If Clinton wins she should get the governor of PA to be her running mate.  

Actually my idea of a "dream" ticket would be Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Edwards.

Two bad-mamma-jammaz!

I was just asked this morning if I'm going to now get enthusiastically behind Obama. I answered that I didn't know.

"And you don't care if McCain is the president?! What about Roe v. Wade?!"

My response, "Well, I'm part of the dry p*ssy demographic so why should I care?"

"You don't care about the situation that younger women might be in?"

"I thought we were done with feminism and all was solved."

The behavior from the Obama campaign and some of his supporters in recent days is the worst I've seen yet.  If Hillary were on the ticket as VP, I can only imagine that the CDS crowed will continue to foam at the mouth and blame her for every Obama failure while in office.  They will see her as the "servant" of Obama and just that thought disgusts me.

What the Clintons should do is say "ok, it's obvious you don't want us anymore...  Good luck with that!" and then get FAAAAAAAAAR away from the trainwreck before it bursts into flames.

Another reason that I don't want to see a unity ticket now is that it would jeopardize the chances of my candidate, John McCain.  I support him tepidly just as BTD tepidly supported Obama.

It's maddening. Schmitt and others seem to have an enormous blind spot concerning the working class. Unless they notice them to deride them for their alleged racism, they don't notice them at all (which is why it's so easy to dismiss them as racists). If they actually paid attention, they'd know better.

His premise is that Clinton is perceived as a "quasi socialist" and yet appeals to "conservative democrats".  She is seen as a "friend of blue collar workers" which mystifies Schmitt and yet Bill Clinton won Ohio twice with blue collar worker votes and Hillary Clinton won Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan with the blue collar demographic.  The majority of democrats see her as "most closely aligned" and "centrist" with their views on issues, and yet Schmitt complains that she is seen as "too conservative" by democrats and "too liberal" by repubs but the poll numbers say that nationally she is doing better than McCain.  

In reality, Obama does a hundred things a day that undermine his message of change.  Since no one seems to notice the other ones, they probably wouldn't notice this one either.

Simply put, Obama will have a much harder time of it getting his message out if Clinton is on the ticket.  While in ordinary election years, the media tries to hype any past disagreement between the presidential and vice-presidential nominees, that effort never has any legs because nobody care what the Vice Presidential candidate thinks to begin with.

But an Obama/Clinton ticket would turn the entire campaign's coverage into a political soap opera -- it won;t matter what Clinton does, as long as she's on the ticket and not in a coma, it will be presented as controversial.  And when we're not getting stories about problems within this political marriage of convenience, we'll be hearing about conflicts between "Clinton's people" and "Obama's people"

And then, of course, there is Bill.  He'll be criticized in the media even if he winds up in a coma.  ("Was Bill Clinton's coma self-induced?  What is Bill Clinton trying to hide by slipping into a coma in September?  We'll ask our panel of experts....")

Just in terms of sheer message discipline, Obama/Clinton will be a disaster.  

So, I'm sorry BTD, but I think you're nuts to want Hillary on a ticket with Obama on the top.

Now, I read that a couple of times, and it got me to thinking that maybe both Obama and Clinton have been told that no matter what, they're going to be on the ticket together, and these last contests are all about who gets to be on top.

I think that's why this race isn't over, and I think that's why Mr Hopey started talking about unity and supporting dems and has been a tad--just a tad--more gracious toward Clinton lately.  They're battling for the top spot.

Obama is in many ways the most plain-spoken liberal to win the Democratic nomination since Walter Mondale.

Really?  Does anyone find him more plainspokenly liberal than Bill Clinton?  Or more liberal than John Kerry?  (Who among us could call Kerry plainspoken?)

Having said that...

She would also steal his spotlight.  VP is a 2nd fiddle role and I don't know if she would be willing to accept that.

Personally, as much as Clinton's campaign style (which I actually separate to a decent degree from what Hillary is like as a person) has turned me off, it's a no-brainer that I would vote for her in the fall. I also understand how these forums can be great places to do some healthy venting, so I'm not overblowing the importance of these comments - still I'm curious...is the vote for McCain out of anger, sense of justice/fairness, policy disagreements, character?

There are some reasons that the "unity ticket" might be an actually bad idea, notably that a vice presidential candidate needs to be able to subsume his or her own ambitions and ideas for as many as eight years. Hillary Clinton subsumed her ambitions for the first 53 years of her life; there's no reason to expect that she should do so again. But even aside from that, the unity ticket is unnecessary, not only for the party and for Obama, but for Clinton herself. As one of the handful of senators who can automatically command national attention, she will be a central figure in the new era of liberal possibility that will begin in January.

As a lifelong liberal, I count at least two people among my very good friends who are, to put it lightly, "right-wing." They both hate Hillary (I mean, absolutely hate her!) but she was never going to win their votes in any scenario. Where I think Schmidt goes off-track is that I believe we are seeing a re-alignment in the public perception of what "liberal" means. What we have to do as a party is actually deliver a major program, like universal health care, and the use of the term "liberal" as a pejorative will be de-fanged.

But the quotation above from Schmidt  is spot-on, I think. Assuming Hillary does not get the nomination, what does the Vice Presidency offer her, in terms of her very real value as a liberal Democrat? I think very little.