Presidential candidacy. They'd probably be just as happy to unleash it on her as the bottom of the ticket.

Also, we must not discount the fact that Hillary would energize the GOP base in a way that McCain never can. She is the devil incarnate to many on the right. They'll need to be persuaded to vote against Obama; they'll fall over themselves rushing to vote against Hillary.

Barry said...

Putting Hilary on the ticket would be good for the GOP, it will fire up the base even more and give GOP voters two reasons to go out to the polls in November: To vote against Obama, and to vote against Hilary.

Picking Hilary would be a pseudo-GOP GOTV campaign.

moondancer said...

I hated the idea back in June. But now, I take the GOP position that ANYTHING that wins is good.

Michael said...

The people vote the top of the ticket and the VP selection almost always doesn't make any difference to the ultimate outcome.
Selecting Hillary would be the exception that proves the rule. For this election it would provide Obama with all the benefits that Hillary could bring to a victory; Women, down scale whites in Ohio, PA, Michigan, N.H. and hell, Arkansas will be back in play and no downside. McCain is not going to attack Hillary, he needs to attack Obama. Hillary will attack McCain and sell her economic message which Obama hasn't been effective at.
Adding Hillary to the ticket would INSURE an Obama victory and it would be a huge landslide.
The trouble begins, however, when they both have to govern together, but that will be another story...

George said...

Let me know when clinton thinks Obama is fit to be President. Then I'll get on board. Until then, gimme Clark, Warner, Webb or Biden.

And you can have Tim Kaine. He's useless.

Tito said...

Clinton as VP is a dead issue in my opinion. It's not just Hillary as VP, the Clintons are a package deal. I don't think Obama wants that and I think the GOP would have a field day with that. They can attack the Clintons instead of attacking Obama directly. If Hillary could be political separated from Bill then it's not a bad move at all. But they are a two-for and I can't see Obama taking that risk.

DCM in FL said...

who cares if the GOPers go negative on the Clintons !

everyone in the world has made up their minds about the Clintons by now.

That strategy would simply deflect unwanted negative attacks that would otherwise be directed straight at Obama.

hhhmmmm... that might be a smart strategic deflection to divert the negatives to the Clintons. Lord knows they can handle it.

Plus both Bill & Hill could independently campaign in separate states so you would get 3 strong campaigners for the price of 2 for the next 2 months....

sounding better by the minute even for someone who voted against Clinton in FL in Jan.

My biggest problem was/is that our POTUS should not be held by either a Clinton or Bush for another 8 years. Hillary is certainly capable & qualified as anyone else - or more. But I did not want more 'royalty' coronation of dynasties. Hope Jeb Bush never gets a shot too.

eponymous said...

You know all this analysis of whether Hillary would help Obama in the election is all well and good, but I think it misses a major point. I don't think Obama really wants the Clintons in the White House, should he win. And that means that the only reason he would choose her as a VP would be if he thought he needed her to win. No matter your opinion on her strengths/weaknesses, I think it's very difficult to argue that we are absolutely certain of her necessity on the ticket.

Taking this into consideration, I find it very unlikely she will be VP.

Jyrinx said...

@Michael:

They don't vote for the bottom of the ticket, but they may very well vote against it.

Remember the first rule of choosing a VP: Do no harm.

DCM in FL said...

something tells me the OLD rules may not apply this year as things have shown by the presumptive nomination of both Obama & McCain...

new electoral order may emerge

Ordinarulo said...

The reasons Clinton were unelectable are still there. Start with Hillary and the Rodham brothers involvement in very fishy pardons in 2000-01. People that then donated beaucoup dollars to Hillary's PACs, the Clinton Library, and Foundation. Obama didn't go there, because, following Plouffe's spreadsheet, he knew he was in the lead from day one. Even if he had lost Iowa, he was going to let the GOP eat her alive and run in 2012.

Also, there is the fundraising problem. Obama is not taking the public funds, so he continues to need money. Nor is he taking lobbyist or PAC dollars. Hillary's non-lobbyist non-PAC individual fundraising was pathetic. They'd actually have to return much of her general stash if Obama keeps to the no-lobbyist no-PAC pledge. Plus, if he picks Clinton, Obama's money train of anti-war netroots donors dries up like a tumbleweed.

Andy said...

There seems to be a huge disagreement about whether putting HRC on the ticket would be a good or bad thing for the Democrats. Mmm. Interesting.

OTF said...

There is Zip, Zero, Nada chance that Hillary is VP. Anybody that wants to doubt it put up you money and I'll be glad to take it.

filistro said...

Again, as in the thread below... Dems generally neutral on the idea, Reps generally negative.

Again... hmmmm.

Darío said...

Very Good analysis.
I think if Obama picks Hillary he would lost an important numbers of indies.
PUMA´s democrats likes the conservatives against McCain. And Obama is better than Hillary with indies.

edmundintokyo said...

Obama has McCain in a tactical box: He can use his "Maverick" history to turn out independents or he can act like a typical Republican and turn out his base, but he can't do both. Until now, he's gone for turning out the base. Hillary helps Obama with the Democrats' base but at the cost of helping McCain with his own base, allowing him focus on independents.

So the question in considering Hillary is whether McCain has now said enough that he's committed himself to sticking with the base and scared away independents. If so, Obama should pick her. But if McCain still has the option of pivoting to a more independent message, he shouldn't.

I'm guessing that McCain can still pivot until anything up to a month before the election. If Obama could hold off his VP pick until then, choosing Hillary would be a good move. But he can't, so it isn't.

clarkejeffrey said...

This is exactly what I hate about the Hillary would be great talk. Anybody can look great when they aren't taking fire. The Republicans have quite a bit of ammunition on her. They would love to use it.

I find it so hypocritical and borderline hysterical that the same people that were planning to smash her to pieces are now saying "Wow, Hillary would have been great. The Democrats should have nominated her."

The ultimate truth is that GOP wants to attack Obama but they don't have any real ammunition. Thats why they are going with things like Brittany Spears. If Obama's wife had sold influence to the President of Kazachstan, you know damn well, they'd be using it instead of Brittany.

Jackson said...

I'm absolutely certain that the GOP is sitting on a nice, big pile of oppo research that they've been keeping around to use on Hillary Clinton's Presidential candidacy. They'd probably be just as happy to unleash it on her as the bottom of the ticket.

Shortly after Hillary was more or less out of the running byt he numbers (but before she actually conceded), there was some news story that suggested that the GOP had actually crafted an entire short film of attacks against Hillary that they were lamented they would suddenly have no use for. I doubt they threw it away.

NJ_Moderate said...

Picking Hillary is ALL about OH. I think she helps in AR but not enough to carry the state. Her selection will cause VA and CO to probably go red but if OH is 'locked up' with her selection, the Obama has to 'man up', make the pick and win the election.

mikelow1885 said...

Time for the numbers to be updated with that Ohio PPP poll--showing a tie, with the PUMA alive and well in the Buckeye State. McCain is pulling 17% of Democrats away from Obama.

Would Hillary on the ticket be a help? I think in the end, yes. Obama already is one lightning rod anyway, and the loss among independents would be offset by gaining more Democrats.

mikelow1885 said...

Time for the numbers to be updated with that Ohio PPP poll--showing a tie, with the PUMA alive and well in the Buckeye State. McCain is pulling 17% of Democrats away from Obama.

Would Hillary on the ticket be a help? I think in the end, yes. Obama already is one lightning rod anyway, and the loss among independents would be offset by gaining more Democrats.

crazywx said...

I agree with you to a point Nate. I'm not sure why everyone has pretty much ruled her out as a possibility. I really do not think the Obama campaign has eliminated her. Were I making the decision it would be between Clinton and Biden. Both are Pit Bull Terriers and as sharp as any other pencil in the box. Clinton comes with a free fierce Rottweiller whose name is Bill. Biden brings with him foreign policy experience and a straight talk like demeanor while Clinton brings a lot of blue collar votes that Obama desperately needs. In the end, I think the choice is going to be Biden because he is way less risky and will probably do no harm, but I would not be surprised to see Hillary picked. It would probably be a mistake in the long run but who knows. Clinton is meant to be on the top of a ticket. The big risk of Clinton being picked is that the conversation over-shadows anything the top candidate has to say. Each accusation the Republicans fling against the former President and First Lady will make the top of the nightly news broadcasts, and Obama will become voiceless. I don't think his campaign wants that. Biden offers a lot with very few negatives.

Darío said...

I think Obama is wrong if he picks Hillary for OH. He would lose a lot of states with this woman.

Franco said...

Who cares what Armando LA LOCA says...he called you a Clinton hated....he is a notorious troll who berates old ladies on the blog who diisagree with him. He is a dizzy queen.

Jackson said...

Picking Hillary is ALL about OH. I think she helps in AR but not enough to carry the state. Her selection will cause VA and CO to probably go red but if OH is 'locked up' with her selection, the Obama has to 'man up', make the pick and win the election.

Uh, not really, because Hillary's presence on the ticket is almost certain to cost Obama at least one Kerry state. Oregon, Wisconsin, and Minnesota are all vulnerable, and Gore state Iowa vanishes.

filistro said...

ooooohhh, oppo research!

Like what? She murdered Vince Foster? She's a lesbian? She doesn't bake cookies?

Hillary is arguably the only candidate who's totally innoculated against all this crap.

And don't forget... somewhere toward the end of her campaign the public fell in love with her. That won't fade away as quickly as you all might hope.

cowbat friend said...

She's been 'on message' and done a little light campaigning for a while now despite hubby Bill's continuing reservations about Obama so naturally her stock as VP has risen. I would prefer a different woman (not mentioning any Sebeliuses) but if it helps tranquilise a few pumas like that 'darren' fellow it can't be an altogether bad thing.

OTF said...

---"And don't forget... somewhere toward the end of her campaign the public fell in love with her."

Hardly. A bunch of middle aged white women void of reality, made a stink and were unable to face the fact that she lost largely b/c of her own incompetence. They see her failing as a reflection on their life of not getting what they felt entiltled to. They were planning her coronation in Dec 2007 before a single vote was cast, as they felt entilted to the nomination, as she did. The are continuing to act irrational, unable to acept the facts of her loss. They are willingly promoting every sexist stereotype of those wary of women in power as irrational and hyper-emotional. Btw, that's what I have heard from some Hillary supporters in the primary that see the acts of her Clintoninas as destructive to women and feminism.

PeteKent said...

An Obama Clinton ticket would be fraught with as much risk as reward.

More than anything having the Clintons hanging around so integral to the campaign would be a huge distraction from the task at hand: Beating John McCain.

The media would focus more on what is going on in the clubhouse than on the field and the team would often appeared beleaguered unless somehow discipline could be imposed on it. Trouble is I don’t see anyone with a strong enough personality around to do that.

The plus side of course is that there would be appearance of a unified party and Obama’s numbers consistently reflect him not holding enough of the Democratic base. He seems to need the rejuvenation her nomination would bring. It would amount to admission of weakness, however.

And will the tradeoff be among the independents and young people who are either soured on the Clintons or of the belief that they represent the kind of old guard that Obama was supposed to replace?

I think it would be the ultimate flip flop, exposing Obama as just another politician desperate to do anything he must to get elected including bargaining with the devil.

Better to go with Clark that risk a fumble.

Jackson said...

I don't think Hillary Clinton is either inclined or motivated enough to be an effect attack dog as the #2 on a ticket.

Daniel said...

The PPP OH poll should serve as THE crystal ball for Obama -- pick Hillary, and OH and the presidency is your's. But, it comes at a cost -- down the road.

Don't pick Hillary and wave goodbye to OH but there is still VA, which is even to slightly advantage Obama -- take Warner, and flip the coin.

Of course, taking Hillary almost forces McCain to take Crist which means Obama holds all Kerry states and keeps IA and NM.

I can't stand the woman, I can't stand her 'live vicariouly thru Hillary' supporters, but, like someone above just said -- the idea here is to win and she will deliver the presidency to Obama.

Still, he won't take her, he is too confident of victory to take her -- I think he's nuts, but hey, he's running for president and I'm going to make myself some hot chocolate.

PeteKent said...

Can HRC use the cash she raised for the general if she is the VP nominee? Obama may nee dher money and that could tip the balance in her favor. Otherwise the $$ have to go back to the donors.

obama had a good but not record breaking month in July. He may be wondering about his cast forecast for the general. meanwhile mccain will be spending millions in August defining himself and his opponent.

PeteKent said...

Dont be so certain HRC wins OH for Obama. Most of her vote there was an anti-obama vote. She offers little that truly resonates in the heartland.

Virginia Conservative said...

Please pick Hillary! PLEASE!

Don in Seattle said...

I agree with franco above, minus the blatant gay-baiting. Armando is a PUMA nutjob, and TalkLeft is a haven for irrational pro-Hillary, anti-Obama bitter-enders like him. Debating them is like trying to debate Frau Goebbels as she poisons her children.

OTF said...

---"Still, he won't take her, he is too confident of victory to take her"

Obama despises her and why wouldn't he. She is all out scum that could never be trusted. The Clintons are incapable of doing anything with dignity shown by her slash and burn campign when she had been mathematically eliminated. The fact she continuously pokes and encourages her irrational supporters to undermine him and make a spectecal. The Clintons have burned alot of bridges in the DEm party and only those void of morals to see these people for ehat they are still support her. They are lower than scum.

Daniel said...

You may very well be right about Hillary and OH, I still think she helps deliver OH but no one can reasonably argue against her huge appeal in S. Florida (Boca Raton, Miami, Lauderdale and up through Okeechobee and Tampa/Orlando).

She really would almost force McCain to pick Crist so that he could hold Florida.

No matter how you slice it, Hillary is a major pain in Obama's ass but she's also a pain in McCain's ass -- the question is, who has the more effective hemmorhoid cream?

Virginia Conservative said...

Whats this crap about Hillary being a prolific fundraiser? Obama out raised him in the primaries.

Mac G said...

People still read what those bitter hacks at Talk Left write? Their pathetic behavior and despicable arguments during the DEM primary season in favor of Hillary should eliminate any street cred.

Is there not a PUMA rally to attend to?

Jackson said...

She costs way more than she brings electorally; she would rejuvenate Republicans to turn out to vote just by the sight of her name on the ballot; she would make them able to use all the material they've gathered during all the time they were sure she'd be their opposition.

I'm amazed that people still hold the delusion that Hillary "delivers the presidency to Obama". Whenever I see that asserted I laugh so hard my sides ache.

Ordinarulo said...

Pete - HRC is in debt, even counting her "general cash". Plus, much of that comes from registered lobbyists and PAC donors. If Obama stays true to how he's run the campaign, he'd return all of that. Or he'd backtrack. Probably whichever was more expedient.

If he is worried about cash, he has to know that his money advantage has been coming from anti-war, anti-Clinton, people. Will he risk pissing them off for the meagre fundraising the Clinton people were able to accomplish? I, for one, would probably not donate another cent if Hillary "lobbyists are very important people" Clinton is on the ticket. I'd vote for Obama/Clinton, disappointedly, but not another cent.

Daniel said...

OTF,
I agree with you -- I agree with most everything you say...all I'm trying to point out is that Hillary makes winning very difficult for McCain.

Also, none of us are talking about how a Hillary selection as VP would DOMINATE the news cycle this week, then thru the convention -- it would blunt (frankly halt) the great two-three week run McCain has been having.

jeremy said...

Obama's supporters in colorado and Virginia won't dump him just because clinton is on the ticket. They don't want Hillary as President but if it helps Obama win the election no one cares if she's the VP.

Stephanie said...

I have never understood the argument that Hillary Clinton is somehow inoculated against negative attacks.

Let's say that there are no "new" negative attacks to be had against her (I don't believe this to be the slightest bit true, but for the sake of argument, we'll assume it here). Simply because the attacks have been made before doesn't imply that they won't be made again, loudly, viciously, repeatedly. The GOP operatives lukewarm to McCain would be more than willing to take on their favourite opponents once again. The vast right wing conspiracy would be back out in full force. These attacks are well known because they were effective - ineffective negative attacks fade from the public memory.

Truly, what is the overlap between groups that are neutral or semi-positively inclined towards Clinton and neutral or semi-negatively inclined towards McCain?

I would want to see an analysis of the size of that group as compared to the impact that the complete and total distraction from the Obama message. I think it's difficult at best to imagine there wouldn't be weeks of editorials lamenting how Obama was all talk when it came to ushering in a new era and new kind of politics (you can't tell me David Brooks doesn't already have that editorial prepared) and that attack fits in well with the narrative McCain is trying to build about him (all talk, no substance). Is her ability to play attack dog that much better than someone like Biden's?

I pay no attention to the GOP attacks on Clinton, but at the same time, Obama already has my vote, I'm not the target demographic.

Conservative from Rome said...

In my opinion HRC supporters are so angry because they consider Obama essentially stelead the nomination...this is because he runned better in caucuses and because weird rules of the party...infact in the case of presidential rules HRC would win the nomination with 311-227 electoral votes.

Jackson said...

I'd vote for Obama/Clinton, disappointedly, but not another cent.

I wouldn't. I couldn't.

And there are so many GOP voters here in MN who are salivating at Hillary being on the ticket. McCain doesn't inspire them but she does.

If Clinton were on the ticket, I can't imagine her winning Minnesota.

Conservative from Rome said...

HRC won NM, AZ, NV, CA, KY, WV, TN, FL, AR, OK, TX, SD, IN, MI, OH, PA, NY, NJ, NH, MA, RI ( 311 electoral votes if the rules were winner takes all )

Darren said...

I see cowbat invited me, but before I knew I was accused of being a PUMA I was going to say:

Even long-time Clinton-haters like myself (I voted against him 4 times - including 2 primaries in 1992) actually rooted for Hillary against Obama post-Wisconsin. America loves a scrappy underdog. Even putting that aside, the Republican base is not nearly as fired up against her or Bill as they were 10 years ago. Plus, she voted for the war and hasn't worn the "pull-out now" suit very well, so she may actually comfort some fence-sitters for whom Obama's foreign policy is an obstacle.

As for attacks, if the Clintons were anything they were teflon and managed to deflect the impact of even substantive allegations by focusing on what people really cared about - the economy and kitchen table issues. Hillary is not a new face like Geraldine Ferraro was, vulnerable to any attack. Someone pointed out that there isn't anything new to accuse Hillary of, including murder.

So if I'm a PUMA for thinking a canny politician could help Obama, so be it. (But don't you need to be a Democrat first?). By the way, cowbat, if the possibility of Hillary helping Obama is a "good thing" I assume you mean to write "a good thing for Obama supporters" since you say you are not one of them...

Otto Man said...

Wait -- Armando was indignant and ignorant?

What a shocker.

Conservative from Rome said...

HRC won all the biggest states but Illinois ( Obama's home )...HRC won a lot of swing states...i think Obama's nomination is a sort of accident...

Conservative from Rome said...

HRC won all the biggest states but Illinois ( Obama's home )...HRC won a lot of swing states...i think Obama's nomination is a sort of accident...

Mission said...

Of course Armando thought that. These guys, TalkLeft, MyDD, they've become the left blogosphere's version of Bill O'Reilly.

NC moderate said...

HRC would make a solid Democratic ticket while all of McCain's VP choices essentially cost him the election.

This election will be more about getting out the vote in your own party rather trying to get anyone to switch. Given the lukewarm appeal of McCain to GOP voters, a pick of HRC for VP by Obama would back McCain into a corner.

Also,"Conservative from Rome" you are confusing primaries with the general election. There are no electoral votes in primaries. You need to understand how the primary system works.

OTF said...

Conservative from Rome,

The rules were written by her people. They just didn't seem to know them very well. They were arrogant and by her own statements in December claimed it would be over by Feb 5th. She had no plan after that and lost 10 states in a row. Obama people understood that winning small sattes by large margins gianed more net delegates than small wins in big states..ie. her Texas win and her losing delegaates in smaller western states. Obama was smarter than her in understanding the rules. Funny since she claimed to be so experienced and ran an incompetent campaign.

Overrated said...

Sedi -

Wow have you changed! I was reading as you chastized the board commentary repeatedly but now see the benefits of pulling in the howitzers (Clintons) to blast your nuanced intellectual to the top. Are you reflective of the growing panic of the Dem party in nominating Obama? Please explain.

Virginia Conservative said...
This post has been removed by the author.
Virginia Conservative said...

Man, its going to be fun watching the tension if Hillary is picked.

I can see the Time magazine cover now

"THE DEMOCRAT TICKET--WHO IS *REALLY* IN CHARGE?"

Alex Epstein said...

Once again, all together: if the primaries were "presidential rules," then Obama would have run a different campaign.

The Obama people play to win. Not to look good. They look at the rules, figure out how to play the game. Maybe they could not have won using the idiotic winner-takes-all electoral college system; maybe they could have. But they won by the rules that were in force.

OTF said...

Virginia Conservative,


Hillary is not going to VP. She has no chance and the Clintons liitle antics last week proves it even more. I bet Obama officially told her no last week. Though everybody knew she wasn't get it the day Solis-Doyle was hired. Obama didn't say it officially originally not to anger the irrational Clintoninas immediately after June 6th meeting if the rules committee.

filistro said...

VCon... you pretend to feel positive about a Hillary pick, thus skewing my sample, but I know how clever and devious you are.

You're thinking we'll think you're just asking to be thrown in the briar patch... but I think you just think we'll think that, but we won't because you've outsmarted us before.

So I'm marking you down as negative, and my stats remain unsullied. So there.

cowbat friend said...

daz: no i meant a good thing for McChain, who I have now decided to support since I found out how well he can deceive megachurch-goers.

Conservative from Rome said...

otf i agree with you...HRC lost because too confident...and a don't like her...i only think a lot of her supporters are angry for the reasons i told above...

nc moderate i know how the primary system work...every state has his own rules...some states played both primaries and caucuses...still there are not nominated superdelegates...it's a weird system in my vision...

Conservative from Rome said...

i want to say the primary GOP system is weird too...some states played with "winner takes all" rules...others not...

Ordinarulo said...

Conservative from Rome - The Clintons could have changed the nominating process, pretty much at will, any time between 1992 and 2006 (when Dean got the DNC). They didn't. Obama had no control over the process. Don't be a player-hater.

Virginia Conservative said...

Filistro, seriously, I love the idea of Clinton as VP. Chris Matthews would be yammering every night non stop about how Hillary is the real one at the top of the ticket, the base would be energized, Bill would be making dumb ass statements left and right. It would be beautiful.

Virginia Conservative said...

By "base" I mean the REPUBLICAN base.

testingtesting said...

Good reasons to support Clinton

1. She puts Arkansas in play

2. getting Clinton's ORGANIZATION to work for Obama.

3. She gives Obama a boost in key constituencies: seniors, hispanics and working class whites, aiding in Florida, West Virginia, Ohio and the southwest.

4. Obama gets a VP that can actually draw a crowd in her own right. You can't imagine people lining up to hear Bayh speak.

5. Clinton performs and speaks well in formats where Obama does not. She is better in debates, and better at mastering policy detail and specifics than Obama, and so can offer the wonky counterpart to Obama.

6. She would make a very GOOD vice-president a la Lyndon Johnson because of her (and Bill's) connections in congress. She can twist arms to get the votes in a way that others can't. Anyhow, Clintonites will be the key swing vote in congress however which way you slice it.

7. Clinton helps emphasize health care and quality of life issues, which are a strength for the Democrats.

Bottom line: at the end of the day, Clinton is the only candidate that can give Obama a national bump, or put a state in play (other than possibly Bayh in Indiana). She is also best equipped for the job of VP, she emphasizes the right issues, she gives Obama organizational advantages he would not otherwise have and is clearly the best choice.

Fallacious reasons to fear Hillary as VP (for Dems)

1. Its not just Hillary, you get Bill too.

A: this is a plus - if you use Bill right. Send him to the boonies, where there is no national media, and where presidential candidates rarely visit. Bill can connect with Bubba, and what he says won't make national news. This strategy proved effective for Hillary Clinton.

2. Hillary Clinton will mobilize the Republican base

A: Obama is doing a plenty good job of that these days (see Rasmussen's report on the subject). Clinton is unlikely to make that worse, and is perceived as being more centrist than Obama anyway (at least culturally).

3. Clinton will alienate Obama supporters

A: I got in trouble for this one elsewhere, when I suggested that most Obama supporters are pretty fine with being screwed around so long as it helps them win. People that voted for Obama (in the primaries) specifically because they hate Hillary are probably not dyed-in-the-wool dems anyhow.

4. Obama doesn't like her

Who cares! She also dislikes Obama, but this dynamic is common among Presidents and vice-presidents. Moreover I think the purported dislike is largely media-created (though Bill probably does dislike Obama for falsely suggesting he was a racist). Moreover, on the issues Obama and Clinton are almost identical.

5. Clinton takes away from Obama's "new politics" image.

Does anybody actually still buy that Obama is a new kind of politician that will change Washington yadda yadda yadda?

Fallacious reasons to support Clinton as VP

1. She brings experience to the ticket

No, and she highlights the lack of experience on the ticket, since that was her major critique of Obama (although McCain has used that in ads already).

2.

Good reasons to oppose Clinton as VP

1. Clinton is not inoculated against attacks!

Obama avoided using all of the negative attacks he could, knowing by February that he had essentially won. More importantly though, primaries are not reflective of the general election - some attacks would not fly with primary voters, but would work in the general. Stuff like Hillarycare scaremongering.

Bad reasons to support Clinton
1. Party unity - that is mostly going to happen anyways, it seems (although Obama isn't doing as well as he should among Dems).

Brian said...

Picking Hillary would be a sign of weakness and desperation. Not to mention the GOP had place a party operative in Arkansas (US Attorney Scandal anyone?) to gleam all the dirty little secrets hidden away just for such an occasion.

If he picks her, McCain wins.

Conservative from Rome said...

Ordinarulo i repeat i am not a HRC supporter...i dislike her at all...and yes you are right...obama played a very smart campaign...but several HRC supporters think their candidate don't really lost...

jeremy said...

If the difference between winning this election and losing is middle-aged white women in Ohio, Florida and Michigan you put Hillary on the ticket.

MATT J. H. said...

I thought Hillary was a damned good candidate at the end, now I realize she was getting a free ride. Amazing post Nate.

now as for having her as VP, I read a post a couple weeks ago that says it best-

"It would either be an unsurpassed brilliant decision and win in a landslide, or, a total miserable disaster that doomed the ticket to failure over night."

TJB said...

Hillary Clinton as the Democrat VP choice would do three things in particular for the GOP.

1)The Christian Right would rally like never before. (They detest the Clintons with a passion).

2)John McCain would then be free to pick either Joe Lieberman or Tom Ridge as his VP.

3)It would ensure that McCain would be a one term president should the GOP win in November. The party would attack McCain-Lieberman once Obama-Clinton was beaten. (Sure, that would be self destructive, but the Democrats don't have a corner on that market)

whispers said...

Didn't Clinton burn the VP bridge when she started equating "hard-working" with "white" late in the primary season?

Do you think the Obamas have forgotten that? If Barack has, I can guarantee you that Michelle has not.

There is absolutely no way Clinton will be the VP nominee.

And PUMAs who have a problem with that should blame their own candidate.

ty said...

Nate: This Clemens guy doesn't even know how to spell Sebelius's name, so I find it a bit hard to take his unsourced speculation seriously.

MATT J. H. said...

I'm an Obama supporter, but lets be honest, she is a stronger candidate than Obama. Hillary built a general election campaign thinking the primary was an afterthought. Obama built a primary campaign that would worry about the general later.

The Clinton's believed she was inevitable. As did many of her supporters (Thus their anger with Obama still seen today). I'm sure they had general election plans already drawn up when all of a sudden along comes Obama ready to go from day one with a powerful campaign ready to fight for every single delegate in every single state.

Lets look at the states Hillary won and their electoral vote total:

CA-55 TX-34 FL-27 NY-31
PA-21 OH-20 MI-17

Of these states MI,FL,PA,OH, are the states Democrats usually have to win and Hillary would crush McCain in Ohio, PA, and be winning Florida. Add in West Virginia, Arkansas, and the usual democratic states and the republicans were doomed.

Now Obama won fair and square, but he had no business doing so. Hillary's campaign imploded in front of our eyes. It took negligence bordering total incompetence for her to lose that primary, and it happened.

Obama ran up the score before the Clinton's went negative, and when they did, it worked. Now its working for McCain. The Clintons have their own attack machine that they would have let loose on McCain to counter the RNC attack machine. They would cancel each other out and Hillary would be left with the presidency.

Obama has no attack machine and is getting ripped to pieces by McCain just like Hillary did but it was too late. If Obama had Hillary's attack machine to go along with his ground game he'd be unstoppable. As it stands he's laying defenseless against an Obama "Yes we can" sign getting pelted by rocks either not knowing, or unable to stop the bleeding. Maybe his ground game is totally superb and will win him the election, or maybe he's biding his time to release the hounds on McCain. I don't know, but Hillary would be cruising right now. And she would put Obama on the ticket, what a ticket that would be, unstoppable.

Darren said...

daz: no i meant a good thing for McChain, who I have now decided to support since I found out how well he can deceive megachurch-goers.

cowbat - I think if we actually met we'd find we have deadpan ironic humour in common. But I avoid it in print because it's difficult to distinguish from uninformed self-contradictory drivel (don't bother replying to that - I left myself wide open there). Anyway, truce.

OTF said...

testingtesting,

Wow Clintonian talking pts.

1)who cares about Ark

2)Obama's organization is better than Clinton's proven by the primary

3)Obama is going fine with constiutencies and even better if Hillary would antagonoze her irrational wackos.

4)A VP shouldn't be picked to draw a crowd. They are a subordinate. Two people trying to lead the ticket is a problem

5)Clinton is a blatant liar in debates and Obama exposed her on it.

6)She would be horribkle VP b/c she can't be trusted. The knife would be stuck in his back in a second.

7)Clinton helps emphasize drama and dysfucntion the hallmark of the Clintons for 20 years. They live off drama and perceived rightwing and leftwing conspriacies and sexism.

Part 2"
1)With Hillary not only do you get a back stabbibg scum bad, but you get two with Bill. 3 people trying to president.

2)The Repub Base hates the Clintons. Gore lost b/c Bush won on "bringing dignity and honor back to the white house", a direct dig at the scandals of the Clintons.

3)People who chose Obama originallty were sick of the Clintons. They tolerated the Clintons, but were sick of defending their immorality and scandals. They saw another choice to get away from them and they took it.

4)Obama despises her and can't trust either of them even when they are in the same room with hem, forget when they are out of the room.

5)Clinton is the epitomy of the Newt Gingrich 90's politics. Republicans made careers on berating the immorality of the old politcs of the Clintons. Lets debate the meaning if "is".

She brings experience to the ticket? Her great experience is she was 1st lady of Ark and the US. By that logic Laura Bush is qualified too, 1st lady of Texas and the US. She was elected to Senate without ever holding political office before based on her huisbands name. That's a strike to feminist riding the coat tails of a man.

The reeason there isn;t party unity is your dealing with irrational people that felt entitled to something though running an incompetent campaign. She eggs on their irrational hyper emotional behavior, again a strike against the feminist cause she supposedly is a symbol of. She has proven to be an agent to subvert and undermine Obama.

jeremy said...

I'm sorry but if the ticket worked out right and you had the clinton's rallying the working class/eldery in Appalachia and Florida and Obama turning out the liberals, youth and minorities in record numbers - with the party id advantage for democrats - you could turn out every Republican you could find and Mccain would still get crushed.

thatmarvelousape said...

ConservativeInRome,

It doesn't matter if Clinton 'won' most of the 'big states,' Obama was close in virtually all of them.

Anyway, Obama won Georgia, Illinois, and North Carolina, three of the top ten largest states. There is a strong indication that he would have won Michigan had he been able to campaign there, as the demographics there were favorable to him and 'Uncommitted' made a very strong showing.

Also, Clinton benefited heavily from the front loaded primary schedule, as several of the pollsters who correctly predicted California found that Obama became the favorite there after February.

thatmarvelousape said...

Also, it's sad to hear that TalkLeft is linking to this site. A lot of weirdos post there.

Darren said...

If Clemons is right and it's Biden, I guess we won't have an announcement until he's back from Tblisi. An announcement on the AFB tarmac as Biden steps off the plane would be quite compelling. Although it might beg the question of why Obama wasn't on that plane.

Russell said...

Take this to the bank. If Biden is the selection Obama is finished. Biden adds NOTHING to the ticket and comes with his own heavy load of baggage. What better way to counter your message of change than to have a senator with 36 years of experience in the Senate as your running mate.

MATT J. H. said...

I couldn't care less who Obama put on the ticket, as long as he wins. I hate those late drinking Liberals who want Obama to stay true to his ideals and win the right way with integrity. Yeah that would be great and all, but I just want to win at this point, even if it means Hillary.

Obama has dissed the Clinton's (Yes they may very well have deserved it) by not even trying to pay down her debt, and now he's paying the price. I may even sense a little belligerence on Obama's behalf. I believe these two camps despise each other and are keeping most of it under wraps.

Reports say the Obama camp are still cautiously optimistic about winning the election, which is good to hear, but they must know there are a lot of people who are not. It's not the polls that bother me, its the lack of an offense. I've been worried about this for weeks, and Obama has just this week started going negative, but the ads are very week. They don't get to the hart of the matter.

McCain's taxes attack on Obama is virtually entirely false, but its a good line of attack anyway. People are struggelling and FEAR Obama will raise their taxes.Fear is a powerful motivator, and when you team that up with the race stuff, and the muslim stuff, and the Liberal stuff, and the abortion votes that are swirling around, its a lot for an unknown guy to defend without an attack machine of his own.

Obama has to hit Mccain on being out of touch with middle Americas economic views. I think this is where Obama is trying to take the campaign, but he must paint Mccain as the typical republican big business loving, no health care, bad education republican. The mental recession angle was golden and Obama ignored it. That was reprehensible in a presidential campaign. Theres still time to paint McCain, but times a ticking.

thatmarvelousape said...

Matt,

How can you say Clinton was a better candidate when her campaign imploded and fell into debt? Do you think she would be doing well if McCain and the RNC had a $100 million COH advantage at the moment? Certainly, she never polled significantly better than Obama, and though she would bring Arkansas, she was a non-starter in Colorado and Iowa and, according to the polls we have, would have given McCain an opening in Oregon, Minnesota, and Wisconsin.

Here are some Rasmussen polls to consider:

3/27: Oregon
Obama 48, McCain 42
Clinton 40, McCain 46

3/26: Wisconsin
Obama 46, McCain 48
Clinton 39, McCain 50

3/19: Minnesota
Obama 47, McCain 43
Clinton 46, McCain 47

3/27: Washington
Obama 48, McCain 43
Clinton 43, McCain 46

3/31 Iowa
Obama 46, McCain 42
Clinton 36, McCain 51

3/17 Colorado
Obama 46, McCain 46
Clinton 38, McCain 52

Keep in mind, these polls were taken during Wrightmare I, when Obama was in the dumps and pre-Tusla Clinton was resurgent and dominating the media cycles.

Don't kid yourself. Clinton would have shut down our chances in the west, opened up plenty of new battlegrounds for McCain, and been hammered mercilessly as she entered the general election in debt.

Harrison said...

@thatmarvelousape:

Yeah, but according to the polls we have, she'd win Ohio and lock up Michigan, which would pretty much hand Obama the election.

On the other hand, I think Clinton is an incredibly risky candidate (who knows what tricks the GOP has up their sleeve, after all) and Obama ought to play risk-averse at the moment. Nate's comments on how the safest move for Obama is to pick a risky VP notwithstanding, I'm pretty sure Sebelius is by far his lowest-risk option if Bayh is taken off the table. Then comes Biden, then Kaine, then everyone else.

That said, I'm not sure that Sebelius' safeness outweighs the fact that Biden would be a much greater asset to his campaign, pound-for-pound. I'd give good odds it'll be one of those two, though.

thatmarvelousape said...

Harrison,

Do you have VP polls showing Clinton doing this? I remember the SUSA poll from May that had her giving +3 to Obama, but I don't recall seeing anything about Ohio.

Also, there's no guarantee that she would not hamstring Obama in several of the states I listed above. If McCain picks off Oregon and Wisconsin, Ohio is irrelevant.

Mark said...

Highly skeptical of the Clemons report, but I would be surprised at this point if Obama picked Bayh or Clark, and I've always thought Reed and Daschle had no shot at VP. And if it's Kerry, Obama is the dumbass of the century.

Would love Schweitzer, like Gore or Sebelius, be okay with Biden or Clark, dislike Kaine, and hate Nunn, Bayh, or Clinton.

Harrison said...

I don't have any VP polls from the past couple of months, but if primary polls are fair game on your side of the table, so they are on mine. :)

And, point about OR and WI (and MN to a lesser extent, particularly if McCain takes on Pawlenty), but Nevada, Indiana, and New Mexico would probably still be in play as well. (No polling data in particular on this; demographically, though, it makes sense).

Russell said...

Serious question. What does Joe Biden bring to the ticket. Everyone is touting him, but if I recall from his presidential run, he was a disaster waiting to happen. Given his baggage and the fact that he is not a good campaigner, what makes people think he is a good choice? Serious question.

DCM in FL said...

HARRISON,

TPaw couldn't help McCain carry MN in either of their dreams or yours for that matter.

I posted a link yesterday showing how polling in MN this week indicates that with TPaw on the GOPer ticket, McCain loses the critical IND voters.

Tim can't get 50% in his own state - he is just a big ol' goof with a mullet 'do [oops. he cut that off this summer hoping for your vote].

McCain/Pawlenty - well, he is no Dan Quayle ! lol

I hope like heck that he does get the slot... guarantees MN stays BLUE.

axero09 said...

I personally think Sebelius is the best VP pick at this point. While she probably won't be able to deliver her home state Kansas, she will be able to win the support of many women reluctant to support Obama. The new PPP poll in Ohio showed Obama hasn't won the vote of many middle-aged voters, particularly women, and Sebelius will certainly help.

I was once under the notion that Obama couldn't possibly pick a female VP not named Clinton for fear of angering Clinton supporters. Those are the voters that won't vote for Obama regardless.

Obama/Sebelius '08

MATT J. H. said...

ThatMarvelousApe ...

I hear ya. but listen. Obama got a 5 point bump when he finished the primary. That bump lasted until Schmidt took over the McCaincampaign and started using the Rove tactics on Obama at which point Obama strated dropping. Now, the reason Obama is dropping is because he doesn't have a coordinated attack message, or a descent communications department. His biggest weakness is his lack of offense.

Now take Hillary. She had a steady 4-5 point lead on McCain at the end of the primaries, better than Barack, and everyone knew Hillary had lost. Take that 4 points and add a 5 point bounce from winning the primary and you get 9 points. Thats a lot. Now take that 9 point lead with the Clinton Attack machine and today had she been the nominee, It may have even grown because of McCains weaknesses, whereas Obama's lead is gone.

Based on this information, I have no doubt Hillary would be rolling over McCain right now. Sure, I could be wrong, but thats my feeling. Obama can still win and he may, but he's not put together a standard set of media talking points for media manipulation and thats Presidential campaigning 101.

Obama may have come back from vacation yesterday, but from my opinion, he's been on vacation since June. I say again,

Presidential politics are won using "FREE" media. ie. CNN, FOX, MSNBC

and local networks. Local networks take the lead from the big networks. For instance, McCain always issues attack adds to the media before they go on air to get all that extra media coverage. Obama does not. Obama wants to slide them under the radar so he can pass as the high-minded politician. This is a mistake. Obama should make adds with the express purpose of being interesting and different like the Paris Hilton ad so the MSM will run lots of segments on them for free coverage.

Secondly, Obama has no talking points. Every republican on every network say the same thing. Obama is a celebrity, he has no experience, he's going to raise your taxes. Coordinated attack. Obama has no talking points and seeds the ground to McCain.

Third, Obama needs to rustle up some fake outrage. When Obama made the racial "They're going to come after me because I'm black" comment, no one thought Obama was playing the race card, millions of people, and hundreds of reporters and the major networks played that stuff and nobody gave it a second thought. However, the next day, McCain issued a statement claiming Obama played the race card (Fake outrage) and got 5 days of bad press towards Obama because of one 200 word bullshit statement. But the media slurped it up, like the McCain camp knew they would.

These are games Obama doesn't play, but Hillary would, and they work. Obama needs to get on board.

DCM in FL said...

PeteKent @ 9:49 PM said...

"An Obama Clinton ticket would be fraught with as much risk as reward."

Thanks for your 'concern, PETE.

hhmmm...seems to me that you & your cohorts have been singing HRC's praises all summer & gloating about how McCain was attracting her PUMAS.

or was that the other PeteKent...

anyway, as always the smart money will place out bets on everything that goes against the stellar advice you care so much to share with us.

I was against HRC - before I was for her now [IF Obama decides to choose her].

Then it would certainly be Obama/Clinton vs McCain/Romney for the block...

thatmarvelousape said...

Matt,

Respectfully, I'm not buying what seems like some arbitrary math, especially if you acknowledge Nate's point that Clinton was not subjected to very much negative press or attacks in the last two or three months of the primary. There is no guarantee that she would not have been severely effected by a barrage of negative ads, especially given her financial disadvantage and the fact that the McCain campaign would have had a field day if she made the sort of complaints she did during the primary.

While I agree that Obama needs to improve his media game, I don't think Clinton's theatrics would make up for the inherent weaknesses and constricted electoral map.

MATT J. H. said...

Sedi said...
Matt J.H.: Where did you get this idea? Legally, he can't just give her the money from this campaign funds.


No he can't but his camp wasn't interested in helping her out through his own donors which is the usual route. They were pissed at her for dragging them through the mud in March, April and May, while she couldn't win. And it was selfish Clinton bullshit. Anyone else would have dropped out after losing 14 in a row and been deeply in debt, but not them.

This made the Obama camp furious I'm sure, and Obama wasn't interested in helping her out, but he ended up giving in to her and looking weak in the process anyway.

Now his lead is gone, he gave half the convention to the Clinton's and he still has no predominant campaign message for the general election besides change. He had better get his act together fast. he is the CEO of his campaign, and right now he's taking on water.

He needs to bring in a Clinton operative to help Gibbs with the communications department with talking points and general media spin, and find a solid line of attack against McCain and drive it home.

MATT J. H. said...

TheMarvelousApe ...

The same time Hilary was losing support in February was the time Obama was winning 14 in a row. That would hurt anyone's numbers. The time Obama stopped attacking (Which wasn't much before that anyway) was when Hillary got her groove back through March, April and May and was winning. So although it appears as though it were the attacks on her, thats not indisputable.

Last week Rassmussen polled Hillary and she was 8 points ahead of McCain. Obama was +1. Again, she's not getting attacked, but +8 is very close to the +9 number I thought she would have in my previous post.

DCM in FL said...

notes from on the ground in FL...

McCain is in FL now to speak to a veterans convention - and pretending to help us prepare for the approaching hurricane [Fay].

[Some think John thought that 'Fay' was one of his ex-girlfriends coming after him...]

Anyway, from my feedback recently here from DEMS & INDs in central FL:

- most have become ready to concede that Obama would not be able to overcome the GOP advantage in FL, although it would probably be close.

- BUT this week hope springs eternal with the news/rumor/noise coming out that in Denver they may now seat the entire FL [and MI] delegation with full voting. This was enough of a gaffe in FL to cost the DEMS at least a few polling points with PUMAS & INDs.

- and now, IF HRC does get the VP bid then the hard-core PUMAS will suck it up & turnout to vote DEM - not FOR Obama, but FOR HRC as the 1st female VP/POTUS-in-waiting.

- my mom's bridge group tonight. 4 widows in the 70's & 80's. 3 PUMAs threatening to vote for McCain [or sit it out], only 1 Obama DEM [mom].

- despite McCain's warmongering & GOPer threats to SocSec & Medicare & Healthcare, 3 of 4 would cut off their nose to spite their faces UNLESS HRC at least gets VP.

Makes little or no sense after all this time & info, but it is what it is. Counterintuitive I think, but even though I would prefer someone else for VP, if HRC can do this in OH & FL and bring 2-4 points or more of the lagging DEM demo, then why the hell not ?

"Pride goeth before a fall"

can I get an 'amen' ?

MATT J. H. said...

Listen DCM in Florida. I agree. Obama puts her on the ticket and he gets a 5-8 point bump overnight. The media loves the Clinton's because of the controversy they bring and would be slurping this like a crack addict. That convention would be rocking and they would come out of there like a rocket. Obama hates her, but its time to win the general. Win first, worry about governing later.

newyorker2874999 said...

Doesn't matter how much scandalous ammunition the right wing thinks it has available to use against Hillary. The GOP base has heard it all before and is starting to get bored. Besides, it would only be effective in the tomato-red states Obama wouldn't win anyway. Meanwhile, the voters Hillary brings to the table in the swing states would get absolutely furious when she was attacked. You can bet your last money they'd push back at McCain - harder than hard. Now as far as compatibility is concerned, there may be no love lost between the Obamas and the Clintons, but it's unlikely they actually hate each other the way JFK and LBJ manifestly always did.

MrInsight22 said...

It's no secret that Michelle hates the Clintons. She told a reporter in Wisconsin: "I want to rip Bill Clinton's eyes out," as she clawed the air with her fingernails.

David Gergen said on CNN that Michelle and other Obama campaign members believe that if Hillary were VP, Barack would need a food taster as she would have him killed. Likewise, Peggy Noonan wrote in the WSJ that Hillary would poison him in the White House.

It's even possible that running mate Hillary would have Barack killed before the election so that she could ride into the White House on a wave of sympathy a la Angela Lansbury's plot in The Manchurian Candidate.

Barack will not pick her. Even if she did not have him eliminated, she and Bill would make his presidency a living hell for him.

DCM in FL said...

agreed. and all parties know the adage:

keep your friends close and your enemies closer.

[just do not turn your back in the dark]

Daniel said...

You said it yourself Nate, she hasn't been the subject of negative attacks in a long time, which means her public appeal has been only going up. She essentially became a national treasure after her primary run. She's on my short list, but only because I refuse to accept the MSM short list.

Alex S. said...

Meh.... I lost my bet that the VP was to be announced on Sunday (and you only have one shot ;-)).

If I was Obama, I would never, ever, ever pick Clinton as VP. The drama would be endless, before and during the presidency. The only problem is that he might have to. I am now rationally able to accept Clinton (which I wasn´t 3 months ago), the arguments are good - but if you have a choice between several good picks you just don´t take the one that will annoy you the most.

goforit said...

I'm an Obama supporter no matter which running mate Obama chooses. I don't like Hillary Clinton, I'm sick of the Clinton's, but if I thought she'd help Obama win I'd be 100% for it. But I feel certain that Hillary on the ticket will galvanize the Republican base more than anything else, including the Infanticide threat hanging over Obama's head. It's true that women rose up enmasse when Hillary came under negative attacks, but women alone (and I am one) won't be the deciding factor alone. What about all those Independents and disenchanted Republicans who hate the Clintons? H-A-T-E.

The Republicans are praying for Obama to make this mistake. They haven't needed to attack Hillary and Bill yet. Not really. But don't kid yourself. The Clintons have made a lot of mistakes since they were last vetted.

Harrison said...

DCM in FL,

Wow, thank you for treating me like a McCainite troll.

Clinton would likely hurt Obama in MN more than Pawlenty would help McCain, yes, but I'm not convinced that T.P. would lose the state for the GOP. Show me statistics that suggest that a VP choice with approval ratings in the 50% range or below. Otherwise, sorry, that sounds counterintuitive.

The Numantine said...

Economist/YouGov/Polimetrix (Aug. 11) Page 4
Do you have a favorable or an unfavorable opinion of the following people?
Have a favorable opinion of...

Total-Dem-Rep-Ind
-----------------
Hillary Clinton 46%-80%-9%-44%
Barack Obama 53%-80%-22%-52%
Bill Clinton 48%-81%-11%-47%

With only 9% of Republicans having a favorable view of Hillary, she will not be the VP pick. She brings nothing to the ticket.

ogre said...

Making the assumption (for the sake of discussion) that Clemons is honest AND isn't being used as a distraction...

It comes down to Biden or Sebelius.

One of them fits well with the overall narrative of the Obama campaign--and one doesn't.

Given those assumptions, I'd say it's Sebelius. Or--given Obama's ability to keep things under wraps--Schweitzer.

1950democrat said...

Softcore PUMAs say now that they would be satisfied with Obama/Clinton, but hardcore PUMAs think the VP would be an insult and/or a trap. I haven't seen a poll on this. In MSM media there are many pro-VP comments, but in hardcore PUMA sites such as bitterpoliticz anyone who promotes the Obama/Clinton option gets shouted down.

WP/ABC's July poll found it a wash among the general public: 23% would be more likely to vote for O/C, 23% more likely to vote for the BOP ticket.

Roger said...

I wonder if the fact that Obama was being hailed as the ultimate winner, ala "the math", is the reason that Hilary received fewer mentions in the press? Or have we forgotten the fact that she was virtually written off after feb?

信次 said...

情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,美國aneros,rudeboy,英國rudeboy,英國Rocksoff,德國Fun Factory,Fun Factory,英國甜筒造型按摩座,甜筒造型按摩座,英國Rock Chic ,瑞典 Lelo ,英國Emotional Bliss,英國 E.B,荷蘭 Natural Contours,荷蘭 N C,美國 OhMiBod,美國 OMB,Naughti Nano ,音樂按摩棒,ipod按摩棒,美國 The Screaming O,美國TSO,美國TOPCO,美國Doc Johnson,美國CA Exotic,美國CEN,美國Nasstoy,美國Tonguejoy,英國Je Joue,美國Pipe Dream,美國California Exotic,美國NassToys,美國Vibropod,美國Penthouse,仿真按摩棒,矽膠按摩棒,猛男倒模,真人倒模,仿真倒模,PJUR,Zestra,適趣液,穿戴套具,日本NPG,雙頭龍,FANCARNAL,日本NIPPORI,日本GEL,日本Aqua Style,美國WET,費洛蒙,費洛蒙香水,仿真名器,av女優,打炮,做愛,性愛,口交,吹喇叭,肛交,魔女訓練大師,無線跳蛋,有線跳蛋,震動棒,震動保險套,震動套,TOY-情趣用品,情趣用品網,情趣購物網,成人用品網,情趣用品討論,成人購物網,鎖精套,鎖精環,持久環,持久套,拉珠,逼真按摩棒,名器,超名器,逼真老二,電動自慰,自慰,打手槍,仿真女郎,SM道具,SM,性感內褲,仿真按摩棒,pornograph,hunter系列,h動畫,成人動畫,成人卡通,情色動畫,情色卡通,色情動畫,色情卡通,無修正,禁斷,人妻,極悪調教,姦淫,近親相姦,顏射,盜攝,偷拍,本土自拍,素人自拍,公園露出,街道露出,野外露出,誘姦,迷姦,輪姦,凌辱,痴漢,痴女,素人娘,中出,巨乳,調教,潮吹,av,a片,成人影片,成人影音,線上影片,成人光碟,成人無碼,成人dvd,情色影音,情色影片,情色dvd,情色光碟,航空版,薄碼,色情dvd,色情影音,色情光碟,線上A片,免費A片,A片下載,成人電影,色情電影,TOKYO HOT,SKY ANGEL,一本道,SOD,S1,ALICE JAPAN,皇冠系列,老虎系列,東京熱,亞熱,武士系列,新潮館,情趣用品,情趣,情趣商品,情趣網站,跳蛋,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,自慰套,G點,性感內衣,情趣內衣,角色扮演,生日禮物,生日精品,自慰,打手槍,潮吹,高潮,後庭,情色論譠,影片下載,遊戲下載,手機鈴聲,音樂下載,開獎號碼,統一發票號碼,夜市,統一發票對獎,保險套,做愛,減肥,美容,瘦身,當舖,軟體下載,汽車,機車,手機,來電答鈴,週年慶,美食,徵信社,網頁設計,網站設計,室內設計,靈異照片,同志,聊天室,運動彩券,大樂透,威力彩,搬家公司,除蟲,偷拍,自拍,無名破解,av女優,小說,民宿,大樂透開獎號碼,大樂透中獎號碼,威力彩開獎號碼,討論區,痴漢,懷孕,美女交友,交友,日本av,日本,機票,香水,股市,股市行情, 股市分析,租房子,成人影片,免費影片,醫學美容,免費算命,算命,姓名配對,姓名學,姓名學免費,遊戲,好玩遊戲,好玩遊戲區,線上遊戲,新遊戲,漫畫,線上漫畫,動畫,成人圖片,桌布,桌布下載,電視節目表,線上電視,線上a片,線上掃毒,線上翻譯,購物車,身分證製造機,身分證產生器,手機,二手車,中古車,法拍屋,歌詞,音樂,音樂網,火車,房屋,情趣用品,情趣,情趣商品,情趣網站,跳蛋,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,自慰套, G點,性感內衣,情趣內衣,角色扮演,生日禮物,精品,禮品,自慰,打手槍,潮吹,高潮,後庭,情色論譠,影片下載,遊戲下載,手機鈴聲,音樂下載,開獎號碼,統一發票,夜市,保險套,做愛,減肥,美容,瘦身,當舖,軟體下載,汽車,機車,手機,來電答鈴,週年慶,美食,徵信社,網頁設計,網站設計,室內設計,靈異照片,同志,聊天室,運動彩券,,大樂透,威力彩,搬家公司,除蟲,偷拍,自拍,無名破解, av女優,小說,民宿,大樂透開獎號碼,大樂透中獎號碼,威力彩開獎號碼,討論區,痴漢,懷孕,美女交友,交友,日本av ,日本,機票,香水,股市,股市行情,股市分析,租房子,成人影片,免費影片,醫學美容,免費算命,算命,姓名配對,姓名學,姓名學免費,遊戲,好玩遊戲,好玩遊戲區,線上遊戲,新遊戲,漫畫,線上漫畫,動畫,成人圖片,桌布,桌布下載,電視節目表,線上電視,線上a片,線上a片,線上翻譯,購物車,身分證製造機,身分證產生器,手機,二手車,中古車,法拍屋,歌詞,音樂,音樂網,借錢,房屋,街頭籃球,找工作,旅行社,六合彩,整型,整型,珠海,雷射溶脂,婚紗,網頁設計,水噹噹,台中隆鼻,果凍隆乳,改運整型,自體脂肪移植,新娘造型,婚禮顧問,下川島,常平,常平,珠海,澳門機票,香港機票,貸款,貸款,信用貸款,宜蘭民宿,花蓮民宿,未婚聯誼,網路購物,婚友,婚友社,未婚聯誼,交友,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,未婚聯誼, 婚友社,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,婚友,未婚聯誼,婚友社,未婚聯誼,單身聯誼,單身聯誼,白蟻,白蟻,除蟲,老鼠,減肥,減肥,在家工作,在家工作,婚友,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,婚友,交友,交友,婚友社,婚友社,婚友社,大陸新娘,大陸新娘,越南新娘,越南新娘,外籍新娘,外籍新娘,台中坐月子中心,搬家公司,搬家公司,中和搬家,台北搬家,板橋搬家,新店搬家,線上客服,網頁設計,線上客服,網頁設計,植牙,關鍵字,關鍵字,seo,seo,網路排名,自然排序,網路排名軟體,交友,越南新娘,婚友社,外籍新娘,大陸新娘,越南新娘,交友,外籍新娘,視訊聊天,大陸新娘,婚友社,婚友,越南新娘,大陸新娘,越南新娘,視訊交友,外籍新娘,網路排名,網路排名軟體,網站排名優化大師,關鍵字排名大師,網站排名seo大師,關鍵字行銷專家,關鍵字,seo,關鍵字行銷,網頁排序,網頁排名,關鍵字大師,seo大,自然排名,網站排序,網路行銷創業,汽車借款,汽車借錢,汽車貸款,汽車貸款,拉皮,抽脂,近視雷射,隆乳,隆鼻,變性,雙眼皮,眼袋,牙齒,下巴,植牙,人工植牙,植髮,雷射美容,膠原蛋白,皮膚科,醫學美容,玻尿酸,肉毒桿菌,微晶瓷,電波拉皮,脈衝光,關鍵字,關鍵字,seo,seo,網路排名,自然排序,網路排名軟體,汽車借款,汽車借款,汽車借款,汽車貸款,汽車貸款,借錢,借貸,當舖,借款,借貸,借錢,週轉,學英文,英文社團,英語俱樂部,學習英文,英語會話,英文演講,English Club,學英語,學英文,美語社團,英語社團,英文讀書會,Toastmasters,Toastmaster,英語讀書會,拍樂得批發,拍樂得飾品,拍樂得化妝品批發,

酒店上班請找艾葳 said...

艾葳酒店經紀公司提供專業的酒店經紀, 酒店上班小姐,八大行業,酒店兼職,傳播妹,或者想要到打工兼差打工,兼差,或者八大行業,酒店兼職,想去酒店上班, 日式酒店,制服酒店,ktv酒店,禮服店,整天穿得水水漂漂的,還是想去制服店上班小姐,水水們如果想要擁有打工工作、晚上兼差工作兼差打工假日兼職兼職工作酒店兼差兼差打工兼差日領工作晚上兼差工作酒店工作酒店上班酒店打工兼職兼差兼差工作酒店上班等,想了解酒店相關工作特種行業內容,想兼職工作日領假日兼職兼差打工、或晚班兼職想擁有快速賺錢又有保障的工作嗎???又可以現領請找專業又有保障的艾葳酒店經紀公司!

艾葳酒店經紀是合法的公司工作環境高雅時尚,無業績壓力,無脫秀無喝酒壓力,高層次會員制客源,工作輕鬆,可日領現領
一般的酒店經紀只會在水水們第一次上班和領薪水時出現而已,對水水們的上班安全一點保障都沒有!艾葳酒店經紀公司的水水們上班時全程媽咪作陪,不需擔心!只提供最優質的酒店上班,酒店上班,酒店打工環境、上班條件給水水們。心動嗎!? 趕快來填寫你的酒店上班履歷表

水水們妳有缺現領、有兼職缺錢卡奴的煩腦嗎?想到日本留學缺錢嗎?妳是傳播妹??想要擁有高時薪又輕鬆的夜間兼職工作,打工機會和,假日打工,假日兼職賺錢的機會嗎??想實現夢想卻又缺錢沒錢嗎!??
艾葳酒店台北酒店經紀招兵買馬!!徵專業的酒店打工,想要去酒店的水水,想要短期日領,酒店日領,禮服酒店,制服店,酒店經紀,ktv酒店,便服店,酒店工作,禮服店,酒店小姐,酒店經紀人,
等相關服務 幫您快速的實現您的夢想~!!

freefun0616 said...

酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,

,