Clinton/Obama, Obama/Clinton. Either way, make it happen.

I'm resigned to welcoming our new Republican overlords, then....

I just worry he'll emerge jaded and/or loaded with special interest ties because of his time with Hillary, and that all his hard work in distancing himself from lobbyists will be for nought.

But Barack wouldn't be VP. Bill Clinton would be VP.

Clinton as the head of the ticket? I too would like to welcome our Republican Overlords as @2 has done.

Has ANYONE been watching the GOP over the past 16 years? They have been begging and jacking off to the possibility of running against Hillary.

What kind of experience does the VP get? Oh look, here's a fun trade mission for you to go on. You get to be President of the Senate (Yippee!!).

I fail to see what experience Clinton has that would make her more P than VP. I Guess she was co-VP under her husband.

Bring back Al Gore. :P

I want Obama as President, but I do think a Clinton/Obama ticket would fly. With him on board she has a chance. Without him, no. It would be so good to turn this around this week and provide a united front against the Republicans.

"What kind of experience does the VP get? Oh look, here's a fun trade mission for you to go on. You get to be President of the Senate (Yippee!!)."

Oh yah. Because that's all that Dick Cheney has done, ever.

Very insightful commentary, Dan. I completely agree.

I love the idea of a joint ticket, and would be comortable with either person as the head. Though, I agree that HRC as Pres. means Barack in 2016.

Which, is exactly the possibility my Chicago friends and I were so excited about after Obama got so much exposure at the '04 convention (Hils in '08, Obama in '16).

With Obama as VP, we would have a VIABLE VP candidate in 2016. Hil would have to retire. Lame. Clinton/Obama '08!!!

While I see the merits of "healing wounds" in the Dem party, it's a well-known fact that being VP is a political dead-end road, unless the President happens to be assassinated or ill-disposed, especially in "hard" years. And correct me if I'm wrong, but I've never heard of any proof that someone will vote for the President based on their choice of VP. For instance, Clinton wouldn't gain my vote for sticking Obama beneath her, and Obama wouldn't lose my vote for placing Clinton beneath him.
I also think you fail to mention that the "wounds" suffered by some in the Democratic party were largely caused by one of the candidates. Clinton adopting Obama as a VP does not make me forget that she essentially called me sexist and easily-swooned for supporting him.

Oh Christ Dan, don't be such a pussy. You're throwing in the towel before the knockdown.

Its funny how the Democratic party came up with this ponderous, idiotic primary system and now they are acting like actually going through with it from start to finish will be a disaster. Sorry Democrats, should have thought about that 2 years ago, but you were too afraid to change the status quo.

Why is everyone so willing to be fucked by Texas and Ohio? What happened to your teeth? Obama won twelve straight contests, nobody in the media even hinted that Hillary should call it quits until after yesterday's contests, and now it's "Bend over, Obama supporters!" and everyone's like, "Meh, fair go."

He still leads in delegates, and unless she pulls some crazy double digit leads in every contest up until the convention, this thing is NOT OVER.

How big of Billary to have the audacity to suggest the guy who's been kicking her ASS for 11 straight primaries/caucuses, could maybe now be her VP after her first win in months.

That takes some serious balls.

Billary is a fucking joke. Last time I checked Obama still had the lead in delegates won thru a primary.

Get a fucking clue. You bandwagon folks are ridiculous.

Reality Check people.

Hooray! Let's reward Hillary with the P slot for that lovely negative campaigning she ran.

I've always been hoping for the dream ticket.

And yeah, having Hills at the top of the ticket would galvanize the GOP to an extent, but she's also been fending off their bullshit for a really long time now, and I think can do it again.

I would prefer Obama for P but I agree with Dan that I'm prepared to get behind either outcome.

Plus, Clinton/Obama is pretty assasination-proof, don't you think? Kill the intensely-popular black guy and you get the GOP-nemesis white woman (or vice versa). Oughtta keep the nutjobs at bay, don't you think?

Yeah, it really helped Gore, didn't it? I also remember folks saying that Edwards was inexperienced 4 years ago. Then he joined Kerry. He went far, didn't he? Let Clinton have the nom & select Wes Clark or someone else as her VP. McCain gets my vote.

Let me get this straight, Obama is leading in delegates and according to most calculations he'll finish with the most, but he should take the VP spot?! WTF? Can you imagine if the opposite was true, ECB and the Clinton crowd would be screaming about sexism.

Better yet, Obama's campaign can sharpen it's knives, go negative on Clinton's ass, and leave her a bloody lump of "experienced" horseflesh by March 22.

I think the opposite would be more effective: Obama as president, setting the tone of government. Clinton as VP in the style of Dick Cheney (I can't believe I'm saying that), getting the real politicking done.

It worked for the Republicans and their agenda, so why don't the Dems try it?

what people are failing to realize in this race is that this isn't just an issue of personality (hillary or obama?) but it is an accountability moment in this party.

is the democratic party on the right track? has the past ten years of democratic party leadership left the party in better or worse shape? where do we want this party to go as the next generation of democrats come of age?

the problem with a clinton ticket in ANY capacity is that it is an implicit vindication of the past ten years of party leadership, and signals that no change in course or blood is necessary.

my worry is that if we do this whole "obama can have it in '16" idea is that if we wait until 2016 for the party to change direction, will a democrat even be ABLE to win?

i think we can all agree that the democratic party hasn't been particularly effective in winning election or moving the liberal agenda forward. what nobody in the press has been talking about is what this election means for the future of the party.

most of my support for obama stems from my DEEP dissatisfaction with the status quo. after all this bullshit with the bush administration and little to no (not even TOKEN) resistance, where the fuck is the accountability moment?

if clinton becomes president (or at least gets the nomination) it will signal all the weak-willed democrats that they can puss out on the important fights and they'll still be able to have power, access, and opportunity to further their political careers in the democratic party.

someone above made the point that in a clinton administration it would be that much harder for obama to escape that same stigma, regardless of whether it is real or perceived.

this country needs a fresh start. we need a clean break with the past that created bush and this whole mess he has gotten us into. this much is clear.

but the democratic party needs a clean break, too.

which is why if obama wins the nomination, he should pick somebody, anybody, as his VP so long as they aren't a clinton or from the old guard.

pick fucking russ feingold. that guy is the kind of democrat we need to encourage. not joe lieberman or whatever other bullshit democrat mark penn or terry mcauliffe would come up with.

Hillary's cutthoat campaigning is her problem. Haven't you wondered why she has so many enemies in the press? What kind of a white house will she run, constantly being hammered by the media that hates her? How will she win support for health care?

Look a the way Obama has forgiven those who made racial slurs, or racial-sounding faux pas, against him. He was kind to Joe Biden and that makes Obama a stronger force in politics as a result. Compare that with Hillary's uncompromising vindictiveness. She hates Chris Matthews so much she refused to accept David Shuster's apology for his crude choice of words about Chelsea.

It doesn't seem like a big deal that she got this one TV reporter fired, but that guy will hate her as long as he lives. Hillary's been making enemies like that her whole life, and the she whines that the press is unfair to her. She's burnt too many bridges, and she will keep burning them if we give her more power.

What are you a bunch of pansies? So what if the Republicans threaten to go all out if HRC wins the nomination? To hell with'em. WE need to go all out as well. So what if they are foaming to go after her? We should be foaming to go after them. This fear is what cost Gore the white house. Get some balls man. Time to win it back.

An Obama Clinton ticket or vice versa would be unbeatable. Old man Mccain would need new diapers.

Stop being such pansies.

There's no f'in way Hilary will pick Obama for VP. She's just saying that, trying to sway Obama supporters to her camp, before she pulls the rug from under their feet. She's already said that McCain is a better candidate than Obama. She doesn't care about uniting the party, she's just grasping at straws, trying to see what will work. Hell, I doubt she'd attend the Democratic National Convention (when Obama gets the nomination) except to try and contest the results. Will Bill Clinton even attend? This is why we don't need presidential candidates who are related to previous presidents - too much conflict of interest.

Anyway, Obama's got this and Hils ain't getting shit. No VP spot; no pipe-dream Supreme Court position (that's for judges, people). She'll go back to being a senator. She can try again in another four years.

Also, 8 years of being second-vice president in waiting behind Bill Clinton will make Obama look weak and pathetic. Whoever would get stuck as Hillary's VP will be committing political suicide. If being irrelevant doesn't make her VP a laughing stock, she will make him a patsy for one of her scandals as yet unhatched. Who would want that job?

I know you movement Obama supporters think you're the high-ground of the Democratic party, but I think the country proved last night there are an equal number of Democrats and voters who care more about nuts and bolts than visions and ideals.

You, with your "look at the way she's run her campaign" and "if we reward her we're vindicating the Democrats for the last ten years..." Knock it off. Vote for Nader again.

@28: Yes, the "country" of Texas and Ohio, which narrowly supported your establishment candidate.

And fuck it: I am the high ground. Gloves are off.

Excellent post @23, some dude:

what people are failing to realize in this race is that this isn't just an issue of personality (hillary or obama?) but it is an accountability moment in this party.
...

In this scenario, with as Hillary president, she doesn't survive past 2012. There's no fucking way she'll survive what the right will throw at her from day one. Fucking Limbaugh is encouraging people to vote for her! Obama in 2016, yeah, maybe, but that's after four years of fucking Jeb Bush. Or is that Jeb Bush fucking us?

I agree clinton/obama or obama/clinton. they should sort it out. Those who claim to be voting on principle one way or the other would do well to remember that we need to work together to actually elect a democrat to the white house. all the commentary about what kind of president so-and-so would be is hot air if this party cannot join together to beat McCain. Unfortunately there is an attitude of entitlement on both sides. The threat that each side will stay home and pout if they can't have their candidate is immature and does not serve the greater good. Get over yourselves.

check your weapon, six shooter, i think you misfired.

for someone who claims to care about nuts and bolts, you are basically arguing that a party that couldn't beat george bush... twice... and was so inept that ralph nader became _relevant_ is somehow more on-the-ball than people who support obama, who is a proven winner (12 contests in a row--where's the fucking beef?)

establishment democrats have always acted as if they ARE the party and anyone who doesn't support them is fringe. just like karl rove has proven (EPIC FAIL), you can't dismiss legitimate voters as fringe forever.

after a while, the fringe becomes the majority, because people get sick of being marginalized and discounted.

this whole Blue Wave people are talking about was almost entirely created by karl rove. this is IN SPITE of the democrats doing their best to be inept and unappealing to the electorate.

dividing and marginalizing the electorate is exactly the mentality that creates weakness in the party. people voted for nader because they felt like the democratic party didn't care about their views. in other words, the democratic leadership did such a poor job that nader (and bush) actually seemed like better options.

for as much as people make fun of them as being crazy or dumb, they fail to acknowledge that the democratic side was LESS appealing.

You're telling me that a party that couldn't win in THAT environment deserves to not only keep their jobs, but KEEP LEADING? are you fucking crazy?

As a rabid Obama fan I have to say putting him on the ticket with Clinton really wouldn't make me any more likely to vote for her. I still will vote for the Democrat based on the power of court appointments, etc. I'll also believe the Democratic Party lost a vital chance to rebrand itself for a new era, but I'll still vote for Clinton.

If anything, I think Obama's appeal as a post-Boomer, uniting, redrawing the Red/Blue map would be muffled by running with Clinton. Rather, let the generational electorate go the way it seems to be going for the next eight years (whether with a GOP or Clinton White House) with Obama remaining in the Senate and honing his message while raking up experience. The only disadvantage there is Senators get that pesky voting record that hurts them later (ask Kerry and Hillary!).

Meanwhile, Clinton continues to suggest that even McCain would be a better candidate than Obama. As I mention at my blog, I don't see how Howard Dean or others can refrain from admonishing her at this point.

why do we need to let Obama stew as VP for four more years? The idea is the he is fresh, he is now. I think we've all seen what experience in Washington has served up over the years. I for one and tired of that same old bullshit song and dance. Electing Obama is the one thing, if anything, that will this revive this countries spirit and respect around the world.

From the PI:
"That may be where this is headed, but of course we have to decide who is on the top of ticket. I think the people of Ohio very clearly said that it should be me," she said on CBS.
Well, I guess Hillary can be president of Ohio then.

It seems awfully premature to be knocking Obama out of the nomination. Good lord, the man is still leading in delegates, has a tremendous base below him, and last night's losses have already put an additional fire under his supporters.

We've got a long way to go. Hillary had her "confetti night" and showed the Dems that negative attacks work for her. Expect more of the same, and even more folks to be turned off in the process.

i'm so glad you've finally admitted defeat dan. welcome to hillaryland. we've been waiting for you....

Clinton must know that this is hurting the party in the long run. She's mathmatically unlikely to win, but she can cause a Dem schism at worst by trying some Florida/Michigan shenanigans, and at best she is doing McCain's dirty work for him for an Obama/McCain election in the fall. I wonder if she would ever consider putting out overtures to Obama along the lines of "let me be on the top of the ticket for one term then we'll swap!"

Obama would help Clinton's ticket.

But Obama is helped more by either Richardson or Dodd. Even Edwards helps Obama more than Clinton does.

@39. I completely agree with Dan's analysis, but comments like yours almost make me want to vote for McCain. (Not that I ever would, of course.) Whichever candidate "wins" the Democratic nomination, it's idiotic for anyone to be talking in terms of victory and defeat before November 5.

When it comes to supporting a candidate, Dan seems to be the biggest switch-hitter out there. From the time he came out for Obama and up until today, seemed he was going WAAAAAY gay for Obama. Now...(that Hillary is making a comeback) Hillary should take the top of the ticket?
(fairweather fan anyone....)
I'm not sure I believe that Savage is even gay any more. ;)

@40 - yep, she knows she's hurting the party in the long run. See @35. Her comments seem to me to be completely unprecedented.

Hillary might be helped by Obama, but Obama should pick someone else. This ticket might make sense to Seattle, NYC and other selected enclaves, but for the rest of the country it will be toxic.

Obama/Gore, and I might believe in miracles again.

I fought the establishment, and the establishment won.

This is EXACTLY why I have supported HRC all along. That's what I want...eight years of her followed by eight years of him.

@47 - you must be high as shit if you think we'll get two terms out of Hillary, let alone 16 consecutive years of Dems in the WH.

She's going to be a fucking disaster as president. Why would Obama want to be Walter Mondale to her Jimmy Carter?

sugamamma, you dont have a grip on reality in that case. you can file those kinds of thoughts under "wouldnt it be nice..."

sugamamma is on drugs. the "smart" voters of this country won't let the Dems rule for 16 years. Hillary in Nov = President McCain

This is ridiculous. Obama is not stupid enough to take the VP slot, even if were behind in delegates. Considering the utter ineptitude of the Blagojevich administration, he'd be better off running for governor of Illinois, then running against the incumbent Republican president in 2012 (if Hillary doesn't win this election) or in 2016 (if she does win in 2008 and inevitably loses in 2012).

I'm filled with despair for the first time in this election and our next caucus here in WA is still a month away.

I merely said it's what I want, and I believe it can happen. You guys don't have to agree. However, I don't think being so negative is going to help elect a Democrat in November. And if you support Obama, well, then you should think about being more united (isn't that his message?). As a HRC supporter, I said nothing disrespectful about Obama.

Also, why do people think that an HRC/BHO ticket would be "toxic"? There have been record turnouts for Democrats this year because of these two candidates. Would that not help us?

i'm trying really, really hard to understand why hillary winning ohio and texas - despite losing more states overall, having fewer pledged delegates, and superdelegates jumping ship left and right - means she's now the leading candidate. am i supposed to believe that all the limbaugh fans who crossed over to keep her in the race will vote for her again in november? is that how it works?

and anyone who needs proof that the clintons care more about their own power than their party or their country need look no further than her comments today aligning herself with mccain as the "lifetime of experience" candidates over obama's "one speech in 2002." political poison, people. toxic. purge them now while you still have a chance!

OhmygodIthinkIjustcame. And at work, which is awkward. Thanks, Dan!

hey gabriel, I went looking for the cnn feed, but couldn't find it.
could you link to an actual source for the clinton comment?

gabriel@35 and details@57-

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

That means "I'm the stronger candidate to go against McCain." To read it as "McCain would be better than Obama" is bullshit. Nice try.

but sven, it IS possible for her to say that without reducing obama to "that guy who gave a good speech 6 years ago," insulting a significant percentage of dem voters and giving the GOP a tasty little soundbite in the process. or for that matter insinuating he could be an undercover muslim. that's not offensive to you? across party lines is one thing, but within you're own party it's beyond the pale.

slash, burn, slash, burn.

Big Sven @41 - Brandon @ 59 makes the point well. If Clinton simply wanted to make the case that she is the stronger candidate against McCain, she could do that in a way that doesn't sabotage Obama in the general. But she has been pointedly and repeatedly claiming that Obama's experience pales next to hers and McCain's. That's pretty despicable.

Details @ 57, watch one video example here.

"hard not to admire her cutthroat campaigning" Seriously? What's to admire about lying and twisting the truth? If she gets the nomination I'm voting for Mickey Mouse. She is not what the Democrats need to get back to the White House.

@37

"President of Ohio"

that shit cracks me up...that's a good line, Justin.

The D Party would lose. McCain will win if a Clinton is on the ticket.

Obama may have more delegates, but Clinton makes a strong case when she says she can win the popular vote. Weren't we as a party all about the popular vote in 2000?

Who cares how many states Obama has won? Who cares what order he won them in? The entire nation votes on one day in November. The primary order doesn't mean anything.

If the Seahawks beat the Lions and the Raiders ten games in a row but lose against the Cards and the Rams, should they go to the Superbowl?

And another thing: why does Clinton destroy the party by competing with Obama? And why doesn't Obama "save the party" by quitting. They're dead even.

This election goes to the Democratic nominee. The next election is his or hers to win or lose.

THHHPPPPBTTT!!!

brandon and Gabriel-

I think it was a mistake for Clinton to compare a fellow candidate negatively to an opponent in any capacity. I think she shouldn't have said it. But it's not the end of the world, and its certainly not "endorsing" the opponent.

Well, they keep yakking about how Christian they are, so wouldn't Barak be on top? I mean, missionary style and all that....