Wisconsin Primary

[Harlan Huckleby]

I'm not sure Hillary wants to be anyone's VP. If the Dems win control of the Senate and Obama wins the Presidency, she might be able to wield more power as Senate majority leader than she would as VP. Any health care plan Obama would propose would have to have her seal of approval.

Of course she doesn't want to be a VP. But once an offer is on the table, that's a new situation. To me, the remaining drama before next fall is whether Obama will have the broad-mindedness (no pun intended) to invite Clinton into the White House.

Obama is not shoe-in in the general election, it's not clear that Clinton won't be stuck in the Senate under a Republican Adminstration. I believe, and certainly she believes, that Clinton could help make difference as VP in general. I know you have low opinion of Clinton, but I actually beleive she is civic-minded, and will be attracted to a role where she can do the most good for the country.

I think Jim Webb (Virginia?) would be an interesting VP choice for Obama. He has open/direct personality, both pro-military and anti-war, not in Washington very long. Even though he looks young, he was former Secretary of the Navy, or something at top of Pentagon at one time.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Air America is bashing her over that? Ha ha...this race is far from over and the Obama people know that. It's could come down to a convention battle royal.

It is really hard to see how Clinton wins the convention battle. She would have to get close in pledge delegates, less than 50. I'm not sure that's possible. AND Obama would have to accept the VP, or it would be phyrric victory. Clinton is a very long shot.

We're in uncharted waters.

[The Leaper]

By the time it is settled, all the dems will come together against the common enemy.

I agree the true diehard Dems will. The issue will be the moderates who are supporting Hillary or Obama...because McCain to them is also a respectable choice.

I think you also have to factor in the race card...sure, this country has come a long ways, but racism will always exist to some extent. Some of Clinton's largest support comes from old rural whites...and those are some of the same people who are most likely to NOT vote for a black man if they have any doubt whatsoever about his character. That variable has not existed before in terms of uniting the party against a "common enemy".

McCain is in a better position...because he is moderate, and it is the more conservative wing of his party that he needs to court. Ultimately, McCain is far closer to the values of those voters than either Obama or Clinton is...so they likely will still vote for him.

Obama and Clinton already have the more liberal wing of the Dems locked up. To win the presidency, they need to court the more moderate Dems...and that is where they will have a tougher sell compared to McCain in ensuring a majority of those votes...because their weakest group will be smack inbetween McCain and the eventual Dem nominee.

[Harlan Huckleby]

By the time it is settled, all the dems will come together against the common enemy.

I agree the true diehard Dems will. The issue will be the moderates who are supporting Hillary or Obama...because McCain to them is also a respectable choice.

This is very true. The Republicans have accidently landed a very attractive candidate, despite their inherently evil instincts.

[The Leaper]

It is really hard to see how Clinton wins the convention battle.

I think I agree with that. It will be tough for Clinton to win.

Her greatest hope is that Obama shows weakness. I think you saw a sign on Tuesday that Obama has that capacity. His message on Tuesday was not uplifting and soaring...he got sucker punched, and you could sense it.

The prevailing logic is that Obama is the stronger candidate against McCain due to polling and his ardent support network. However, his inability to carry the crucial major states has to be a concern to the superdelegates. There is a very real possibility that Obama could lead in pledged delegates and the popular vote count...but have lost all of the major electoral treasure troves in the process. He has lost in NY, CA, TX, and OH...and the potential for him to also lose PA as well as FL and MI in a re-vote is very real.

In a presidential election, the popular vote doesn't mean a damn thing...so IMO, you can toss that out as a basis for being the stronger nominee, even though it makes sense to do so. Thanks, electoral college.

Clinton's experience and connection to Bill's presidency (where many moderate reforms were made due to the GOP sweep of Congress in 1994) allow her to be a more attractive candidate when compared to McCain. Obama is a socialist leftist...who is fortunate enough to be so eloquent that most of his supporters don't even realize that is what he is. He's for "hope" and "change"...not governmental income redistribution and protectionism. In the election, most serious Dems know that Obama's dirty little secret is going to be revealed...and he will have no way of escaping the "ultra liberal" tag, despite his eloquence.

Clinton is also relatively liberal, but she KNOWS how that is a disadvantage...and will use her husband's presidency that advanced not-so-liberal agendas (eliminating welfare, increasing free trade, etc) and her own record in Congress (where she purposefully tried to be more moderate knowing that it would serve her well in an election) to be able to distance herself from any GOP claim that she is a nut-so lefty. She's played the game, and knows how it is played. Obama is a rookie in that regard.

So, in the end, the Dems may have a situation where the better candidate TO RUN A PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN is actually slightly behind the better candidate TO RUN A PRIMARY CAMPAIGN. Choosing Hillary over Obama in that situation would alienate African Americans and deal a massive blow to the huge tide of voter interest and enthusiasm that Obama has brought the party. Yet, it might be the best choice if the Dems really want to win the White House in November.

It is going to be an incredibly interesting plot to watch unfold.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

By the time it is settled, all the dems will come together against the common enemy.

I agree the true diehard Dems will. The issue will be the moderates who are supporting Hillary or Obama...because McCain to them is also a respectable choice.

I think you also have to factor in the race card...sure, this country has come a long ways, but racism will always exist to some extent. Some of Clinton's largest support comes from old rural whites...and those are some of the same people who are most likely to NOT vote for a black man if they have any doubt whatsoever about his character. That variable has not existed before in terms of uniting the party against a "common enemy".

McCain is in a better position...because he is moderate, and it is the more conservative wing of his party that he needs to court. Ultimately, McCain is far closer to the values of those voters than either Obama or Clinton is...so they likely will still vote for him.

Obama and Clinton already have the more liberal wing of the Dems locked up. To win the presidency, they need to court the more moderate Dems...and that is where they will have a tougher sell compared to McCain in ensuring a majority of those votes...because their weakest group will be smack inbetween McCain and the eventual Dem nominee.

You are projecting your filter unto others. You are clearly not a dem and no matter how much you keep wishing, the repubs are in major trouble. Their own party realizes it. That is what happens when you have only two issues.

McCain is far from being closer...are you forgetting the popular vote in 2000?

Believe me, the mod dems aren't voting for McCain. Mod dems..like the rest of this country favor a pathway to citizenship for illegals, keeping abortion safe and legal, and having a plan to get outta Iraq.

By election time the economy is going to make today's economy look robust.

[The Leaper]

You are projecting your filter unto others. You are clearly not a dem and no matter how much you keep wishing, the repubs are in major trouble. Their own party realizes it. That is what happens when you have only two issues.

I would agree the GOP is in trouble. However, it is naive to assume that the Dems don't have their own potential issues brewing as well...and claiming I am projecting a "filter" onto others.

FACT: Exit polling in Ohio suggested that 20% of voters suggested RACE was important in who they voted for...and 59% of those voters selected HILLARY CLINTON, not Obama. The "Bradley" effect, where mostly elderly whites have a tough time pulling the level for a black person, remains in effect. That is something Dems have to think about if Obama is their nominee.

McCain is far from being closer...are you forgetting the popular vote in 2000?

This isn't 2000. McCain was supposed to be out of the race six months ago too. Past performance is never indicative of future results.

Believe me, the mod dems aren't voting for McCain.

I'm glad you speak for all of them...I'm sure they are very glad you are their mouthpiece.

The reality is that in most polls of DEMOCRATS, McCain is viewed favorably. I freely admit that doesn't mean the majority of them will vote for him...but to suggest none of them will is quite a leap.

My point is that McCain's problem area (ultra conservatives) are still highly likely to vote for him...they don't favorably view Obama or Clinton. A decent number (not a majority) of moderate Dems...if alienated by the potential mess that could occur in the upcoming selection process...could view McCain as a viable option. I'm not saying it is guaranteed to happen, but considering where this process COULD go, it isn't out of the question.

By election time the economy is going to make today's economy look robust.

I don't see how that hinders either side...it isn't McCain's or Obama/Clinton's mess. Hillary is the stronger Dem on the economy, and she probably won't be the one running for President.

[Joemailman]

I'm not sure Hillary wants to be anyone's VP. If the Dems win control of the Senate and Obama wins the Presidency, she might be able to wield more power as Senate majority leader than she would as VP. Any health care plan Obama would propose would have to have her seal of approval.

Of course she doesn't want to be a VP. But once an offer is on the table, that's a new situation. To me, the remaining drama before next fall is whether Obama will have the broad-mindedness (no pun intended) to invite Clinton into the White House.

Obama is not shoe-in in the general election, it's not clear that Clinton won't be stuck in the Senate under a Republican Adminstration. I believe, and certainly she believes, that Clinton could help make difference as VP in general. I know you have low opinion of Clinton, but I actually beleive she is civic-minded, and will be attracted to a role where she can do the most good for the country.

I think Jim Webb (Virginia?) would be an interesting VP choice for Obama. He has open/direct personality, both pro-military and anti-war, not in Washington very long. Even though he looks young, he was former Secretary of the Navy, or something at top of Pentagon at one time.

I think you underestimate the power of the Senate majority leader. Any major legislation that President McCain or Obama want to get through would have to go through her. I realize that it doesn't work that way now, but that is because Harry Reid is a weak leader. She would be much stronger. AS VP, she would have only as much power as Obama wants to give her.

I agree with you about Jim Webb. He would be an outstanding VP choice no matter who wins the nomination.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I think you underestimate the power of the Senate majority leader.

Oh, OK, guess I missed your suggestion on this. Ya, that is a big job, although not necessarily hers for the taking. I guess that position is comparable to a very empowered VP.

the dem convention is very late in the game, little time to mend fences. This is a unique situation, we got two candidates with deep support, two firsts, there never has been anything this dramatic and emotional. They both must be on the ticket.

[digitaldean]

This is election is gift wrapped for the Democrats.

The economy is faltering, the dollar is a joke, and the fuel prices will be even worse this summer.

If they have a 1968 moment at the convention and they botch this election, they only have themselves to blame.

[Harlan Huckleby]

The HUGE fight over Florida & Michigan gets more interesting every day. It seems like the only acceptable solution is to have a revote, yet there is no way to pay for it. I had no idea that a big state primary costs $15M - times two means a $30M conundrum.

The Republicans had a brilliant solution to the problem of states breaking party rules: penalize a misbehaving state half of its delegates. This is a sufficient incentive for states to tow the line, yet the primary goes forward and collects a legitimate vote.

Howard Dean may have been justified in severely penalizing MI & FL, but when you look at the consequences of 8 million excluded voters and the loss of $30M of irreplacable public funding, Dean should be taken to the public square and flogged. Or worse.

The Democratic candidates are raising money easily, but the party itself is doing badly compared to Republicans. They can't afford to pay for new primaries. Dean tells the state governments he’ll accept anything the states come up with, but they have to pay for it themselves. Not gonna happen.

In the end, the voters are going to get screwed. And maybe Clinton will get screwed too, we’ll see. The compromise is going to be some screwy deal that doesn’t involve a full revote. Ugly. The various higher ups (Howard Dean, Governor of Florida, Dem party of MI, etc., etc.) who mucked this up all talk about a fair resolution, but none will step forward and concede they made a mistake.

[Harlan Huckleby]

This is election is gift wrapped for the Democrats.

The economy is faltering, the dollar is a joke, and the fuel prices will be even worse this summer.

If they have a 1968 moment at the convention and they botch this election, they only have themselves to blame.

I agree with your analysis, Digital, except how do you deal with the problem of two extremely popular candidates? Assasinate one of them?

[swede]

eeny meeny miny moe

[The Leaper]

I agree with your analysis, Digital, except how do you deal with the problem of two extremely popular candidates? Assasinate one of them?

The problem isn't two popular candidates.

The problem is the system that allows two popular candidates to basically duel to a draw no matter what...then gives 750 some people, selected who-knows-how, the ultimate decision in the matter. Some of them are 17 year old pimply geeks who CAN'T EVEN VOTE IN THE DAMN ELECTION!!!

The process to nominate a Democratic presidential candidate is fucked up. For all the whining about the electoral college, what the Dems have to pick a nominee is 100 times worse at this point. That is why the Dems are in trouble...their process is probably going to leave a lot of voters scratching their heads and disenfranchised no matter how it winds up.

It has nothing to do with the candidates.

[The Leaper]

In the end, the voters are going to get screwed. And maybe Clinton will get screwed too, we’ll see. The compromise is going to be some screwy deal that doesn’t involve a full revote. Ugly. The various higher ups (Howard Dean, Governor of Florida, Dem party of MI, etc., etc.) who mucked this up all talk about a fair resolution, but none will step forward and concede they made a mistake.

To some extent it isn't ENTIRELY their mistake. The system that basically splits the delegates in a state even if one person wins the popular vote by a 59-41 margin is ridiculous...and that was put into place a long time ago.

The superdelegate structure isn't their mistake either.

Their mistake is allowing a state to hold a meaningless primary...which obviously is a huge boo-boo. However, if the other factors weren't also in place, they probably could have gotten away with it.