6 in 10 Democrats Wants a Unity Ticket: DU is Out of Touch with Real Democratic Voters

I think we can see from the latest polls that Democratic Underground is not populated with political strategists. Because when people here post Unity Ticket threads, they get flamed. These threads average about one recommendation per every 5 to 10 angry denunciation, which often go something like

"Hell no!"

or

"She isn't stealing our win!"

or

"That will never happen!"

The Unity Ticket has been popular with actual Democratic Voters for quite a while. Here is the recent NYT/CBS poll

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/01/us/politics/01poll.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin



And this is not a new idea. Way back in January, when Clinton was the presumptive winner, 60% of Dems polled wanted Clinton to pick Obama as her running mate. And vice versa.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aFyomYmSL6To&refer=home



This Time article from February quotes a similar poll as well as discussing the forces opposing and pushing the Unity Ticket. There are more of the latter from the Obama camp, especially in light of his statement that he is not running for VP.

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1710667,00.html



With general voters being consistently open to the idea, why are DU posters so extremely opposed to the idea? Because DU represents an extremely tiny slice of the Democratic electorate. Here is a survey which attempts to break down voters by their candidate. It was done in February.

http://www.srbi.com/DreamTicket.htm

Note that Clinton supporters are more open to the idea of a Unity Ticket with either candidate as President and as VP. They are more likely to believe that Clinton helps Obama and Obama helps Clinton. The only scenario in which a Unity Ticket is not considered a winning ticket is an Obama-Clinton ticket from the point of view of Obama supporters. They are more likely to oppose having Clinton as a VP strongly, though if Clinton were the Presidential nominee, they believe that Obama would be a big boost to the campaign. Those with higher income are even more likely to believe that Clinton will hurt Obama's chances in the general.

So, as long as DU is composed of more Obama supporters who believe that Obama will be the eventual party nominee, I expect that we will continue to see the same knee jerk It will never happen! reaction.

Now, the reasons for this are probably complicated, but I suspect that the major reason has to do with the Obama camp's effort to pull a Ken Starr on Hillary Clinton. They have pulled out all the stops in the last four months to scare the Democratic leadership into thinking that the RNC will spend every moment of everyday unleashing attack ads on Hillary which the MSM will gleefully repeat the way that the MSM gleefully repeats each Obama attack on Hillary. It has worked. The Democrats, especially our spineless wimps in Congress who are afraid to end the war or impeach, are scared that the RNC will not be nice to Clinton.

Obama supporters just naturally believe the pr their man throws out to the press. People with money and comfort and education believe the pr too, because they think that the press speaks for them. The only skeptical people in the US are the have-nots. Poor folks, unemployed, Latinos. They all know that the MSM is a big fat liar. That is why they are not afraid to vote for Clinton.

But DU gets its message from Obama and the Obama spin press, so it knows that Ken Starr and Richard Melon-Scaife were correct and the Clintons are 100% sleaze and corruption. And they will not allow that filth to contaminate their candidate who is no ordinary politician, even if he did reject his pastor out of political expediency.

Unfortunately, with poll numbers like those I showed above, and with the working class's total disregard for the MSM, Sen. Obama may find that the cost of getting the nomination sewn up by the Democratic leadership is having Sen. Clinton and her devoted blue collar base accompany him on the ticket. Because the party exists to win this fall, and to do that it must please the majority of Democratic voters, not a slice of voters, no matter how vocal they may be or how thoroughly they may have fallen for a campaign strategy by the politician whose gimick is claiming that he is above politics.

that Barack can shut down her nomination bid by just saying that he won't run as her V.P. if she steals the nomination with a superdelegate coup. Just because Hillary is making her superdelegate argument public, don't think that Obama doesn't have this ace up his sleeve. Do you think that Hillary could win the GE if she is the nomination by a superdelegate coup without Obama on the ticket?

John Edwards would be pleased as punch to be the nominee, and John Edwards could beat McCain in a heartbeat.

That is why Obama is desperately trying to turn Clinton into a leper. And no matter how hard he tries, it does not work.

Hell, Clyburn went to the NYT and told them that Clinton was trying to make sure that the Democrats would lose this fall so that she could run in 2012. If that did not sink her, I don't know what else could. That was like the ultimate play that the Obama camp could pull. What can top that? Calling her W.'s secret mistress?

you're living in lala land. Hillary and Obama have gotten 10s of millions of votes. There aren't even credible polls as to how Edwards would do against McCain since nobody is asking that question.

a year out from that date, is silly. The evidence that he could do so is flimsy indeed, and there is no way that SDs will choose someone who's lost 2x while running for the nomination, and was on a losing ticket 4 years ago. That's just not dealing with the real world.

You keep claiming that Obama is desperately trying to turn Clinton into a leper. The real truth is far less melodramatic than such a foundationless claim, McCamy. Both candidates are making the case that they are the more electable one. And Clyburn's comment to the NYT is hardly the earthshaking event you wrongly interpret it as. Furthermore, Clyburn is not part of the Obama camp and blaming Clyburn's remark on Obama is as scurrilous as those that say that Hillary is behind the robo-calling in NC. Not a hair's worth of difference. You should at least try to use logic rooted in reality.

and is something that a large part of the electorate would reject.

Not only that, an Obama/Clinton ticket would put Obama into an even more unsafe security position than even JFK was in the 60's...

Between the right wing racist nutballs that would rather have a white woman as president than a black man, and corporate criminals who might rather have the more corporate crony serving Hillary in charge than Obama, it would be ripe for those sorts of events to start happening again. And if we had that happen in this day and age (and likely they will try to blame it on "terrorists", we'd have a world crisis on our hand then). It would be the reverse situation of Cheney being VP to Bush, where even the nutballs are probably not motivated to see Cheney replace Bush in office to have a similar threat be out there.

Now if Obama feels he can handle that challenge and feels that he can use Hillary as his running mate on his own terms, then so be it. Though I really think there are more wiser choices for him to pick (like Richardson, Edwards, etc.).

I still would like to hear just one or two ISSUES that Hillary supporters are concerned about not being dealt with (that we all share concerns about) if Obama were president. It seems all they can do is try to do personal attacks on Obama's character without championing any strong advocacy positions that Hillary has. From what we can perceive the only thing we can see them wanting is her as a woman to have power.

They could do the same thing with Condi Rice, and also get a black person to boot, but you see how voting for a person just because of their race and gender is a lame excuse when voting for president.

I think many Americans like myself are REALLY TIRED of the traditional Washington politics power plays that are going on that continue to try to force the insiders on us instead of letting new voices of the people come into Washington to fix a very badly damaged government.

How?!

Cheney has made it one of the most powerful posts on the planet.

taking him as a VP either she believes all that shit she said about him or she doesn't

THe Clintons and their brothel of an Oval Office tainted Gore. Gore was not happy being associated with that business.

Obama must know what kind of administration she'd run, and if he truly wants to change America, he won't be part of a Hillary administrtion.

Plus I don't think ruling Cheney-style is one of Obama's goals.

same power. Bill would be the real VP and Obama knows it. Why run for third chair in a Clinton White House?

their voices are the voices of quiet. The stuff you see here in GDP is pretty much Political Operatives who've been here on DU since the beginning but only show up every two years...when there's an election...and then there's the "funding question."

I wouldn't say that DU isn't representative...but that...OPS are here for the MOST IMPORTANT TIMES..and drown out everyone else. And...then..there's the discussion we can't do because it's "banned" or "segmented out" into "Conspiracy Forums."

We who stay here on DU and Contribute...walk a very fine line" as to what we can say. AND, I'd say that's true about ALL the LIBERAL BLOGS that we think are "SO FREE AND PURE." It's all about the "MONEY" and it isn't about our few bucks...it's about the BIG MONEY!

Hey...folks have to make a living in the Bush Economy....so they do what they gotta do....:-(

But I think you speak the truth.

Because you know she will need Obama on her ticket if she's going to steal the nomination with a superdelegate coup. All Obama has to say is 'NO' and Hillary is done with. If he came out today and said that he won't run as the V.P. if he has the most pledged delegates, Hillary's 15 minutes of fame running for President will be up. You know it, I know it, everybody knows it. She ought to thank Obama for not saying this and still making her somewhat relevant.

...What do they know that we don't?

Probably the same reason they won't donate to Hillary.

:P

:rofl:

hillary and unity are mutually exclusive. besides that, any ticket that includes hillary is a sure loser.

vote by having her on the ticket? You will also lose some Dem votes who will stay home or go 3rd party rather than ever voting for HIllary.

that he's not ready for that 3AM phone call and especially the "I'm ready to be Commander-in-chief and Senator McCain certainly is, but you'll have to ask Senator Obama." Now, lets say Hillary manages to be the nominee. How does she reconcile those statements if she chooses him to be her running mate? the modern vice presidency is a meaningful office. The GOP would have a field day running clips of her statements. Obama has said nothing to compare with what she has said, so if anyone destroyed the possibility of a "unity ticket" it's Hillary, and I don't think Obama will take the chance of putting Hillary on his ticket where her statments can be used against him either.

She'd simply finesse those statements if she were on the top of the ticket. It might be trickier if she was on the bottom of the ticket, actually. I'm not against a unity ticket. I think it has more plusses than minuses, though I wonder if her voters would vote for a ticket where Obama is on top. Same question could be asked about his supporters if Hillary was the nominee.

with or without her as VP. Though I would prefer her as VP. Not all Hillary supporters have a strong dislike for Obama or anything. Some do, but I think most would vote for a ticket with him ontop and her as VP. Or I would like to think that they would.

with any degree of accuracy. Secondly, I'll absolutely support a unity ticket in either configuration.

Now, let's talk about your odd speculation:

" I suspect that the major reason has to do with the Obama camp's effort to pull a Ken Starr on Hillary Clinton. They have pulled out all the stops in the last four months to scare the Democratic leadership into thinking that the RNC will spend every moment of everyday unleashing attack ads on Hillary which the MSM will gleefully repeat the way that the MSM gleefully repeats each Obama attack on Hillary. It has worked. The Democrats, especially our spineless wimps in Congress who are afraid to end the war or impeach, are scared that the RNC will not be nice to Clinton"

Speculation with no foundation, no supporting evidence at all, stated as fact, is not credible. The over the top comparison of Obama's campaign to Ken Starr, reveals more about how you feel, than it does about Obama and his campaign. Your dislike and resentment couldn't be clearer if they were in flashing neon. That's your right, of course, but it certainly is clear that you're willing to believe the ugliest about Obama, just as you so frequently complain that Obama supporters do re Hillary. Interesting.

"Obama supporters just naturally believe the pr their man throws out to the press. People with money and comfort and education believe the pr too, because they think that the press speaks for them. The only skeptical people in the US are the have-nots. Poor folks, unemployed, Latinos. They all know that the MSM is a big fat liar. That is why they are not afraid to vote for Clinton."

Speaking for large groups of people is highly.. elitest and arrogant. it's simply absurd to make the statements you made in the above passage. And again, you have precisely zero evidence to back up such claims as poor people and latinos know the MSM is a big fat liar. Ridiculous. Oh, and no I don't believe all the pr that comes out of the Obama campaign, but thanks for your condesension.

"But DU gets its message from Obama and the Obama spin press, so it knows that Ken Starr and Richard Melon-Scaife were correct and the Clintons are 100% sleaze and corruption. And they will not allow that filth to contaminate their candidate who is no ordinary politician, even if he did reject his pastor out of political expediency."

Um, no. I don't get my information primarily from Obama or whatever you erroneously label the Obama spin press. Thanks again for your overbearing condescenion. No, I don't believe Starr or new Hillary supporter Scaife re the Clintons. I actually make my own judgments. I do think Clinton has run a poor campaign and that many of her attacks were short sighted. They've damaged her more than him. In addition, I've yet to see her take one principled stand in the entire primary process. Her latest pandering gas tax holiday proposal is pointless and entirely unworkable as proposed. It's cynical politicking. Nothing more, nothing less. And she's smart enough to know it.

Thanks for your most recent mean spirtied slams at Obama and Obama supporters. It's enormously helpful.

I had decided that since we are so near the GE, it would probably be better to speak more ingeneralities about some of these matters and less in specifics. That was why I put the details of the Clinton-Clyburn feud in a separate post.

However, if you really want to see what the Obama camp has done and if you would like me to do a careful analysis of the Obama strategy which you can then critique, I will be happy to do so. I am sure that it will be educational for people at DU to go back and review how certain stories can influence the way that people view candidates.

I am sure that people here will be surprised to remember how well liked Hillary was by Democrats and African-Americans until the Obama camp and the MSM began to do certain things. They probably did not realize that their own opinions were so easy to sway.

So, if you want to me do the project, let me know. All the documentation I will need is on the internet.

I hope it doesn't.

I don't say this motivated by ill-will for Clinton, much as I despise the way her campaign has been run, but purely on the basis of pragmatics. Hillary bet the town clock on actually winning the nomination - a move that has cost Obama in rising unfavorables, and increased her own unfavorables substantially. She's over the sacred 40 mark - there was an interesting conversation on the radio Tuesday where strategists were talking about the rule of thumb - 40+ is electoral impossibility. In going down that road I believe Hillary has cost herself a VP seat, because it would be too risky to now have a Presidential-candidate AND a VP candidate with worrying negs. I believe the DP will want a solid, safe VP - the likes of Webb or Sebilius for the female vote. Hillary may gain a key position though. My 2c.

So it's not surprising that we'd want to have something as toxic as Clinton to stay far away from our general election campaign. Our fellow "Real Democratic Voters" may not be as tuned into the process and haven't realized what a nightmare the Clinton campaign has become. They don't realize that Clinton brings nothing but an insane amount of baggage and polarity to the ticket as VP.

demaning UNITY. *snort*

and that she supports them both.

just mentioning that that's the OP's stated position.

BULLSHIT.

I like that saying. :D

is Gore/Obama. That would also ensure 16 years of Dem. rule in the White House. We have a new web site up devoted to letting super delegates know that if the Convention goes to a second ballot, Gore's name should be introduced as a unifyier/compromise candidate, and a sure winner in November. The site is www.thealgoresolution.com. Check it out.

is a Gore/Obama ticket. Some here have suggested in recent days that Gore DESERVES it. He chose not to run - it is too late.

As far as the other unity ticket :puke:

so sorry Hillary, but I hope to hear your concession speech by a week from today....at the latest.

Come on Dems, don't fuck up this election cycle. The pubs are handing you the presidency on a silver platter, yet somehow, someway, ya'll are pissing away yet another opportunity. That you couldn't beat a drunk, retarded chimps speaks volumes about your organization.

under ANY circumstance.

a combined ticket will be unstoppable.

And unstoppable is what we need!

Go Dems!

We cannot EVER have another Clinton in power in this country if we want to save it. The Clinton myth is just as much bullshit as the Reagan myth. And I won't allow either lie to be spoken in my presence.

How far up your butt *is* your head, exactly? Where do you come from that you think the Clinton and Bush presidencies were even remotely similar?

Then again, what do you expect from someone who apparently doesn't remember the entire 1990s?

Any employment growth was based on things that had nothing to do with Clinton. Technology explosion being the most obvious. It was a one time thing which can't be repeated, at least until the next huge technology breakthrough. And that's not in the hands of any President. But then a lot of those jobs ended up being outsourced to India, China, or wherever. Thanks to Clinton pro-corporatist trade agreements.

To believe the economy of the 1990's was because of Bill Clinton, you would also have to believe the economy of the late 1970's was Jimmy Carter's fault. Neither is a true statement.

Really, what dimension are you living in, that you don't notice how warped this is? DU is the home of frothing-at-the-mouth, kill-at-any-cost Obama legionaries. The hell they'll reach out to Clinton and her voters. She's leading in the popular vote and in delegates who can actually do something, but could that mean something? Why let it? She can only be evil, right?... :sarcasm:

The name-calling and flame-war bullshit in *this thread alone* should convince you that you are dealing with a pipe dream.

generalization in such a hateful way. I'm an Obama supporter. I made it quite clear I'll support a unity ticket. In addition, she is not leading in the popular vote or in some nebulous category that exists only in your mind of delegates that actually "do something". Some Obama supporters on this thread are nasty about a unity ticket, others are rejecting it without any rancor.

Why do you Hillbots continue to spread this lie? She has NEVER led in delegates, she is NOT leading in popular votes, and she's losing the superdelegates, because they can (unlike yourselves) read the writing on the wall.

And that writing says "Hillary, shut up and go home".

And leave out the Florida/Michigan horseshit.

the average American does not reflect the views of this board. Most Americans are moderate and distrust the left as much as they distrust the right.

want out of the war now, want outsourcing reversed and want single payer health care. Those are left views. Name one "moderate" dem that's legislatively supported any of those things. Hint: neither Clinton nor Obama.

in the popular vote. Keep trying though; you only need a few more times saying it before it magically becomes truth.

Screw you too then.

Obama and Hillary complement each other. He attracts certain demographics and she attracts others. His: young people, African-Americans and the upwardly mobile. Hers: the working class people, the older crowd, Hispanics, Asians and a good portion of the jewish vote.

But of course, geniuses like Pelosi and the other big egos in Congress don't see it that way.

It would require more adjustment than some can make or would make, IMO.

Almost makes you wish for just such a turn of events.

In fact they're quite different. And while a unity ticket might be popular among the Democratic masses, it isn't a politically smart move. Saddling Obama with the Clinton baggage and her high negatives, not to mention that both Clintons would be overbearing in an Obama administration means that Obama would do well to keep Hillary off the ticket.

the average Joe may not be on the same page but they are reading the same book. I remember when Bush's favorable poll numbers were astronomical. Now they are in the crapper. The average Joe finally caught up to DU.

An Obama/Clinton ticket seems as absurd to me as a McCain/Lieberman one.

that McCain tries to placate the right wing and evangelicals by picking someone who is extremely conservative instead. If he picks Joe, then the Dems best argument What if old McCain dies and his VP becomes president ? suddenly sounds like his best asset to the majority of independent and middle of the road Americans who do not see much wrong with Joe Lieberman, except for his war stance which he can always change for the GE.

Yes, I know that DU hates Lieberman, but try your hardest to put yourself in the shoes of the American electorate, something that a lot of people around here have a real problem doing. Hell, you can not even put yourself in the shoes of Democratic Voters. If you could, you would understand that the attacks you level against Hillary Clinton are only making her working class, poor, gay, female and oppressed base increasingly convinced that she is the true champion of the underdog.

I seriously wonder what Obama pays Axelrod for. Maybe he should spend some of those millions hiring someone who has a clue about how Americans think and vote. Or maybe I am being too hard on Axelrod. He is up against Bill Clinton, who understands people a lot better than any campaign consultant.

but the right wing will kill McCain if he does it. Literally.

They figure if a Dem gets into the WH that means 8 years of peace and prosperity---plenty of time for the Dems to tilt to SCOTUS back to the center and then to the left. Same with the courts. Plenty of time for health care, which will make the Dems the dominant party for 16 years like under FDR.

The GOP is scared. They will get behind McCain figuring he will be a place filler to keep the SCOTUS from moving left and to veto health care until Brother Jeb steals the next election. And if the GOP elders tell them it will take Joe Lieberman to get McCain elected, they will vote for him, too.

'Cause GOPers all know how to goosestep.

http://www.grandtheftelectionohio.com/Flash/GooseStepRag/GOPGooseStep.html

I really hate Hillary, and have been of the opinion that either Barack or Hillary would need a moderate white male to run with to be able to beat McCain. Perhaps Hillary bringing Bill along is enough. I would have a really hard time voting for Hillary (which would result in me voting for Nader or sitting it out), but perhaps I could stand her as VP.

This party does really need to stop all the infighting and get a plan together. Perhaps Obama/Clinton will be the way to go after all.

1) He's ahead. She's behind. So if it's ANYTHING it's an Obama/Hillary ticket NOT the other way around. You reveal your INSIPID ARROGANCE by even suggesting HRC/BHO and it's SO angering to anyone with SENSE it shuts off further consideration right there.

2) HE DOESN'T NEED HER. She's negative and nasty and the OPPOSITE of what he's all about. Putting her on the ticket would go in the EXACT opposite direction that he wants to take the country.

3) Maybe she and her supporters should have thought of this before they adopted Rovian neo-con tactics. It's classless and revolting and once again ARROGANT. You think you can TRASH our nominee for MONTHS and then DEMAND a place on our ticket? Fuck off.

QUIT YOUR FUCKING BEGGING. IT'S PATHETIC.

She will NEVER be graced with a place on OBAMA's ticket. NEVER. EVER.

Sounds perfect.

happens.

I support Obama, but I can tell you that either one of them do not need each other. Whichever gets the nod needs to find the most moderate white male they can to run with them. There are too many bigots out there who will not vote for a black american, or a female american on their own merit. If they run together they are toast. I'm a 41-yr old white woman who has been around white males my entire life. My own brother told me he was going to vote for Obama with this disclaimer "I guess if this is what it's going to take we'll have to vote for the black guy - we can't have 4 more years of Republicans". He is educated, knows I volunteered for the Obama campaign, and still phrased his statement that way. I was completely disgusted, and I know that he is not the only white male who thinks that way.

Update: Group Promised to Change Calls in February
By Paul Kiel - May 1, 2008, 4:10PM

Since we last posted this morning, there are number of other things to update you on those calls by Women's Voices Women Vote.

First off, North Carolina officials were not the first to specifically object to the group's failure to identify themselves and instead use "Lamont Williams" on the calls. As Facing South points out, back in February, after Virginia police investigated the calls and mailings as a possible identity theft scam, the group's spokeswoman told The Virginian-Pilot that "not including information about the source of the voter registration effort was 'absolutely an accidental omission.'" She also said that the group would be changing the calls so that the group was identified as the source.

Obviously, that didn't happen. When I asked the group about that, a spokesperson told me that the failure to change the script was a "mistake" and added "we're doing our best to figure out how the old script got used."

Meanwhile, a group spokeswoman Sarah Johnson explained in a Q&A at DailyKos that the name Lamont Williams was used because that was the name of the actor reading the script. The calls using Williams' voice went to men -- because she said while the group mainly concentrates on unmarried women, they also target "African Americans, Hispanics and young people" -- and a call using a woman's voice went to women.

And finally, anti-robo call activist Shaun Dakin provides some context for the North Carolina attorney general's accusation that the group's calls were illegal because the group was not identified and did not provide a call back number. Dakin, who heads up Stop Political Calls, a group devoted to combating automated calls by establishing a National Political Do Not Contact Registry, writes that Women's Voices Women Vote is breaking the law, but pretty much everybody else does too:

The reality is that there are more than likely several campaigns and other non-profit organizations that are "failing to disclose who sponsored the call" and "failing to offer the org's contact information to get the calls to stop".

In fact, I know of no political campaign at the national level that offers voters a way to opt out of further calls.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com /

And I'm not buying it. Polls or no polls. The polls have been WAY off this season. Dems will likely vote Dem, and Independents and Republicans will NEVER vote for HRC.

Obama would do better to choose someone who 60% of the country actually trusts instead of the other way around.

And you can't blame her negatives on Obama... she did that to herself. The only thing that he did to make her look bad is to not sink to her disgusting level.

Here you go -

When you have 40% who say they don't want a unity ticket, about 20% probably REALLY don't want one. That could really hurt us in November. Also, it's not just what Dems want but what Independents and cross over Republicans want.

I don't know in what alternate universe you come from, but this ain't a Doctor Who episode.

...I agree.

This party is split more or less down the middle. The ideal ticket would be to have both on the ticket, I won't say which way, but if anyone has read my few-and-far-between posts, you'll know who I prefer at the top.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projection_bias

Which candidate has launched a smear campaign trying to drag her opponent down to her level?

Hmmmm? Do you need examples? I can get you some if you'd like.

The problem is Hillary would have to flip-flop on calling Obama an elitist, unpatriotic, race-card player and everything else.

Her accusations & insinuations against him (like the Farakkan asociation) were SO strong & pointed that I dont see how she could back-track.

Then again, short memories & all that- so who knows...

thats why.

Not after all of this. It's all or nothing for her.

Hillary just needs to buzz off. After all the many many ways she has undermined and tried to kneecap Obama, like the sick little Tanya Harding that she is, Obama would be crazy to have anything at all to do with her. It would totally deflate Obama's presidency to have Bill hanging around, stealimg the oxygen out of the room, having the media circus following him everywhere, and having the Clinton's many many scandals and backroom dirty deals fouling up Obama's campaign of openness and transparency.

That would be all he needed, that scheming, soulless piece of shit making little deals with Uribe and other fascist dictators behind his back, working with Monsanto behind his back, ensuring our food supply is inedible and laced with chemicals, war mongering behind his back, and undermining him in every way possible.

NO MORE DYNASTIES means just that. The "unity" ticket is a fucking TROJAN HORSE. The DLC is NOT going to be a heartbeat away from the presidency. I am writing Barack Obama the most strongly worded letter I can, telling him that having Hillary as his running mate would be sheer and absolute STUPIDITY and the worst possible thing he could do. She is a fucking LIAR, a Rovian backstabber, a GUTTER POLITICIAN, a has-been, a wannabe.

Her days are over. She is a joke, the Katherine Harris of the Democrats. If she wants to be VP, let her be McCain's VP--after all, she has already virtually endorsed him as more suitable than Obama as president. She is pathetic and embarrassing. She is not fit to be dog catcher, let along VP. Thank god it is now mathematically impossible for her to get the presidential nomination--she is obviously trying to sabotage Obama, so why the FUCK should he "unite" with that disgusting piece of SHIT? I would NOT vote for Obama/Clinton, but would sit it out, write in a name, or vote Green.

those people on this board who keep pushing the "unity" ticket are the same DLCers who have been building up HIllary, the Republican Democrat for months now, overlooking her bullshit, lies, and war mongering, because a DLC status-quo administration is good for their own wallets.

puter screens quoting "the blogosphere" as gold standard, boiler plate reason for doing/voting for this-way-that, and single issue candidates is not the base. Vast tracts of the base are imo out trying to make ends meet. And not cloistered in silicon towers texting one another cherry picked articles between rants on DU.

She doesn't hate gay people enough.