'Internet Bubble'
By John Amato Monday May 12, 2008 10:20pmI do find this interesting.
On the eve of the West Virginia primary, most Democrats nationally say Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton should continue the campaign, but more now say that it’s time for Clinton to quit.
In a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll, 55% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents also would like Illinois Sen. Barack Obama to choose Clinton as his running mate, although there's notable resistance among his backers.
Nearly six in 10 Democrats who are aligned with one of the candidates said they would prefer to see Clinton and Obama continue campaigning until one of them wins a clear victory, rather than bringing the fight to an early conclusion.
Draw your own conclusions.
Login or Register to post comments.
Yes, yes, but what about all the Operation Chaos "democrats" who are voting for Hillary? What do they think? I'm guessing it's "If Hillary doesn't win I'm voting for McCain."
I wonder how that throws these polls off - if at all?
Hillary’s ‘Settlement Demands’ Are Nothing Unusual
I'm an Obama backer and I think that offering HRC the VP slot would destroy Obama's candidacy. She is everything that he is trying to transcend. Plus she's unscrupulous enough to try anything. And I mean that with all the vagueness and worry I can think of.
Clinton should not drop out. I know that most people who watch the cable news and know about the delegate count know that it is numerically impossible for her to win, but those who do not get the cable news or understand the delegate selection process will not understand it if she drops out.
It should be played out until Obama has all the delegates that he needs to cinch the nomination. There really isn't any hurry except for the teevee pundits.
Face it, at the end of this process they call an election, she will have more voters voting for her.
In a real election, the most votes win.
Of course, after she won PA the supers went to Obama.
Its a joke of an election.
A big part of Obama's draw is the fact that he is such a break with the past. Inviting Hillary on to the ticket would destroy that.
"I know first hand, we desperately need the leadership of someone committed to changing the system in Washington that can hold us back from moving forward."
Sayeth Ray Nagin. I can see the bumper sticker: "Don't hold us back from moving forward!"
Different Anonymous @ 1:
The people that are so unscrupulous as to cross over to vote for Hillary were never going to vote for a Democrat in the general election anyway. I don't think that in the long run, they will have much of an impact.
I heard Olbermann mention something about a "Vote Both" web site last night, and that it was put up by Clinton supporters. Heard something about it again today, so I did a web search, and the first thing that came up was Vote Both dot org, which is apparently a protest site.
As for the site that is being protested, I've linked to that on my own sites, but using the words Nightmare Ticket. (Just in case Googlebombing still works.)
DrDan in MA @ 3:
YES!
Surely that can't be a direct quote. Since when is more greater than most?
Just sit back and let the cards fall where they may. The GOP is in terrible shape. Even WV voters (as ill-advised as they are) would vote for a black democrat in November. If Hillary becomes the VP, all of this divisiveness will be totally forgotten. If Obama and Hillary truly care about the Democratic Party over their own personal ambitions, then a Obama/Clinton ticket is inevitable and McBush will lose by at least 25 points in the general.
Ozymandias @ 6:
'Cause the nineteen-nineties, boy, they sure sucked, didn't they?
JoGoBamma(formerly Jo) @ 10:
Hard to explain why their voting records and policies are virtually indistinguishable don't you think if Obama is trying to "transcend" her.
At the end of the day, do you trust Clinton?
That's all you need to know.
Obama/Edwards!
after super tuesday, i wanted both candidates to stay in to the very end...but then the clintonistas started their bs, and i want them to all go away
there is one good thing that will come out of this race, we get to see that the dnc leadership has absolutely no power....so its time for the screamer to vamoose
its time for new leadership
btw, how does hillary continue to run with absolutely no money
we now know that they were lying about their fundraising abilities
JR @ 12:
At the very least, would they stay home in the Fall?
What IS it with Hillary Clinton's gluing herself to men who want someone else instead of her?
As usual, the Fourth Estate at its best!!
jane from hell @ 7:
And coming from Ray Nagin I am so impressed!
It seems crazy to me that there is all of this media and public pressure to select a specific running mate before the nomination has even been secured. The choice of running mate is one of the very first and most important choices a would-be President makes. Why all of this pressure to deny any free choice in the matter by allowing mob rule to make the choice for the candidate? Let the candidate make his or her own choice when the time comes!
22 Sammy, I dunno. Since Cheney's been VP I've been wishing they picked a running mate before the first debates.
anneyhussein @ 19:
Just curious. What does that mean?
Flash @ 15:
no, i don't trust clintons or bushes. they're flipsides of the same worthless token.
can we have just one damn election in my lifetime that doesn't have the names clinton or bush on either ticket? it's been since 1976 -32 years too long!
clinton takes all her money from corporations, FOX news included. having her on the ticket would undermine the message.
i'm for OBAMA / EDWARDS versus McCAIN / ROMNEY
let's air it out -no political assassinations, or any of that b.s. -an actual battle of ideas -may the best team win.
Well, if Obama makes Hillary his running mate, I hope he sleeps with one eye open.
getalife @ 5:
This is false. End of discussion.
Merle @ 13:
For the Democratic Party as a whole, they really did. The Clintons were all about personal self-aggrandizement. The Democrats lost power and influence throughout the 1990's. 1994, the first election after Bill won the WH, was the year Congress got handed back to the Republicans in whole after something like 40 years. In part as a backlash against the dreadful flop that was Hillarycare. What an accomplishment, eh?
well... the whole idea is that the longer these two dual it out, the more it hurts the 99% likely candidate, which is Obama. For all you Clinton fans out there (since when did we start referring to politicians by their first names?), realize that if what you want is Hillary in office, you're not going to get it. If you want a Dem president, she had better drop out soon, because she IS hurting Obama, and don't try to play it like this is "good" for democracy.
getalife @ 5:
at the end of this process, hillary will probably sue mark penn, fire her stylist, hurl some entirely unfair insults toward chelsea, sucker punch one of her own secret servicemen, and divorce bill, blaming him for the entire fiasco.
that's just my guess.
Folks, they're both capable. We Democrats are split, half for Hillary, half for Obama. If they both really want to follow the will of the people and their party, they'll team up and mop the floor with McCain.
Whoever is Vice-President will have the opportunity to run for President someday. The way I see it, it's a win-win for both.
I personally would like Barack to be the nominee :) We'll see how it goes.
I don't think it's fair to single out Hillary supporters as people who would throw their vote to McCain in case she loses the nomination. I've heard some Obama supporters say the same thing. Folks who think this way are wrong-headed. To vote for someone who doesn't stand for your beliefs because your candidate didn't get the nomination is just plain stupid. It's wrong, wrong, wrong......
Just keep the last 8 years in mind, people. George Bush wanted to restore dignity to the office of President. We all know how that turned out.
Would anybody be surprised to see Hillary run as an independent? With, say, Holy Joe Lieberman as her VP? I sure wouldn't, it'd fit her character to a tee. Of course the result would be President McCain, but seems like that's been her goal all along. Maybe McCain will give her a nice fat cabinet position? How about Secretary of State?
ZappaFrank @ 31:
no more clintons, no more bushes. no more goddamn dynasties. why is that so hard to understand? this is america, we can do better. we are better than BOTH hatfields and mccoys.
no clintons OR bushes on the two tickets in the fall of 2008. first time since 1976!!
hillary clinton on an obama ticket would be disastrous. think bill's a duplicitous snake now? bill's second fiddle to no one, not even his wife -and all this has been is about bill's 3rd term.
you can't make the mistake of putting the clintons on the ticket -especially with all their corporate backing:
Rupert Murdoch, News corps. chairman
Peter Chernin, News corps. COO
Jack Abernethy, CEO of FOX TV
Lloyd Blankenfein, Goldman Sachs chairman
Warren Buffett, Berkshire-Hathaway, billionaire
Ron Burkle, Supermarket magnate
August Busch III, Anheuser-Busch chairman
John Catsimatidis, Supermarket mogul
Donny Deutsch, Adverstising exec
Barry Diller, media mogul
Tom Freston, former Viacom president
Vernon Jordan, Washington power broker
Jeff Kindler, Pfizer CEO
Norman Lear, TV producer
John Mack, Morgan Stanley chairman
Ronald Perelman, billionaire investor
Sumner Redstone, Viacom chairman
Brian Roberts, Comcast chairman
Hilary Rosen, lobbyist, former RIAA CEO
Haim Saban, media mogul
Ivan Seidenberg, Verizon chairman
Ben Silverman, NBC chairman
Sy Sternberg, NY Life insurance chairman
Sandy Weill, Citigroup chairman
Robert Wright, former NBC chairman
...just to name a few. obama would be a dead man walking.
don't think the clintons play dirty? ask vince foster -oh wait, you can't.
No one asked Johnson to withdraw from the race when he was challenging Kennedy.
It was just one state that put Kennedy over the top on the convention floor.
DrDan in MA @ 3:
Not to worry, obama will destroy his candidacy all on his own.
L.A. Confidential @ 34:
The next day JFK named Lyndon Johnson as his vice-presidential running mate and it was Johnson who would carry Texas for the Democrats and win the presidency for JFK.
bullfrog @ 33:
yaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn!
The GOP already has a 1000 page dossier on obama....
James Kain @ 29:
That is b.s. pure and simple and one of the obama campaign's talking points. Barry is digging his own grave. spin, spin, spin...In 1980 Ted Kennedy was behind 750 delegates, 1988 found Jesse Jackson 1400 delegates behind Dukakis, 1992 found Jerry Brown with just 600 delegates and all three went to the convention. So, in your opinion, Sen. Clinton is hurting obama and the party.....THINK AGAIN!
Peter G @ 24:
First, apparently Bill wanted to divorce Hillary in 1989 to be with another woman, and she refused.
Then there's all this business about Hillary trying to get on the ticket with Obama when he most likely is going to choose a VP whose vision of American government supports his, certainly not HRC. It just seems as though Hillary glues herself to men who, frankly, don't want her.
JR @ 12:
You are right that voters, even from WV, will choose Obama over Mccain. That will happen without Hillary as VP.
The fact is Hillary does not care about the party over her own personal ambitions. That is why she went claiming she's winning whites while Obama is losing them. She is willing to polarize her own party so her campaign can live a week or so more. Hillary DOES NOT add a huge boost to Obama's campaign. In fact, he would quickly lose independents and cross-over republicans if she was on the ticket - more than making up for any gains. Hillary on the ticket makes McCain a STRONGER candidate because her presence would revitalize GOP supporters and contributors. Hillary has huge negative numbers, and she would only polarize the ticket while making Obama's message appear hypocritical and contradictory. Sorry, she is a no-go.
Ron @ 40:
She could put Obama in the White House as VP.
Don't delude yourself.
Are we in living in Hilter-era Germany, or Mussoulini's Italy?
Last I check, the USA was still a democracy right?
So let every state vote then! This was Howard Dean's master plan of the 50 state strategy, so fine, let's wait until EVERYBODY had their chance to cast their vote.
ZappaFrank @ 31:
First, Obama is going to be the nominee. There is no question there. The split you speak of is largely semantics. Hillary used her old, familiar name to attract traditional democrats - and when that wasn't enough, used polarizing wedge issues to peel off susceptible voters in a few states. Obama will easily gain the votes of both groups. He does not need Hillary and her scandal-ridden past. If she was so strong then SHE would be leading by delegates and votes and donors. That is not the case. The fact is she weakens his campaign position of "change", and the fact that she's so ferociously attacked him, would make him appear as weak if he did choose her.
DO NOT be fooled by the media. They wish Obama would choose her so they can then paint him as weak and impotent. They would spend the next six months emasculating him will occasionally r-ehatching an old Clinton scandal here and there. Rev Wright will be long played-out by then. Hillary however, will be seen as the scandal that keeps on giving. It is also not unbelievable that Hillary would play cut-throat as VP to somehow get herself into the Presidential spot. Sorry, thats just how she plays politics.
PssttCmere @ 37:
and i've got my 2-millimeter zinger ready for the mccain camp...
SM @ 42:
One problem with that. You do not run primaries all-the-way through with two opposing candidates. It confuses voters who picked the candidate that lost the nomination. It is especially damaging when the candidate that appears likely to lose is attacking the likely winner in way meant to ensure voters won't vote for him.
Think about Kerry and Edwards, the attacks were few and far in between, and Edwards conceded early to allow Kerry a sense of legitimacy and to gain strength and familiarity his base. You DO NOT run an attack campaign till the very end, in a primary against the likely winner of your own party's nomination. This is the reason why many see Hillary's future as over once this primary season is...
L.A. Confidential @ 41:
Her negatives negate any bump. There are not more Hillary fanatics (people who would only vote if she was on the ticket) than there are independents or cross-over republicans (who are fed up with the GOP but would never vote Hillary). With her on the ticket, those groups are lost. The GOP base is no longer demoralized, but emboldened. The republicans won't have to pick at the bones of the Wright story because Clinton brings a bonanza of past scandals with her. Once that tiny glimmer of the "dream ticket" wears off, it would be pure terror for any dem who thought they had this locked up.
There are many incredible potential running mates who can court independents, cross-over repubs, and even hillary supporters. She just isn't capable of expanding to those groups - and hence is a poor choice for VP. Sorry.
Would you want Hillary Clinton a heartbeat away from the presidency if it were your heartbeat?
Ron @ 43:
I definitely agree with you. He doesn't need her. I'm just addressing the split and the growing hatred towards Clinton. I dug Bill Clinton as president, I think he did a great job (lying about Lewinsky excluded), many people don't think so, they have a right to their opinion. Hillary is nowhere near what her husband was like, the reason I don't support her for nominee. The other reason I don't support her is because of the way her campaign has been run. I saw a side of the Clintons i didn't like, the "competitive" side (I'm being sarcastic).
But yes, your point about the media is the reason we discuss these things here on C&L. They are the ones trying to decide who wins or loses, and I'm sure if there were an Obama/Clinton ticket, they'd have a field day. In any case, my point is that we as Democrats should support whoever wins the nomination. I'd really like to see a a Democrat (Barack Obama) be president again. If it's Hillary, so be it (even though I hope that's not the case).
fiver @ 47:
i wouldn't trust hillary clinton to honestly report her earnings from a vendor's table in a flea market.
i probably wouldn't hand her the keys to a nuclear arsenal, either.
Ron @ 46:
Where?
getalife @ 5:
Yet the only way she can win is if the supers discount and dismiss the majority of votes cast by the people for Obama.
She's saying count the votes, the voters should decide, except when they vote for her "opponent", in which case the "automatic" super wimps should decide?
Do I have that right?
And re veep, absolutely no clinton on the ticket.
As David Gergen said, Obama would have to hire a food taster/tester.
Plus it would totally bring down his candidacy. She has the highest negatives going.
Plus, her being on the ticket would negate his platform of the new politics.
You have to admit that having Hillary as Vice President would be a hell of a way to guarantee that no Reich-Wing-Nut-Job would seriously consider assassination of Obama. They fear her presidency MORE than his.
Having stated the obvious above, however, as a long-time Hillary supporter, I have to say that I don't really think having her in the VP slot would help his chances for election very much. If he REALLY wants to get elected, he should consider somebody with military experience first.
ezpz @ 51:
it's like someone already said, if hill gets in as veep, the whitehouse will be like a sitcom, with barack moseying along nonchalantly, while michelle diffuses bombs and booby traps.
getalife @ 5:
Hum, ironically you had a different tune when your boy Bush was selected in 2000.
I am more concerned about representative votes in a general election, which is where citizens get to vote, than the process inside a party to select its candidate. Obviously you have different priorities...
bullfrog @ 53:
Not to mention Bill getting all the presidential attention, at Obama's expense, with Bill even forgetting he's not THE president anymore.
L.A. Confidential @ 50:
At this point, even an inanimate object like an artichoke would win against the GOP candidate. But leave it to the DLCites to fuck things up...
After all, Hillary had it shown in less than a year ago and she has managed to pissed it all against a virtual unknown a year ago. So, excuse me if I don't really want Hillary or any other DLC type near the ticket. They should have been purged after they managed to fuck it up royally in 2000. Good riddance...
I can't believe Obama supporters want this charade to continued.
It's clear to everyone but hillary and her supporters.
hillary lost fair and squared.
Different Anonymous @ 1:
That same quote was in today's USAToday. The LTTE writer was upset at Hillary's treatment and urged all Hillary supporters to vote for McCain if Hillary isn't the nominee.
It's a bad idea for Sen. Obama to chose hillary as VP.
Sen. Obama is nothing like hillary.
tHeHusseinGaMeOfLiFe @ 59:
Obama can just skip the middle woman and hire McCain. After all according to Mrs. Clinton he is well qualified...
Unlike the republicans Obama needs to choose a running mate who does not think of average Americans as prey.
It's OK to be against the manner in which Hillary was treated, but it needs to be remembered that the Obama campaign was not responsible for that treatment. It was the news media's sexist attitude and anti-Clinton hysteria that were responsible for the shoddy behavior toward Hillary. What is worse is that the news media pundits do not care. Since there are more admitted sexists than racists in our society the pundits share a plurality's view. One does not have to fool all of the people all of the time, or some of the people all of the time, only some of the people some of the time to gain and maintain control.
No Hillary for VP, we want to go forward, not back.
Pure Propaganda
from
Pravda on the Potomic....
Barrack is not a fool'
Hillary has already lost and will not be
VP.
Merle @ 13:
The 90s were just a veneer, on the surface everything was good, but behind the scenes Bill was setting up the middle class for a massive shipment of their jobs overseas.
Idaho had 12 delegates for Obama with only 22,000 folks voting. Hillary got over 600,000 in New Hampshire and she got 12 delegates.
What is fair in this?
You have to be fairly free to go to a caucus. college kids and the rich do this. The blue collar worker is working. However, when he gets off work, his vote counts and the Democrats should start realizing that.
1. Clinton as a V.P. does not represent the change we want...it would still be old politics.
2. Bill would be a continual problem.
3. Hillary should have run in 04. Their timing has been off as well as their campaign.
Vote Flick
If any Obama staffers are lurking, be advised that if HRC is on any ticket, I'll write-in Dennis Kucinich. There is no way that I am ever going to vote for any ticket that includes a neocon Republican. I'm sure I'm not the only one.
Joanie @ 66:
I live in a state that held its caucus. We had record turnout, and where I live there's no rich folk. We had lines of working stiffs that stood out in the cold to vote. To say only the young and rich folk caucus is BS.
Paul @ 69:
I'm with you Paul.
The media announced John Kerry had the best shot at beating George Bush too.
Remember, mainstream media have not announced their intention to back the democrats in 2008, not so long as they insist on the nickname 'Maverick" for a guy who supports all of George Bush's policies.
CowboyBob in Austin @ 52:
Actually with Hillary as VP you might have to worry about her or one of her surrogates trying to bump Obama off so she could be in the top slot. BUT your logic is right on - Obama's best chances at erasing a neocon assassination threat are picking a VP that is toxic to them. This is why someone like Bloomberg is a definite NO. He has to be very picky and choose someone not tainted or allied with the neocons.
And how many people thought that Sadam Hussein was involved in 9/11 back in 2002? Please, this is more Taylor Marshesque Clinton bolstering. I really wish Amato would come clean and definitively state once and for all whether or not he's a Clinton supporter.
Maybe I have it wrong? Is C&L not a progressive blog, but in fact just a Democratic party booster blog?
ONE of them needs to drop out. There are some that say that with these two (Obama/Clinton) still at each others throats is sending voters over to McBush. I don't see that happening considering the destruction the Republican Party has wreaked upon this country. I think their childish fighting only serves to further divide an already sadly divided nation. If I have to choose between the lesser of two evils my choice would be Obama. As far as being running mates, yeah that would be disaster. Power needs to be taken away from the office of the VP...she would want to add to it.
PssttCmere @ 35:
Well, if she does become his running mate, I don't see her trying to destroy his candidacy. Not at all. She'd want the ticket to win as much as he would. However, I can see her trying to destroy his Presidency from the inside if he wins.
JoGoBamma(formerly Jo) @ 10:
Absolutely.
Personally, I would to see a clinton do just one thing gracefully in this lifetime and to drop out would be it. But she will not- so don't anyone worry about that! She is a power dyke and they never give up. She will hint at it and leave everyone speculating, then at the last minute she will come with guns and nutsack clippers with that crazy wild eyed glare and hideous Disney witch cackle!
LibertyLover @ 8:
That voting block is much larger than you think. Look what happened to Al Gore. There is another option, don't vote for president. I know Republicans who chose that option in 2004 rather than vote for 4 more years of Bush.
May 7th excerpt from Democracy Now!
BILL MOYERS: " . . . . And it seems impossible now, to me, for Hillary Clinton to even stay in the race without doing such damage to Obama that he’s hurt in the fall and she is hurt in her reputation.
AMY GOODMAN: What about Hillary Clinton now staying in the race?
BILL MOYERS: " . . . . Thirteen of the members of that thirty-person committee are Clinton supporters, eight are Obama supporters, the others are undecided. If she were to muscle her way to a decisive moment in that Rules Committee where they decide to change the rules here in the last inning, she will really be hurt.
But that’s the only way, barring lightning striking him. You know, that’s what she keeps hoping for every day, is that lightning will strike him, and she’ll have a—some October surprise in May will happen. That’s not going to happen. She can only win in a way that would leave the Democratic Party in shambles."
Moyers later went on to say that Clinton must consider what is right for the country, for her to remain in the race is only what is right for the Clintons.
This was a good interview. I wish C&L would have linked to it.
Hillary Clinton
-
all her negatives
+
cross party support
+
electoral map advantage
+
insurance company refutting
+
almost a decade of executive governing experience
___________________________________________
Gov. Kathleen Sebelius(D-KS)
+
Barack Obama
___________________________________________
A Democratic White House through 2016 and perhaps beyond
"She was first elected to the Kansas House of Representatives in 1986. In 1994 she left the House to run for state insurance commissioner and stunned political forecasters by winning — the first time a Democrat had won in more than 100 years. She is credited with bringing the agency out from under the influence of the insurance industry. She refused to take campaign contributions from insurers and blocked the proposed merger of Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas, the state's largest health insurer, with an Indiana-based company. The decision by Sebelius marked the first time the corporation had been rebuffed in its acquisition attempts."
bullfrog @ 33:
Another Obamatron doing his moronic best to alienate every last Hillary supporter come November. President McCain thanks you.
My conclusion is that the Washington Post lies through its rotted, ink-stained teeth.
I also conclude that having Hillary on the ticket as VP would be disastrous for the Democratic party, Obama, and everything progressives are trying to achieve.
It's good for generating interest in and excitement about the Dem party among regular (never reads blogs) voters. It has increased registration of voters. It has kept McCain in a news cycle vacuum. It has increased voter education through more watching debates. It has energized women, youth, minorities to become involved in political action. It has sucked the air and the money out of the Republican Machine. Barack Obama will be stronger for having had a strong opponent that threw a lot(but nothing near the Rovian nastiness) of real and bogus ammunition at him. So take a deep breath, calm down, and get ready for the last gasp of a Republican monster in its death throes.
I can blow internet bubbles with my nose.
ZappaFrank @ 31:
God, I'm so glad you said that. We have to stop this bullshit people. This country will not survive McCain. My greatest wish is that we could stop all this bickering over Obama and Clinton. We need to unite. And I truly don't understand all the hatred for the Clintons. Bill was an excellent president.
Any which way, I for one am voting for the Democrat. Period. Ya'll should all do the same.
86 Marcy
I think Obama and Hillary could play good cop, bad cop. And Hillary and Bill can be the policy wonks to hash it all out in a backroom. Bill could also help with international diplomacy since Obama can't be everywhere at once, and Bill is still held in high estimation internationally.
Login or Register to post comments.