Who Wants Unity? I Do. It's Easy to Achieve:

[David Zephyr]

Speaking out for unity within our party is a very good sentiment, but trying to suggest that somehow there is a "tie" thus far between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton is simply untrue.

Barack is in first place across the board.

Obama has over 600,000 more votes than Hillary. She can not possibly overcome that number with the 11 states that remain. That's not a tie.

Obama has nearly 150 more pledged delegates won in the contests so far. That's not a tie.

Obama has won two times as many states as Hillary. There are not enough states left for her to even reasonably approach his number. That is not a tie.

Unity? Yes.

But the second place finisher does not get to tell the first place candidate that she'll pick him as her Vice President. It doesn't work that way.

On the other hand, should Obama choose Hillary to be his VP? It might still be possible if she ends her campaign now, if she stops the personal attacks against him, if she stops the wasting of tens of millions more of Democratic funds in contests that can not change the results at this point...If she does that and asks Barack for the VP slot, I'm sure it will be hers.

If she continues this much longer, he will not pick her under any circumstances and that day is closely approaching.

The Clintons --- and their million-dollar advisers who are, at this late point, little more than parasites sucking away her donors' contributions --- need to be graceful and face the numbers. They have lost. That would go a long, long way to generate the unity everyone wants.

Everyone, except her most loyal of supporters and paid staffers who are on the gravy train, sees the glaring math. Every day her campaign has more defections. And yet, the more she continues her campaign, the more it signals to Americans that she and Bill are now only out to steal the nomination through back room deals with super delegates. That's hardly something that is noble and it will have millions of disillusioned Democrats in an uproar and will have tens of thousands of protesters storming into Denver.

The Clintons must give up the notion of stealing the nomination. It is repulsive.

Until then, there can be no unity. It's up to the Clintons to do the right thing. Face reality and have some sense of grace before they embarrass themselves any further.

[AtomicKitten]

1. After pointing out the national security chink in Obama's armor, a chink that she shares,

she can kiss my butt.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

2. no Hillary

too dangerous.

[phantom power]

3. Clinton will not be Obama's VP. She simply wouldn't do it.

[goldcanyonaz]

4. Remember when Obama said Clinton wouldn't get his votes?

Well, he sure as fuck isn't going to get hers.

We's what you calls divided.

And, as much as I hate to see Obama on the ticket they will have to share one in order to bring us together.

[Hawkeye-X]

5. See ya, wouldn't want to be ya..

Hillary is expected to concede this week after Obama's MS win and the SD bloc bomb.

Hawkeye-X

[goldcanyonaz]

7. Expected to concede....

:rofl:

She's our only hope.

[City Lights]

10. You said "hope" in reference to Hillary!

:rofl:

[Hawkeye-X]

11. I don't WANT her. She's not my hope

She is the worst campaigner I've ever seen. New scandal out yesterday - she is stealing other people's money!

Look at Kathy Callahan as an example. She was Hillary's Finanace committeewoman for NJ, when she had to deal with the overcharges on her credit card that Hillary Clinton's campaign made, and she was NEVER paid back.

http://www.bluejersey.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=7104

[JVS]

14. Oh God, let it be true. Then we can finally have closure on this sad episode in the history...

of the party that is Hillary's candidacy.

[DJ13]

8. "as much as I hate to see Obama on the ticket they will have to share one"

You Hillary people are in total denial.

She has no place to say he should be on the ticket.

Its Obamas choice whether he thinks she deserves to be HIS VP.

[murielm99]

12. I remember when he said that.

From that point on, I decided that he was the candidate of division. I might have been able to support him if he hadn't said that.

I was willing to overlook, "You're likable enough," and allowing his surrogates to play the race card for at least a week before he called them off. I was willing to overlook his scant record of achievements, too. I was willing to overlook the arrogance and the passive/aggressive campaign style. After all, he is a politician. But divisive attitude displayed in that remark did it for me.

At the end of the day, we all need to be Democrats. I knew some bitterly disappointed Dean supporters. But they swallowed their disappointment and voted for Kerry. I worry that we won't be able to heal this. And Obama supporters, don't bother telling me it is Clinton's fault. I have listened to you squeal for long enough. I tried to listen to you with an open mind. Now I will just put you on ignore.

[goldcanyonaz]

15. Yep.

[Johnny__Motown]

22. He meant the new voters he drew into the process.. she won't get them. They will stay home

That isn't divisive it is simply true

[Not the Only One]

6. Hillary can drop out today and endorse Obama and campaign heartily for him

That's how you get unity.

Not having this monster on the ballot with him. Her negatives are about as high as Bush's! Hillary is not an asset to the ticket.

[cbayer]

13. Her negatives are about as high as Bush's?

Care to back that up with some real information?

[DJ13]

16. What Hillary Clinton and George Bush Have in Common

Posted February 18, 2008

George Bush and Hillary Clinton both share a politics where they are disliked by large numbers of Americans and rather than try to get their numbers up, they are reduced to trying to get their opponent's numbers down.

Hillary Clinton entered this campaign with about 45-46% of Americans who would never support her. After one negative tactic after another her positive support has gone down and the number of people who will never support her has gone up.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brent-budowsky/what-hillary-clinton-and-_b_87272.html

[cbayer]

17. That's an opinion piece with no data or links to back it up.

Just like the one I was responding to.

And to equate Bush and Clinton is irresponsible.

[Not the Only One]

24. Equating unfavorable ratings

Hillary had a 48% unfavorable rating in Gallup's poll a couple of weeks ago. It's probably higher now. Bush's unfavorables are only about 10 points higher, which reflects very poorly on Hillary.

No WH candidate has entered a campaign with negatives as high as Hillary last year. Now, she's pissed off people in our party, too.

[cbayer]

28. It might be me but I can't find that anywhere on their site.

Do you have a link?

[Not the Only One]

33. pollingreport.com archives polls

nm

[cbayer]

34. Thank you.

What I see there is Bush 61% unfavorable, Clinton 40% unfavorable, Obama 28% unfavorable in latest Newsweek poll.

I just don't like seeing either candidate put in the same category as Bush.

[mathewsleep]

9. she can only win through trickery at this point.

that would hurt her chances in the general.
democrats for nixon.

[intaglio]

18. Clinton is doing her best

to bring the Dems back under the DLC thumb.

Never forget she is DLC and those few posters who still support her would have the DLC return to it's previous power. I believe that if Obama said "We must unite - be my VP," her acceptance would be conditional upon Dean never getting back in control and the wholesale abandonment of his legacy. I pray for the sake of the USA and the Democratic Party that Obama has more sense than to offer Hillary even that smidgen of leverage.

In an earlier OP someone (sorry I cannot remember who) suggested that the ideal job for Hillary would be the first vacant Supreme Court position. I think that might be an excellent idea.

[Beacool]

19. Let's make it clear: no Hillary on the ticket, no vote for Obama.

Got it?? You are NOT going to be able to so easily dismiss the almost 13 million people who voted for Hillary.

Besides, there's the small question of PA. Remember them? They want their say and she is very popular there and plenty of us will work our butts off to ensure that she wins the state on April 22.

Unity my ass, we are going to fight for Hillary until the end!!!!!!

[David Zephyr]

20. Maybe I wasn't clear enough. I don't want to dismiss her 13 million votes.

Obama can not ignore her millions of votes and, as much as it will upset many of my fellow Obama supporters (you can see it here in this thread), he should not ignore them either.

But, Beacool, she can not overcome his numbers now without cheating the system. That wont' fly, that won't help her candidacy or the Clintons either.

The Clintons need to acknowledge what everyone now knows, Obama can not be beaten or overcome. The sooner that happens, the quicker the unity and her vice-presidential place will be assured...and the sooner we can all get busy to defeat John McCain and to sweep in a generational lock on Congress, too.

[AJH032]

21. If FL/MI revote

Clinton winning the popular vote is not out of her range (if you include just FL as is, Obama's popular vote lead is sliced in half).

[Johnny__Motown]

23. Yes, but let's face it. IF Clinton won MI it would be by a tiny margin (I doubt she would win here)

[AJH032]

26. I think she'd win MI

similarly to how she won Ohio. I think she'd do rather well throughout the state (other than Wayne county, perhaps).

[NMMatt]

25. Very unlikely, but at least mathematically possible. -nt

[latinolatteliberal]

27. VP isn't the only path to unity, right?

Full disclosure: I support Obama.

Assuming he holds his lead, can we not achieve unity through means other than offering the VP position to Senator Clinton?

Why not encourage her selection as senate majority leader in exchange for her strong support in the general election? That would free us to select a VP candidate that better matches Obama.

Assuming, as I do, that Obama has longer coattails, wouldn't Clinton look forward to leading a more powerful Dem Congress (along with the Speaker)?

[David Zephyr]

31. I hear you, but if we expect millions of Clinton's supporters to give, we must also.

It's not a lot to give. Our combined voters assure of not only the White House, but a sweep of Congress for a generation.

[apocalypsehow]

29. She needs to drop out now, and spare us further vitriolic division.

n/t.

[PurityOfEssence]

30. It needs to play out. It's a question of fairness: does ANYONE give a damn about anybody else?

For once in their lives, voters in the late states are not only somewhat enfranchised, they're IMPORTANT. Is it so important that "our candidate" wins at all costs that we don't let things play out as the system designed?

If it goes all the way and there's no victor by a first ballot, it could swing the other way in the convention. If it does, it should be contested by those who disagree. It should follow the rules.

The idea of sitting on the ball or changing the rules--regardless of who's suggesting it--is wrong.

One of the worst things about Michigan's and Florida's little temper tantrum was that it screwed over the vast majority of Democrats whose states had been honorable members of a private organization. To many of the perpetrators, though, it was "sticking it to the man", when the net effect was cutting in line and trampling all over everyone else.

We don't want a riot in Denver, and I don't want to hear endless bellyaching about dirty deals beyond the inevitable ones already afoot; we should let the system play through as it was intended.

For once, someone in North Carolina can feel empowered. My nephew, who just turned 18 is going to have a primary vote his mom and dad never got: one that actually mattered. Do you want to take that away from the three of them? Why?

Here's the REAL TRUTH: the people haven't spoken. It's REALLY close. To claim that it's all over or that that it's inevitable simply isn't true. By the very rules of the organization, if there aren't enough pledged delegates at the first ballot, then it effectively re-sets.

I don't see how any but the most blinkered zealots can really look the rest of us in the eye and tell us that the party has conclusively, decisively, unmistakably decided who it wants as its standard-bearer. Sure, Obama holds the advantage at the moment, but Clinton has come back from the grave twice, and that's not something that some Potemkin Village hack of a front for the murky power bosses can do; there's something there, or there's something not quite so there about her opponent.

Wiser heads seem to be sitting this out, and I don't think that's just cold calculation or positioning; I don't think Carter, Gore or Edwards want to get involved because something in them wants the people to have a collective, pluralist weighing of the relative merits.

There's something a bit greasy about the cry to shut down the contest at all costs. It needs to run its course. I truly reject the idea that either is much morally "better" than the other nor that their policies are vastly different, and many more seem to be of the same opinion.

There are rules. These rules are ones that many have planned and strategized to work within to state their case and get others to ally themselves with them. The clock's still running and those are the rules. If pressure can be brought to bear to get Clinton to drop, fine, but it's not her DUTY to give up. For all her faults, that's not to be expected of her.

There is absolutely no harm in letting it play out naturally. There is every reason to do so: we're auditioning someone for a super-stressful leading role on a 24/7 reality show; more than anything else, we want to see how they'll react and comport themselves in horrible situations, and this is PRECISELY the kind of fracas I'd like to see how they handle. Besides electability, I'm looking for the one with the chops for the gig.

Let it play out, and try to have some perspective.

[Utopian Leftist]

35. Clinton gravely

"Sure, Obama holds the advantage at the moment, but Clinton has come back from the grave twice,"

No, she has NOT! That's the whole point. The media makes it look like she has made a comeback just because that's the kind of headline that sells. In reality, she has NO chance apart from persuading the superdelegates to subvert the will of the voters. And yes, her staying in the race DOES damage the party unless she can go back to campaigning relatively politely like they were before. Which is what makes so many of us doubt her sincerity. Which is what makes us concerned that, were she chosen as VP, she might attempt to sabotage the election so that she can run again in 2012. Which is why, unless she drops out IMMEDIATELY, Obama will never let her get anywhere near the ticket.

[PurityOfEssence]

37. Respectfully, you're incorrect, and threats from the Obama camp aren't helping things

Look, it's VERY simple: if no candidate can cross the threshold with 2025 voting delegates, everything's thrown out the window. By the rules, people could literally agree to trot out Gary Hart on his home turf and give him what he should have had 24 years ago. Those are the rules.

There are certainly degrees of "subverting the will of the people", and were Clinton to come in with less pledged delegates, but still as close as she is now, it would hardly be a complete dismissal of the unquestionable will of the people. I don't advocate this, and I still do not advocate either of the two, but rules are rules, and people need to be honest when making sweeping claims of unfairness.

The justification--for what it's worth--is that if there's not a CLEAR preference, then it's time to sit down, discuss things, trade favors, plead one's case and let the empowered delegates have their day in the sun and hopefully do what they think is best and fairest. Those are the rules.

It matters that he's ahead, but it's no guarantee or even expression of a right to the nomination.

Rules. Those are those agreements that separate us from insects, anarchists and libertarians.

What the Obama sabre-rattlers need to ask themselves is this: why the hell haven't they been able to make their case much more resoundingly against this woman if she's so corrupt and stodgy? Maybe the great godking isn't as pure as he and his stalwarts are convinced he is.

Besides all that, demanding supplication and fealty before the game has played out is simply dirty pool.

Beyond even that: BY THE RULES, HE HASN'T WON. It's very simple. In fact, if he can't clinch it on the first ballot, it's effectively an entirely new contest.

Rules. They work for you, and they work against you.

Now, for a parting shot: if he's such a immortal, statesman of the ages, he needs to prove it. Much of her dirty laundry is flapping in the breeze, whereas his is just starting to be pawed over by the reactionaries and other malcontents. If he can't conclusively beat her in the proscribed way, he's hardly the champion we're being goaded into accepting.

The real question is: why can't he make the sale? She's roundly hated, encumbered by 30 years of public baggage, being dogged by the media, up against a faddish cavalcade of near-religious frenzy and somehow she's still standing. Not only that, BY THE RULES, she still has a chance for a legitimate, textbook defined victory.

Let it play out. Quite frankly, peak moments of conflict like these are more telling of one's character and leadership ability anyway; we should view this as a boon, not a curse.

[David Zephyr]

36. Frankly, I'm happy to let "it play out" all the way to the convention.

Because the longer it goes the more obvious how impossible the Clintons reach now has become.

Further, the longer it goes, the less leverage Hillary and Bill will have for any VP position on Obama's ticket. Because as they continue their non-relenting slash and burn tactics, their continued praise for John McCain, their fondness of playing the muslim innuendo against this very good man, the less their bargaining power they will have for a spot on his ticket. I suggest that it will be easy for him to float other names by as early as May 1st.

It is tough to lose and there are more and more supporters of Hillary who are tossing in the towel. I understand that's a tough place because I've been on the losing side enough to know. Still, as they defect (we see it nearly every day even here at the DU now), the greater the galvanizing begins for Obama.

I'm still somewhat hopeful that the Clintons might pull out and we could have a unity ticket, but if not, the only one who will be left at the station with wilted pompoms will be Hillary and Bill. I'm cool with either option.

But I do have a question after reading your comments: If the Clintons decided to pack it in and to call it a day, endorse Obama and accept a VP position with him...if that happened (and it is very, very possible) are you suggesting that they somehow owe it to Puerto Rico to stay in even if they want to pull out and unify our Democratic Party? That seemed to be your point as I read it, but perhaps I missed something there.

Finally, you might want to consider this: I am in a very, very small minority of Obama supporters who think Hillary on his ticket would be a good thing. And that minority gets tinier by the day.

By May, Obama will have a proud green light from the public to exclude Hillary from his ticket. Why? I have the sinking feeling that Bill simply will not be able to control himself and will try a sneaky move with super delegates that will backfire against him and discredit the Clintons as the convention approaches. He can cut back room deals, promise ambassadorships and positions in the government with some folks, but not with hundreds of super delegates. Someone will squeal.

Either way, Obama wins. Even if it goes to the convention and the Clintons can steal the nomination, there will be riots and pandemonium. She'd get the fixed nomination and McCain will win and four years later, Obama will be crowned the nominee. He's only in his 40's.

The Clintons can choose how they lose. That's all they can do anymore. Select how they lose.

On to Denver!

[depakid]

32. Obama can't win without superdelegates

Therefore, I say for unity that they both withdraw- NONE OF THE ABOVE.

And let the convention decide on another nominee.

Same logic.

[KoKo]

38. Neither are a Unity Candidate for me...and for many others who've been drowned out.

I don't know who could be "Unity" unless there's a Hillary/Obama Ticket. And even then...I'd hold my nose to vote but I could vote for that one before I could deal with voting for either as a single candidate.

Your idea of "Unity" is not all of the Dem Party's constiuents and donors on the Left's idea of Unity. Especially many of us on the left who were hoping for much more CHANGE than either of them represent. :shrug:

[David Zephyr]

39. Well, I'm happy you'll be able to hold your nose and vote.

I think I can qualify as a member of that mysterious "The Left". LOL!

It's pretty obvious that most of the voices on the Left are supporting Obama, some with greater enthusiasm than others, but nonetheless I think that's a fair statement. From The Nation Magazine to Air America, one would almost have to have their head in the sand not to recognize that fact. MoveOn.Org doesn't even try to be impartial, they've endorsed Obama.

Obama would be the first president not beholden to lobbyists and PAC's...which is why the establishment hates him.

Obama clearly opposed the war in Iraq before it began. As Teddy Kennedy said, "Let no one deny that truth."

He may not be Karl Marx, but he with the exception of Dennis Kucinich, he was the most progressive of the entire group with John Edwards close behind him. Edwards' support of the war and his inability to raise grass roots funding and support nationally is what hurt him. And, of course, Obama's charismatic charm. Had Edwards been alone now with Hillary, the Left would be as squarely behind him as they are with Obama.

[Beacool]

40. The left doesn't win presidential elections in this country.

Centrists like the Clintons do and they have done so twice. The voices of the left that you tout are the same voices that make the average American cringe. As for Obama not being beholden to PACs, that's a laugh. As for Teddy, I know that family very well (more skeletons than a cemetery and much more than the public knows). He should remember some of his own sins before he casts stones in the Clinton's direction.