Why Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama is our only choice!

In the last two weeks Clinton has proven what many of us suspected, she will stop at nothing to win this nomination.  So, if she somehow gets the super delegates to give her the nomination, as one republican talking head said on last Sunday's Meet The Press, "good luck putting the 'hope' genie back into the bottle.... we republicans are going to sit back, relax and watch the Democratic party blow itself up".  If that scenario does play out, Clinton will lose every black vote, all the young folks working for Obama they are the most enthusiastic and largest group of new voters to join the party in YEARS, say bye bye to their votes.... and people like me, 58 year old female, life long democrat, feminist, mother, hard working professional (yeah yeah.. latte drinking) and donating & volunteering for Obama, we WILL stay home election day.  

This is why I believe the only way to avoid the above train wreck is to make the ticket, Clinton/Obama OR Obama/Clinton, if this isn't the ticket, we will lose.  Why?  Because logically, knowing how the Clinton's are working this, the worse is yet to come.  Think about it.... 7 more weeks of a democrat sleazy enough to say McCain would be a better presidential candidate than Obama... she will do permanent damage to his run... and let's face it, she can dream all she wants but the numbers don't lie, unless she can get most of the super delegates to vote for her, OBAMA is the candidate..... judging from the past two weeks and the number of sleazy, ruthless, attacks on Obama from Clinton...have unfortunately worked... fear does work to get votes, she learned that lesson from Rove/Cheney.. Lies about the candidate works,(R&C again) she's even thrown in the classic manipulative yet effective way women have used to get attention for years, she's playing the victim and even smart women around the country are buying it.  Hillary knows how important this race is, she knew the rules of the game from day one but Obama out played her... he did the 50 state strategy and it worked for him..  He's got the highest number of delegates and if the Super delegates vote the way their state or congressional district voted, if Democrats stick to their word, the agreement made and approved by all the candidates, Florida or Michigan stays out, then OBAMA WILL BE THE NOMINEE.    

So, knowing that "kitchen sink" style negative politics has worked for Hillary (polling showed significant percentage of people who decided within the last 3 days of the election, went for Hillary), the fact she's got 7 more weeks worth of sinks to throw, it will destroy this party.... optimists say "it will good for the party to let the world see what our candidates believe in"... there's just no way you can put lipstick on this pig... it's going to be a nightmare.. John McCains weakest point is his record on Iraq.. Hillary is going to spend 7 weeks and countless millions telling this country just how correct Mr. McCain is... and if Sen. Obama sticks to his "stay above the fray" style that I so much enjoy and respect, he won't have a chance, all that and much much worse.   The party should cut it's losses, put these two camps in the same room until they slug out a "who's on top" deal and save this election we so desperately need.

I never thought Hillary Clinton would sink this low.  I sure wish I could get a refund on the hundreds of dollars I gave her for her senatorial run.

•  Abosolutely not.

  Enough of these diaries.

  The troll rating are coming out soon.

  by JR Hawks on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:43:56 AM PDT

  •  No troll ratings for diaries...

    that are pro-Democrats just because you disagree...that would be against the FAQ's

    by dvogel001 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:45:41 AM PDT

    •  Clinton Brings Too Many Negatives

      Since this seems like some sort of concerted campaign, here's my post from another diary. ...

      Clinton Brings Too Many Negatives to the ticket and too few positives.  In the general election Obama can pick up New York without her help.  He needs someone with REAL national security/foreign policy creds like Biden or Wesley Clark.

      Besides, Obama is winning, why does he need to curry favor from her?  In a way this slight defeat gives the Obama campaign more leeway to go negative, address the questions around all of the Clinton's scandals and lack of morals. The story line is set up: he tried to be Gandhi and it wasn't working, now he's just defending himself.  It also opens up ways they can fight McCain in the general in a more negative way as well.  Always a silver lining.  The Clinton camp wants a fight? Oh boy, Axelrod is going to be unleashed now.  Bring it on.  

      by wonderama on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:55:40 AM PDT

      •  I completely agree with you BUT

        Hillary has 7 weeks to weaken Obama and it's working.  I wrote a diary months ago saying Clark or Webb for vp  got to have the 4 stars when running against McCain.

        I say put hillary on the ticket to SHUT HER THE FUCK UP.

        by bluecayuga on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:58:45 AM PDT

        •  Naw, You Don't Respond to

          a tantrum with a tantrum.  You rise above it and go negative only if you have to.  

          Talking Points Memo

          Let the "fun" begin!

          by wonderama on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 11:06:15 AM PDT

      •  That is your heartfelt opinion...

        and that is fine...there is no concerted campaign...just other Kossacks who have equally heartfelt opinions that they should work as a team and that the negatives do not outweigh the positives...

        Peace...Go Democrats!!!!

        by dvogel001 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 11:06:17 AM PDT

•  People need to get used to this...

  ...the delegate race means Obama is on the ticket. He's there, he's guaranteed. But Hillary brings demographics that Obama has a hard time with, and at this point with the race going all the way until June, there's a real chance those demographics might defect.

  Simply put:

  (Obama + Clinton) - defectors > (Obama - Clinton) - defectors.

  This doesn't need to be overthought or overanalyzed. Clinton has a base. Barack has a base. They're both going to the convention. There's a simply, if not optimal (at all) solution.

  by Addison on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:44:52 AM PDT

  •  Obama (nominee) & Clinton (Veep)

    is okay with me.

    Clinton (nominee) & Obama (veep)

    is not.

    However given reports that Clinton said this again today:

    "Sen. McCain has a lifetime of experience, I have a lifetime of experience, Sen. Obama has one speech in 2002"

    I suspect Clinton is playing for 2012.

    Obama wins the nomination narrowly and Hillary helps McCain win in November. THAT will suppress the net-roots movement more effectively than any other scenario.

    A DLC / GOP tag team versus progressives.

    by Bill White on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:47:20 AM PDT

    •  did she really say this again today?

      ?

      by RationalThoughtProcess on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:54:53 AM PDT

      •  Here is my link . . .

        James Fallows:

        (Update: In a live CNN interview just now, Sen. Clinton repeated, twice, the "Sen. McCain has a lifetime of experience, I have a lifetime of experience, Sen. Obama has one speech in 2002" line. By what logic, exactly, does a member of the Democratic party include the "Sen. McCain has a lifetime of experience" part of that sentence? And I guess with her nonstop references to 2002 she must be talking about Obama's anti-Iraq war speech, not the 2004 convention speech that actually put him on the map.)

        When was the update? I dunno. But the post is dated March 5th.

        by Bill White on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:58:30 AM PDT

        •  that is unforgivable

          She does not belong on the Democratic ticket, in either position.

          by RationalThoughtProcess on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 11:13:35 AM PDT

    •  THATS what they did in 2004

      the clintons tried to sink kerry by putting clark in the race (knowing clark would't win but if he did, he's pull Hillary on as a VP. )  

      2 weeks ago I had so much hope.  Today, I'm just sick of it all.

      by bluecayuga on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 11:01:28 AM PDT

  •  Caveat: there's a simple solution...

    ...however, it could be made impossible as a solution if the race gets nasty on issues that would cripple a joint ticket as opposed to other issues (Rezko, tax returns, etc.) that aren't substantive and won't be important in the fall.

    by Addison on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:47:22 AM PDT

•  Clinton / Obama would NEVER work

  because we all know Bill Clinton will be the true co-President.

  Also, Clinton needs to STFU on stuff like this:

  "Sen. McCain has a lifetime of experience, I have a lifetime of experience, Sen. Obama has one speech in 2002"

  James Fallows said he saw it again TODAY on CNN.

  = = =

  Obama as nominee is my first choice. But if Clinton is the nominee then Obama as DNC chair is the only "compromise" that would satisfy me.

  by Bill White on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:44:52 AM PDT

  •  Yes there's the Bill issue

    but I am surprised that even someone a little cynical like myself is beginning to believe that we must have both of them on the ticket.

    by OrdinaryGal on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:47:07 AM PDT

•  Either combination

  would be a McCain win.  A divisive woman, and a liberal black man in any combination, on the same ticket, will be too much to swallow for many Independents or mild Republicans.

  Obama/Clinton both need a white guy with a military background for VP, IMO.

  by zreeb on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:45:02 AM PDT

•  just because she will stoop lower than Rove to

  try and win does not mean she should be rewarded with A joint ticket VP slo.?  She is a disgrace to the party and should not be rewarded.  The sooner she leaves the political stage the better.

  by MadAsHellMaddie on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:45:02 AM PDT

•  AGAIN???

  This must be the upteenth diary proposing the same thing that would be the kiss of death for the Democratic Party's hopes in November. These deperate postings from the desk of Hillary are getting tedious.

  by Lib Dem FoP on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:46:01 AM PDT

  •  I think a bunch of people are seeing

    the writing on the wall.

    by Travis Stark on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:54:55 AM PDT

•  Bullshit. Clinton is poison to the Democratic

  ticket.

  by darthstar on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:47:24 AM PDT

  •  I'm no Clinton supporter, but I'd have to say

    you are wrong.  Senator Clinton is receiving approximately one-half of the Democratic vote in this Presidential primary vote, just as Senator Obama is.  I would not call that poison, my friend.

    by funluvn1 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 11:00:20 AM PDT

    •  at what price is she getting half. she's just

      a piece of work.  How she could do this to a fellow democrat, she wants McCain in so she can run in 2012.

      by bluecayuga on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 11:04:48 AM PDT

  •  She's poison off it too! I can't stand her, I

    just think Obama is going to be trashed to the point where it will be too hard for him to get his mojo back.  

    Clinton is paving the way for McCain.  Shutting her up right now is important.

    by bluecayuga on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 11:03:26 AM PDT

•  But, I am confursed...

  If Obama can't beat the " kitchen sink" assault, how would he ever beat the Republicans? The "kitchen sink" is nothing compared to what would come in the general. Obama needs to quit whining and toughen up. This is just boot camp. If you can't handle boot camp, you won't make it long on the battle field.

  by yogipohaku on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:47:36 AM PDT

  •  i am tired of hearing this noise

    about the "filthy republicans". Maybe I am crazy, but I think McCain is more civil than this. Oh I disagree with him on policy, but he has demonstrated more class than the Clintons. This appears to be common knowledge on the right, which is why the R's are delighted about Clinton making attacks that they cannot. Hence Limbaugh's get out the vote for HRC in Texas.

    by ahdv on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:56:51 AM PDT

    •  Swiftboaters

      the attack wont come from Mccain but those 527s like the swiftboaters that sunk Kerry.

      by PoliMorf on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 11:14:45 AM PDT

    •  great point.

      by bluecayuga on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 11:19:10 AM PDT

  •  who's whining?? If hillary pulls that "your pick

    ing on me because I'm a woman" routine one more time, I'm going to throw up.

    Obama's strategy will change significantly in the general election.  hopefully he will come out forcefully, narrow his points down to point out the low that her campaign has sunk to.  Clinton is winning with putting McCain higher in line for the throne than Obama.  ANYONE who knows Obama's time spent working for the American people understand that he is a far better candidate than Hillary or McCain.  He must get a short sweet, honest attack... nothing personal or below the belt... just fast and hard.

    by bluecayuga on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 11:08:46 AM PDT

•  no.

  that ticket, no matter who is on top, combines the negatives of both, and adds nothing. bad bad BAD idea. i will suffer through a Hillary/Fucking Leiberman ticket, before i'd recommend that Obama waste his time & position being marked as a "loser" by running with Clinton.

  no. No. NO. NO.

  sorry. no deal.

  by Librarian on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:48:48 AM PDT

•  I heartily agree and recommend this...

  diary.

  Right now there is a 10% defection rate of Democrats if Hillary is the nominee by Barack supporters and a 20% defection rate by Hillary supporters if Barack is the nominee (to John McCain).

  http://people-press.org/...

  Although attention has been focused on McCain's problems with the GOP base, there are indications that some Democrats might defect if Obama is the party's nominee. Overall, 20% of white Democratic voters say they would vote for McCain if Obama is the Democratic nominee. That is twice the percentage of white Democrats who say they would support McCain in a Clinton-McCain matchup. Older Democrats (ages 65 and older), lower-income and less educated Democrats also would support McCain at higher levels if Obama rather than Clinton is the party's nominee.

  Combining forces would give the vast majority of people what they really want in the Democratic party (with the exception of about 10,000 angry Kossacks)

  by dvogel001 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:50:18 AM PDT

  •  Democratic Voters

    Your article is based on the Democratic base voters.  Obama is still winning Independents at a high number 2-1 in most states, and those voters WILL NOT vote for Clinton, so this article is of little use to our discussion.

    by loree920 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:54:19 AM PDT

    •  McCain, Hillary and Obama are...

      all polling about equal with independents so it will be a horse race...Yes Obama is slightly better but within the margin of error of the independents sample

      by dvogel001 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 11:13:43 AM PDT

•  already been diaried... #56

  by The Dead Man on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:55:16 AM PDT

•  STOP this nonsense!

  Clinton is caustic no matter which position she would occupy on a ticket. Barrack knows this and will never run with her.

  by how2be1 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:55:26 AM PDT

•  If Barack sticks to his "stay above the fray"

  style, as you put it, he won't last 7 weeks.

  The press has been trying to bury him since the week before the Wisconsin primary.

  by Pazuzu on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:59:27 AM PDT

  •  I agree... but he doesn't have to go personal

    or act like a punching bag to go after Clinton, I just wish he'd pull a Hillary and say, "I hope clinton is ready for what the republicans are going to pull on her... start with the sex addict husband, and go all the way through the 8 years and beyond.  It's a long list, it's absolutely awful for anyone to use it against her... but he doesn't need to throw the kitchen sink.... how about a small bowl to start with.

    by bluecayuga on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 11:13:22 AM PDT

•  Why would you want a disfunctional relationship

  between President and VP?  If he were the candidate, she'd be sending mixed signals by the way she does her politics.

  If he were the VP, he'd be relegated to duties less valued than the White House Pastry Chef.  Bill's Chief of Staff would be closer to the inner circle.

  A shotgun marriage between these two would end in total disaster.

  by Pangloss on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:59:45 AM PDT

•  I do not want her on the ticket

  Obama has earned the lead in delegates and votes.  Clinton couldn't win the nomination, and a ticket with her on it would be a liability during the generals.

  Plenty of good VP choices; I do not want a Clinton ticket!

  by GN1927 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 11:01:02 AM PDT

•  Somehow giving the Mistress of Manipulation

  a nomination to one of the two Executive Offices, as a reward for her ability to fire up her ground troops to defame, slander, and abuse a fellow Senator (D), doesn't seem all that promising for our nation.  I have no enthusiasm for that.

  I would also have to consider the net exposure of having any nomination combination put forward that includes Hillary Clinton, as far as overall electability goes.  Taking just this nasty history of the last week or so -- think how this could be exploited by GOP as proof of how inconsistent, self-seeking, distorting and treasonous Democrats can be...they can't even get along with each other, even when they have very few notable differences in overall agenda, and betrayal seems to come so easy...and then I would anticipate them posing the question: what will they be willing to do to GOP members, if they do such as that to their own?

  I would say our Democrats could show more promise in being able to re-unify the nation, if they would find the stones to put a lid on the more divisive members, and demonstrate the ability to coalesce, cooperate, welcome, and put forward a coherent vision and plan for America, where we all win, instead of creating a trail of crippled or defeated losers, on the way to try to claim some brass ring.

  There's so many that say continuing this divisive, decades long saga of Bush\Clinton\Bush with yet another Clinton truly makes stomachs turn.  Let's give the Harvard team a shot.  The Yalies have cost us dearly. (See below.)

  Any nomininee who plans to maintain the current levels of military ($3 billion/week) spending, and deficit spending ($8 billion/week just for interest on the trillions owed), will ruin us further than W already has.  

  Gold and Oil are this week priced at FOUR times what they were in 1999, and none of us can claim our salaries, housing value, and IRA/pensions have gone up even remotely close to that.  I would imagine that just the top 1% can truly claim to be better off and more secure now than in 1999.  More likely, the average citizen is holding even at best and if lucky, or more likely has experienced losses, job loss, benefits lost, pension shrinkage or disappearing, health loss, and many kinds of insurance either becoming unavailable or priced out of reach.  

  And the loss of civil rights, habeous corpus, and due process are a true crisis and break from our American Way.  We need a candidate who will take the necessary stands to change the course on the economic deprivation and rape, and savaging of our rights and benefits we once held as citizens and good workers.  

  A candidate voting to approve unleashing the destruction of pre-emptive, prescriptive war upon other nations and their citizens, when the true target is really smallish clumps of terrorists, arrayed in loose networks, with the key operatives and financial sources most likey harbored in Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Pakistan and Afghanistan, that's the sort of misjudgement that cannot be allowed repeated ever again.  We have got to have a reality based president and vice-president to start our recovery, and return to being a 'free and democratic' society.

  by antirove on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 11:16:27 AM PDT

  •  hey, i'm with you on all of the above.. but i

    watched an american hero 'swiftboated' and stood dumbfounded by it.  even some republicans i considered idiots but decent men, wouldn't stand and condemn the swiftboaters.  this kind of crap works.  I think Obama is an extraordinary candidate... I can't stand the thought of him losing this opportunity, the change this country is aching for... slapped down by this aggressive, self absorbed very vicious woman.

    by bluecayuga on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 11:37:39 AM PDT

•  Not saying for sure but...

  Not saying I would defect for certain but if Barack Hussein Obama is the candidate, then I'd have to seriously consider voting for someone else.

  by notakoolaiddrinker on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 11:24:30 AM PDT

  •  I feel the same about Hillary I'm an ass hole cli

    clinton".

    by bluecayuga on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 11:31:43 AM PDT

•  Not only no, but HILL no!

  I can see why Sen Clinton would want Sen Obama to run as her VEEP.  He immediately restored the credibility within the Democratic Party that she is slowly squandering.

  However, if anyone thinks that she would be anything but an anchor wearing monkey on the back of an albatross hanging like dead weight on his ticket is deluding themselves.  I'd think he'd rather run with Mike Gravel!

  The

  by TravelerBill on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 11:38:03 AM PDT