Just had this conversation with a friend in MS.

My take is, this makes for a nice lay-up to an Obama 2016 run. It plays to both their strengths and heck why the hell not. Money clearly won't be a problem!

Plus it will give all the activists on both sides "cover" and a way to really pump up the voter turn out. Otherwise I worry about the folks who stay home cause their person didn't win.

Oh and another thing, I like it when the Clinon team lets Hillary be Hillary. I bet she picked up a couple thousand votes from the Jon Stewart show. I thought she was very charming.

How can Hillary ask Obama to VP when just last week she said his only qualification for C-in-C was one speech in 2002?

You would also have to believe Obama would agree to be the third wheel on Team Billary. I don't, and I also don't think Hillary would accept VP under Obama.

It's nice to think about a unified team. But we've just seen the start of the negative campaigning, and since it "worked," there's now *months* more of it ahead. No matter who wins, I do not expect we'll see a Dream Ticket.

I didn't see her stint on Jon Stewart, but I think her showing on SNL helped as well.

First, it brought up media bias in an easy to digest format. Clinton plays better as the underdog (not necessarily as a victim).

And in the interest of full disclosure (since Richard brought it up), I voted for Obama. But it's pretty clearly that MSNBC gives a pass to Obama, while attempting to rake Clinton over the coals.

Second, it showed off her sense of humor and ability to poke fun at herself. And everyone loves that.

Reid,

With regards to the comment, I think that can easily be dismissed as "part of campaigning." Besides, who knows what she really believes about him? She was practically singing kumbaya with him a week before that comment? Plus, he'd be serving as Vice President - not C-in-C.

I also don't believe that Hillary would accept the VP slot, but I think Obama would be more open to it. He's got years of political life ahead of him and VP would give him the "experience" that so many people think he lacks.

Six months ago I was saying "no way", but it seems to become more likely as this all plays out.

Amazing how the narrative changes. Obama still has the lead in popular vote, states won and delegates. He is leading nationally against McCain in more states - remember that dang electoral college thingy still matters.

Yeah it's a big puzzle SnDeak, I suppose I could argue it a number of ways.

But in the end, she'd be too old in 8 to run if she'd been VP, we all know McCain maybe has 4 in him, certainly not 8 and he's got to pick someone who is younger and our team together is stronger than whoever they'd dig up
(Likely a Gov-maybe even a gay one-Charlie Crist in FLA)

I'm starting to buy into the "big" state thing but I hate her team ( Terry, Howard, Mark) but as long as someone is around to smack them down occasionally I'd be ok with it.

I have warmed to the idea a lot in the last week. Clearly something has changed at HRC HQ, it appears to be for the better, so PA here we come.

Mainly I just want to move on. Both of them have real jobs that I'd like them to focus on, and honestly I need to focus on the GA candidates more. This is a huge distraction.

Steve,

Two things to think about: if Florida and Michigan had voted on Super Tuesday instead of screwing around with the calendar, is there any way that Hillary wouldn't have won both? That would significantly tighten the delegate math (as it stands now) and the overwhelming "Super Tuesday win" it would have delivered surely would have swung some of those next 11 states either into Clinton's column or closer.

Part 2: The Clinton campaign's boneheaded decision not to contest the caucus states is ridiculous, surely they could have narrowed the lop-sided results which is where Obama's current delegate lead largely comes from.

This leads me to my conclusion, which is something to think about if you're an Obama supporter: Democratic voters don't seem to be interested in standing up in front of their friends and neighbors in caucus states and justifying (or even broaching) their concerns with Obama as a candidate, but when they vote in the privacy of the voting booth, those concerns seem to be weighing a lot heavier. I'm reminded of the line by Tina Fey's character Liz Lemon on 30 Rock: there's an 80 percent chance that i'll tell all my friends i'm voting for Barack Obama but I'll actually vote for John McCain.

Now, Hillary certainly has issues of her own in this regard, but I don't think (until very recently) the press has given relative or equal weights to the concerns that supporters and opponents of each candidate have. One of the Texas polls last week included a head-to-head where she was losing to McCain by only 4 in the state and Obama was losing by 8. Couple that knowledge with the incredible latino turnout that she got (nearly 80% in some border counties) and that single piece of evidence (to me at least) can easily go toe-to-toe with the evidence of Obama's superior position in some some states.

We'll have to see what the next batch of state-by-state head to head polls show. THe last batch had Obama beating McCain in OR, WI, IA and VA. With Clinton losing all of those.

Obama is going to win the big blue states (NY, NJ, MA, CA, etc) in the general election.

Head to head polling this far out, in my opinion, isn't the best metric (even though I cited some in my previous post). Head to head polling in Texas last week showed Obama winning the state's primary. About 6 months ago head to head polling in Virginia had Clinton winning and Obama losing in general election matchups. A lot can change in 6 hours, days, weeks and months.

Clinton would win those states as well. It looks good for Ohio after last night too.

As for the popular vote. With nearly 27 million votes cast, the difference is less that 32K. That is .12% Hardly a mandate... Especially with approximately 5 million more votes to be cast.

It's difficult to express the disgust I feel at the thought of the second-place candidate "offering" the first-place candidate the Vice-Presidential nomination.

I'm not so enamored with either candidate that I care who is at the top of the ticket, but if the votes of millions of Democrats are rendered nothing more than advisory by the powers that be - because the difference isn't a "mandate" or some other crap - then it's going to be difficult to vote for whoever the nominee is in November.

It's hard to believe; I wouldn't have thought that I would ever sit out a presidential election. But if the Democratic nominee takes the Democratic nomination by ignoring the will of the Democratic electorate - then that'll be where I'll be.

In reality, there are no “Red States” in a Democratic primary – there are only Democratic voters who live in Republican states and represent a small percentage of the general election population.
o Of the eleven core Republican states that have gone to the polls, Sen. Obama has won ten: Utah, Idaho, Nebraska, North Dakota, Alabama, Alaska, Kansas, South Carolina, Georgia, and Louisiana. John Kerry lost each of these states by fifteen points or more.
o The last time a Democratic nominee won Utah, Idaho, Nebraska, North Dakota, Kansas, and Alaska in the general election was 1964.
o Even if Obama is “transcendent,” as his campaign has argued, the historic electoral trends and the current political environment suggest that translating those primary wins into November success will be close to impossible.
o In short: Hillary is better positioned to carry the battle ground states that Democrats need to win in November and Obama’s victories in deep red states do not .

Jen: "Plus, he'd be serving as Vice President - not C-in-C."

Yes, but you pick the VP who you believe is ready for that gig should your heart skip more than one beat.

You are likely right, it's a "heat of the campaign" comment, and who knows what the mood will be by the time everyone gets to Denver.

I just feel like the five year old in the backseat ... "are we there yet?"

Oh, disclosure: I voted Obama, but do not work for him. Nor do I believe it's time for Hillary to drop out. My instinct is that a lengthy battle will be bad for the eventual nominee ... but I'm frankly not yet convinced the opposite won't be true.

"but if the votes of millions of Democrats are rendered nothing more than advisory by the powers that be"

As of today, we're talking about 32,000 votes advantage for Senator Obama - a difference of .12% between the two. That's less than 2 tenths of one percent. So spare me the drama.

For future reference, in which of the remaining primary states should voters actually bother going to the polls? Because had I known that my vote was unimportant because I'm a Georgia Democrat rather than a California Democrat, I wouldn't have wasted my time.

Reid,

"Yes, but you pick the VP who you believe is ready for that gig should your heart skip more than one beat."

Eh. Everyone says that, but I just don't think it's true. I think the VP slot is used primarily to "fix" any perceived weaknesses.

Shall we compare the difference between Bush and Gore, Catherine?

Spare me the hypocrisy.

Drew,

Can you explain your last comment? Why would you say your vote didn't count? I certainly don't feel like my vote didn't count.

(I voted for Senator Clinton, but didn't decide until I was in line that morning. I would be thrilled with either one.)

It's simply a response to Smitty's logic - participation in a red-state primary is either pointless or destructive. The candidate who wins can't claim the victory as proof of strength, and in fact, it might be proof of weakness.

So why should I have bothered to vote at all?

penn said that, not smitty.

So what happens if one candidate has won the popular vote total, but the other candidate has more delegates?

My concern about this going forward is that battle lines will harden to the extent that whomever is not the nominee will find his/her supporters staying home in a huff or voting Nader.

Hold on now smitty. HRC is losing H2H in Iowa, Virginia, Oregon and Wisconsin. 3 of those are traditional battleground states and 1 is turning purple.

Stop spinnin' girl! It's making me dizzy.

Steve, allow me to show you Survey USA polls that showed Kerry winning Florida, Ohio and Iowa the day before the election in 2004. Your point, 6 months out?

Breaking news! If chosen as nominee John Kerry will lose Iowa to Georgia Bush by double digits. According to Survey USA poll on 12/23/2003, Bush WILL defeat Kerry in Iowa 54-42.

UPDATE: Kerry now leads by 3 in Iowa. On election eve, Survey USA predicts John Kerry will defeat George Bush 50-47 in Iowa.

LATE UPDATE: Bush actually wins by 1 point.

Political polling is the new pink.

Chris, you crack me up.

Thanks Jen. On a more serious note, I'd like to point out that I love polling. Great respect for the profession, polls are very useful, I love reading and poring over them, etc.

At the same time, I take my cue from pollsters in how I interpret them. When I was running the caucus efforts in 2006, Kevin Levitas was polling 20 points ahead of his opponent (ended up winning by 5) and Rick Crawford was polling about 5 points ahead of his opponent (also won by 5). Even showing a 20 point lead, our pollster would never say "Levitas will win" and definitely wouldn't say it about Crawford.

Those polls helped us make funding decisions (like not to spend too much on Levitas, who was outspent greater than 2:1 but held on) and to send more money to Crawford (who actually ended up doing .1% better compared to Levitas).

The whole point is that polls are snapshots of where the electorate is RIGHT NOW but its important to analyze them in the context of what is likely to happen, what has happened before in similar instances, etc. I doubt Democratic strongholds like Washington and Wisconsin would vote against the Democratic nominee ultimately, particularly once they learn about McCain's actual non-Democratic stances on many issues.

By the same token, survey research shows that many Obama fans can't actually name his accomplishments or his positions on the issues. Please note: I am not saying that he doesn't have accomplishments or stands on the issues, just that he's a blank slate at this point to many voters which probably helps to explain his margins in head to head polls compared to Clinton.

People's opinions of Clinton are more solid than they are of either McCain or Obama. In order, I'd say Clinton, then McCain, then Obama. People have vaguely positive feelings about all 3, particularly McCain and to a greater extent Obama. Obama stands to pay the largest "reality" premium of any of the three candidates when voters start paying more attention (or when the RNC starts spending millions of dollars filling in the blanks for them). I like Obama, and so do a lot of Republicans out there. Do you really believe we like the same candidate? I'd wager one of us (and probably not me) changes their mind once a truer picture emerges for them.

Hillary's strong showing among downscale white voters in places like Ohio, Tennesse and Missouri and amazing showing among latinos basically everywhere they vote (even in Illinois she got 49% of the latino vote) seems like more valuable anecdotal evidence to me as to what kind of general election positives she'd bring to the ticket.

Arkansas isn't enough, but with Hillary you can at least point to one state that it looks like she'd be able to flip compared to Kerry and Gore. Other than head to head polling, what state can you conclusively say the same for Obama? Before you say Virginia, keep in mind that McCain will be a much stronger candidate than Terry Kilgore or George Allen was, and also keep in mind that if George Allen had kept his mouth shut and just taken a vacation in 2006 he'd likely still be in the Senate.

It would be unfortunate if very many people forfeited their right to vote because of some perceived breach of etiquette based on fuzzy data and regarding speculation about the outcome of a contest that isn't even completed yet, but...

I guess that just makes the voices of us who do vote that much more important.

That's why I always vote based on shoes. I think you can tell a lot about a person from their shoes.

You know, when she says it four times, I have to think she believes it. Or, at the very least, she hopes we will.

So why is she simultaneously talking about the possibility of someone so under-qualified as potentially her VP?

Perhaps she HOPES he would rise to the challenge.

Ugh. She needs to shut up about that. Once, I understand. Four times? Expect to see it in a Republican ad if Obama is the nominee.

Which is why Obama should hit back now, with an ad along the lines of, "Senator Clinton and Senator McCain claim they have experience - and when it comes to following George Bush's lead in Iraq, they do."

Really, if Hillary wants to compare herself to McCain, I see no reason why Obama shouldn't do the same.

Chris - that was sooo 2004 : )

Her comments about the experience crossed the line. Even her lapdog Bill Press was shocked that she said it. There is no excuse for a comment like that within the party. I have been hesitant for Obama to go real negative on her but I think he has to now.

One other thing about 2004 - It was run in the same old safe manner. We have our 17 states, lets find 1 more we can win in. I believe Obama brings in more potential states..like Virginia and Colorado that Clinton cannot win.

Another reason I appreciate Obama's 50 state strategy in this race. He had the 'judgement' to look at the long haul while Clinton's campaign was looking at it in a traditional establishment way.

Talk about spinning! She never said she endorsed McCain over Obama! She was comparing herself to McCain and giving her argument as to why she stands a better chance against him than he does... She states that McCain will put forth a lifetime of experience and she's arguing that she can go toe to toe with him on that and Obama can't. There's no endorsement there. No where in there does she say McCain would make a better president than Obama; she's putting forth her argument, which she has a right to do since she is a candidate for the Democratic nomination, why she'd make a better opponent to McCain than Obama. Obama also has a right to say why he'd make a better opponent to McCain than her. This is a race for the nomination, they each need to make a case as to why they'd be a better match against McCain.

here is the thing, Obama twice, even three times arguably, has had a chance to seal the deal and hasn't. What does that say about his candidacy?

Anyways, someone PLEASE drop out so we can start fighting McCain and force him to go bankrupt before the convention. Please.

Steve, time to give it up. New Survey USA nationwide head to head shows Clinton 48 McCain 46, Obama 46 McCain 46.

I'm sure you will now trumpet this statistically insignificant Clinton advantage with the same bravado you used when Obama was the one with the statistically insignificant lead.

Another interesting map on Survey USA, they polled all 50 states and show Obama and Clinton both ending up with about the same number of electoral votes but getting there in different ways: Clinton wins AR, FL, OH and PA but loses MI and some Western states, while Obama wins Va, Co, Oh, Nv, Mi but loses Fl, Pa, NJ etc.

Look I've cautioned against relying too much on polls and I will continue to do so but I think the fact that Hillary is doing well head to head in the traditional 3 battle ground states (Pa, Oh, Fl) compared to Obama show some serious strengths for her as a candidate. If she can win those states and get either of Michigan, Oregon or Washington to come through like it always does, she's in good shape. Meanwhile, do you really believe Obama will ultimately win Virginia when polls show him having a hard time in Florida and Pennsylvania?

here is a compromise everyone can love...HRC and BHO BOTH drop out Richardson reenters the race and beats McCain...eh?

Chris,

You have a link?

"here is the thing, Obama twice, even three times arguably, has had a chance to seal the deal and hasn't. What does that say about his candidacy?"

Um, the "campaign execution" argument? Is that one worth judging on?

OK. Take a candidate who is already a Senator, whose spouse is (was?) the most popular living figure within her party, who has a team of highly experienced operatives from her husband's two Pres. campaigns and her own Senate campaigns, then raise $175 million over the past two years ... in short, give her every advantage short of voter mind control ... yet today, the deal not only isn't "closed," they proudly proclaim the fight will go all the way to Denver. Because that is mathematically their only option if they can't win about 65% of remaining primary delegates.

What does that say about her candidacy, compared to that of someone who was virtually unknown at the start of his campaign?

I'm not saying either of them should drop out. But "they haven't closed the deal" is an argument that goes both ways. Let's be honest, if one year ago someone had told your average Democrat that Hillary would be behind and scraping for a way to win against Barack Obama, would you have heard them say anything other than ... "who?"

And Clinton had 3 chances to seal the Deal. Iowa, South Carolina and Super Tuesday.

dumb comment of the day:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/06/obama-aide-neither-candidate-ready-for-3-am-call/

see i can beat up on Obama too!

Hillary win in Florida? I'll make a wager. Should Hillary win the nomination, big if there, let's see... shaving the head is a non-starter, that will scare all the small children. I'll shave my G.Q. beard, or I'll shave one half of my face. Um, I'll (cringe) wear a Jesus Saves t-shirt for a week! And without dark sunglasses!

Correction.

Hillary win in Florida? I'll make a wager. Should Hillary win the nomination, big if there, and win the state of Florida in the election, let's see... shaving the head is a non-starter, that will scare all the small children. I'll shave my G.Q. beard, or I'll shave one half of my face. Um, I'll (cringe) wear a Jesus Saves t-shirt for a week! And without dark sunglasses!

In the interest of "balance":

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/03/reliving-the-ps.html

good news for all dems
http://www.wacotrib.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/communities/listening_post/entries/2008/03/05/state_party_says_democratic_ca.html

I don't see the problem with those statements from Hillary. It's actually pretty clever. She's saying "my lifetime of experience", but by linking it to the Obama speech in 2002, that statement seems to ASSUME that her experience includes foreign policy experience, which it doesn't, at least not much of it. (It reminds me of that great billboard I saw a few years ago that only said, in giant letters, "Don't trust the liberal media". Genius. Evil, but genius.)

I think this is actually a counterattack against Obama's constant referrals to her IWR vote. He often says he was against the war, but has also said he's not sure how he would have voted. Team Clinton needs find a way to get voters to look past the glare of charisma. For them, it's just another way of saying the same old thing; that hope isn't enough, that the world is complicated, and that she is more mature politically.

Obama has been accused of not offering substance or filling in the details, but there's a flip side to that. Hillary has no moral vision, what is her moral vision? Beats me.

The problem with Clinton's statement isn't that she's attacking Obama; it's that she's fluffing McCain in the process.

I'd prefer that the Democratic nominee not kiss John McCain's ass unless he wins the election. Of course, even if he does win, I'd prefer that they not kiss his ass, but I know from the past eight years that that's too much to ask.

No moral vision? Senator Clinton has worked for decades fighting for the working families, children, and women of this country and around the world.

"The problem with Clinton's statement isn't that she's attacking Obama; it's that she's fluffing McCain in the process."

c'mon, stating the obvious isn't fluffing him... She's stating that McCain will go on and on about his experience ad nauseum and she's saying she can provide a counter narrative. No different than when Obama has said that he'll counter McCain's narrative with his own, that he opposed the war.

Bezerko, you do know she's a practicing Christian? Has a very strong faith in God? Don't get me wrong, though, I believe someone can be moral without being an advocate of a particular faith, and vice versa, but how can you say she has no moral vision? If Catherine's statement isn't enough, just let me know, and I'll post more...

"there’s something horrible and undefeatable about people who have no life except the worship of power."

I have a huge trust problem with any Clinton. I have no reason to not believe looking at their past actions, that this campaign is about nothing other than a third term for the two of them. When they do this I will release our tax returns later it does nothing to calm my doubts. If, and now I am going to say when, she is the nominee, I will not try to defend her trustworthiness to voters, I just can't.

Do I think BHO or HRC will win in 08? yes, do I think they will win in 2012? HRC i am less confident about.

But when someone like Mark Penn is driving the campaign and making all the strategic decisions, wow. You take their divisive style of politics and add Penn into the mix, you will have a monomaniacal campaign built on her personality and intent on attacking and destroying her opponents even when her opponents are honorable and striving for higher goals. She has no intent of not dragging every one down to her level.

I just fear for the VP. He or she will be at least fourth in command at the White House.

can we agree no one is convincing anyone of anything?

btw: I have a long post denouncing BHO if people care.

Angela,

"Bezerko, you do know she's a practicing Christian? Has a very strong faith in God?"

Seriously? First, let me clear - I am NOT saying Sen. Clinton has no moral vision.

But just because someone has a strong belief in God doesn't mean their moral vision isn't corrupt or complete bullshit.

Jen B. -- that's why I said vice versa. Sorry if that wasn't clear, but what I meant was, that the reverse is also true, that someone could be ascribed to a religion and be immoral.

this makes me :D

http://www.keithgross.com/About%20Keith.html

H/T to Chris Bowers for this...

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4374

I wish I had the time to dig into it right now.

What morality is it that tries to effectively hold one Senator personally responsible for a war because of one vote (with the majority, on a vote that had no chance of being defeated) on a non-binding resolution whose restrictions the CIC ignored anyway? How much hate does that generate? How divisive is that? Is this a reflection on Obama's morality that he would continue to flog this idea?

What is Obama's moral vision?
What is God's moral vision?

It's a different morality from the one that would absolve a Senator of responsibility for the war, in spite of the vote, at least.

Otherwise, tell me this isn't fluffing:

http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/blog/2008/03/clinton_ive_crossed_commanderi.html#more

"'I think that since we now know Sen. (John) McCain will be the nominee for the Republican Party, national security will be front and center in this election.