Nothing, absolutely nothing, matters as much.

No matter what happens, we've got roughly half the party plus or minus a smidgeon for each of the two candidates, and a lot of offense taken by both sides. Without a unity ticket, whoever gets the nod will have a hell of a time unifying the party.

Excuse me, but is this thing over?  Until yesterday we were posting about Denver, today we're discussing this?!  Nice way to change the rhetoric (from Obama camp.)  Anyway, let him win/loose on his own.  

Obama has serious problems without Clinton.  I believe he'll gain more votes than he will lose.  Clinton has improved with the campaign.

VP in Clinton's interest.  A strong person is not limited by a job title or job description.

If he doesn't want her on the ticket, he can dig in his heels.   He is party politics.  If people are buying him as 'new' they won't when the Repubs are done.

If Clinton hadn't run for President, would a nominee consider her for VP?  She's got the balanced image: strength, experience and economy.  If she was a man, I think he'd take her.  

Obama's VP choice will be irrelevant.  He is unelectable.

Unlike WAY too many of my friends on this blog, I am not going to pretend that Obama has a realistic chance to win in November nor that he has "won" the nomination.

Does she want it?  I think she can't answer that question yet - to consider it means taking her eyes off the prize, and I don't think she can afford to do that - nor do I want her to.

I think she has far too much class to want to be asked so she can say no - that's the kind of pettiness I would expect from Obama, but not from Hillary.

Part of me thinks that Obama is just vain enough that he probably sees Hillary as being useful to him just as she is - she's out there working hard, making the Democratic case even as she's making her own - problem is that his vanity, his oversized ego, reveal him to be a user of epic proportions, and he is happy to be using her however he can - as long as it benefits him.

I do not believe he can win.  Period.  Regardless of who is on the ticket.

Only Hillary knows what is in her best interest - would she be content to just be a VP, knowing that she might be considered to be too old to make another run at this in 2016?  Would she allow herself to be seen as diabolical and evil if she decided in 2012 to challenge him?  Only if she thought it was in the best interest of the party and the country.  If we could see into the future, these decisions would be so much easier, but I have confidence that whatever Hillary decides, it will be something that allows her to sleep at night with a clear conscience.

Finally, no one who has as many party insiders, veteran pols, failed presidential wanna-bes on his campaign should be claiming to be the candidate of change - there appear to be tens of millions of people who know that Obama is a product, packaged and advertised to a fare-thee-well.  What does that say?  Caveat Emptor.

But she'll be a lot less effective as VP than she would be as a Senator.  He's be sending her off to attend minor dignitary funerals on Mars most of the time (ok, so not really Mars, but I didn't want to offend anyone's country of origin).

And as I said in another thread, it does nothing for her, not really.  If he loses, she loses.  If he wins and only makes it one term (which is a reasonable probability, given the mess the economy and the war are in), it taints her.  If he wins and goes 2 terms, being VP doesn't help that much when a person goes for the big office (it certainly didn't help Gore).  Lots of risk for little gain.

Lieberman.

I may be in over my head with this analogy, but it feels a bit like handing down a sentence before the suspect has been charged with the crime. Hell if I know the difference between the perp and the victim in this scenario.

SHe's already done that job for eight years -- "representing" the administration and cheerleading for its positions -- even when she doesn't agree with those positions.  

Let him get some military hawk Dem to run with him.  McCain is already attacking his ZERO military experience. And Barack ain't Bill Clinton...he won't be able to dance his way outta that one too easily.

1. Obama veep discussion = measuring for drapes.  Unseemly and prematurely stillborn.
   
2. Wouldn't vote for him if he put my mother on the ticket.  
   
3. And say...when's the Rezko verdict?

Hiring this VP "consultant" is more of his arrogant posturing. All it does is relieve her of the responsibility to offer it him if she clinches nomination.

I'm still not voting for Obama even if Hillary is the VP. I know that she really doesn't want him to win and I don't either. This man is dangerous and not worthy of the Presidency. Anyone can see that he is lying about his views and would take this country into places I don't think we can even imagine. Be afraid, be very afraid of Barack Obama.

This is an "ask not" moment for each candidate and their supporters. These two candidates need each other at this point. We can complain about one another's choice or we can rise above our individual views to see the bigger picture. If the Dems want to win and if Obama is a true leader he sees what Clinton has to offer and extend his hand in respect so both can heal a divide by believing in each other, so we all can believe in them.

That said, I think he is more likely to win with her on the ticket. That is the only way I'll consider voting for him. I don't believe in all this "balancing the ticket" talk. If both the people on the ticket are skilled pols, it doesn't matter where they are from or what they look like. A Clinton/Obama ticket would be balanced in terms of the coalition they both bring, and that is much more important.

I'm sure we share the same belief that skin color and gender should be irrelevant to whether or not a candidate is qualified to run, but of course, others don't (and they vote!), and I'm wondering if that's what you were getting at.

She wants it. It affords her the best of all possible vantage points going forward.  Because if he bombs, she can just step in next time around. It's a win win for her, not necessarily for him. But, he can certainly implement changes without throwing out the tools he'll need to do it. The idea that he can't make changes without a coup of sorts, is absurd.

Question: Can Obama win without Hillary on the ticket?
No. When it comes to a General Election, moderate Dems will switch, will not entrust the country to him. Many people who voted for him early on have now been able to see him decline in is appeal, while she has become the better spokesperson for her party. He is appealing to the ultra liberals like OR, the party is just not solely made up of progressives. He's in an awkward position, he's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't, pick her.

Question: Is serving as VP in Hillary's best interest -- or just Obama's?

It's in her best interest. She gets to position herself for 2012, if he doesn't perform; she is positioned well. That's a great incentive for  him to perform well.

Question: Last, if Obama, who we know doesn't want Hillary on the ticket, offers it to her due to pressure from Democratic party leaders, what does that say about his message of bringing change to Washington? [More...]

If she takes the VP then probably she would have to wait 8 years, but as a general rule the VP is almost the anointed nominee as Obama leaves.  The question is does she have 8 years to give until that day.

John F. Kennedy was the epitome of cool detachment, of effortless grace, of never seeming to try too hard while still accomplishing great things. He was elegant and eloquent, cerebral and witty, but a little distant. His brother Bobby was hot: fierce, scrappy, relentless, angry, soulful....

...JFK had something Obama sorely lacks: Bobby Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was able to float above the fray in part because he had RFK (or "Black Robert," as JFK jokingly called his moody little brother) behind the scenes, doing the grinding, sometimes distasteful dirty work of politics. All candidates have surrogates, but none has anyone so selfeffacing, so knowledgeable or so willing to do the nasty jobs as RFK was.

VP's are about rounding out the apparatus, not bringing in voters.  People vote top of ticket.  Hillary is the one time I could see a VP bringing in voters.  If not her, he needs to at least consult her.  That's how it works when a race is this tight.  It's not old style, it's proper. I think Strickland or Rendell are the best choices.  He may go with Bayh.  But he needs to offer it to Hillary.  She represent about half the vote in this primary.

No, Kennedy chose Johnson because it helped him in the south. Kennedy did not like Johnson. (for that matter, lots of people didn't like him).

Of course, even if Obama does not pick/or ask Hillary, he will consult with her. The political reality here is she is a powerhouse Senator from the state of New York, and a stalwart fighter for the progressive cause. Why wouldn't he  (at the very least) consult her?