How about this as a deadlock solution:

[Ken Burch]

(if it stays as a dead heat after Texas and Ohio):

1. Obama gets the nomination.
2. Bill Richardson as running mate, to bring Latinos into the fold and put the Mountain West in play;
3. HRC ends up either as AG or(the ultimate RW nightmare) the next Supreme Court nominee.

Could everybody live with that?

[bidenista]

1. how about this

1. Hillary gets the nomination.
2. Obama as running mate.
3. Edwards as AG.

[Ken Burch]

2. She no longer has the upper hand. You have to accept that.

That said, I suppose it's a possibility.

But there's no reason at all to assume that Obama will be the one needing to drop out. He's at least at an equal level with her in delegate strength, and there's no reason to assume her current alleged lead in superdelegates is going to hold up. The supers have no reason to stop Obama and piss off all those new passionate Dems.

[bidenista]

3. lol

So because Obama is closer than he's ever been to achieving a delegate lead (but hasn't), we now wait for Hillary to drop out?

Hillary will drop out when the thing is decided. Not before, and certainly not while she has more delegates!

[1awake]

5. He does have rthe upper hand

at this point, but that can change fast. But that's not why I posted.. I want Edwards at the AG regardless who wins, the perfect person for the job!

[avrdream]

4. Sorry, that doesn't work for me at all.

Your scenario isn't realistic yet. HRC can certainly pull it off.

[donheld]

6. It works well for me

:bounce:

[Spider Jerusalem]

7. Deadlock solution?

Al Gore nominated as a compromise candidate, nominated by acclamation in a voice vote on the convention floor, and names Obama his running mate, and John Edwards as AG once elected. (I can dream, right?)

[Ken Burch]

8. Well, that option was out there. I was just floating another one.

And wouldn't HRC end up with MORE power on the Court than as pres(and for a lot more time?)

What's not to like?

[Spider Jerusalem]

10. You mean...

apart from the idea of someone who's pro-censorship (see the Grand Theft Auto thing several years ago), who introduced a bill to criminalise flag burning, and who supported the so-called Defense of Marriage Act sitting on the Supreme Court? Well, if the First Amendment and equality under the law aren't important issues for you, I suppose that might be acceptable....I can't quite get past those (and other) issues to see Hillary on the Supreme Court as a good or desirable thing, though.

[Ken Burch]

11. But would she still hold THOSE views you mentioned

if she were no longer seeking partisan political office?

Remember, before he became the most liberal and the greatest Chief Justice the Supremes ever had, Earl Warren was an antiunion and race-baiting California Republican governor who organized and oversaw the internment of Japanese-Americans(and the confiscation of their lands to be redistributed exclusively to rich white people)during World War II.

I think HRC could be the next Earl Warren.

[newmajority]

9. I'm down with Richardson as VP

But Edwards should be the AG, because he will go after the corporatists, and Hillary won't.

Hillary as a Supreme Court nominee... I'd have reservations about that for the same reasons. Chimp's appointees are total corporatists, especially Roberts. President Obama's first nominee has got to balance that out, and I'm not sure Hillary is the person for that job.

I imagine we'll see at least one vacancy on the court very early next year. Justice Stevens is probably counting down the days. Justice Ginsburg may not be far behind. If a second opening follows in short order like that, then maybe Hillary might work. :shrug:

[WCGreen]

12. I think if HRC was on the court, all political nonsense would disappear

and she would return to her liberal college days...

[newmajority]

15. Liberal college days?

I thought she was the president of the College Republicans?

[Ken Burch]

17. And Earl Warren started as a right-wing California GOP hack

As I stated in another post in this thread. It's about what she'd be like freed from the obsession with day-to-day political survival. I think she'd be herself on the Court in a way she never could be as president. And she'd piss off the hard right on actual policy rather than simply by appearances.

[WCGreen]

27. She campaigned for Goldwater in the 60's...

She worked on McGoverns campaign in 1972...

[Sapphocrat]

13. Won't happen.

1. He may, but if he does, they're going to be playing "Hail to the Chief" for President McCain.


2.

A) Unless he's sold his soul recently, Richardson would know he was just being used as a pawn, and wouldn't do it.

B) Don't think Latino voters won't know they're being pandered to -- they will.

C) Don't count on Latino voters to automatically vote Democratic. They don't always. (But if you're worried about capturing the Latino vote in the GE, then you should be backing Hillary. What happened in the California primary didn't surprise any of us who actually live here.)

D) The "Mountain West" (wherever that is -- do you mean the Pacific Northwest, the Southwest, the entire West...?) isn't entirely Latino. One of Obama's stupidest mistakes -- after neglecting Latino voters -- has been neglecting... well, no, why should I give his underlings a clue if they haven't figured it out already? (And no, I don't mean the gay bloc.)


3. Neither will ever happen. Nice fantasy about SCOTUS, though -- I like that part a lot.

[Ken Burch]

19. I know that the Mountain West isn't entirely Latino.

But Richardson also has a non-Latino base there as a popular governor with appeal all over the region.

And the polls show Obama running stronger against McCain than HRC, so you don't have the "electability" meme anymore. You won't have it again.

[newmajority]

20. "Mountain West" refers to the states in the Mountain time zone

Basically the Rocky Mountain states & Southwest.

So far, Obama has won Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, and Colorado. New Mexico is still too close to call. Hillary won Arizona, and Nevada.... well, that depends on who you talk to. Hillary won Las Vegas, Obama the rest of the state, and apparently the delegates.

As for Richardson on the ticket being a gimmick to get Latino votes, that wasn't my thinking. I was thinking of his resume. The thought of him as a Latino running on the same ticket with an African American never even occurred to me until just now, honestly. I don't think Richardson would consider it a gimmick at all, and the fact that he's had opportunities to endorse Hillary, but hasn't...... might just mean that Bill IS considering what he could bring to the Obama ticket.

Obama will beat McCain. I'm not sure Hillary would.

[Popol Vuh]

22. I pretty much agree

with most of your assessments, but, I wouldn't go so far as to say Hillary is that much favorable with the Mexican votes here is California. I will agree that she currently gets the majority of our Mexican votes, but, there are many of us Mexican voters who dislike Hillary and see her as just all mouth.

Many of us remember Obama being one of only two Senators who joined us in the May 1st 2006 marches all around the country - Kennedy (who btw supports Obama) was the other. Many of us know who signed NAFTA and see his spouse as no different. Many of us can see Hillary's attitude toward the Mexican migrant when commenting on the driver's license issue, and, recognized Obama's sticking to his guns on that issue even when its not popular.

But nevertheless, I pretty much agree with all of your assessments.

[Dogmudgeon]

14. Nobody considers why Clinton/Obama is such a good deal

8 years of President (H.) Clinton. She retires having dealt a death-blow to the radical right.

8 years of President Obama.

Now, what is missing in this, that the Obama people should take joy in?

Their worst-case scenario has Barack Obama holding a high executive position for SIXTEEN YEARS.

Can you imagine how many glass ceilings can be destroyed in that time?

With either scenario, Obama becomes a major mugwump. How many politicians get 16 consecutive years of as much power as the government of the USA has to offer?

So now Obama supporters have two beneficial scenarios to consider. Their fallback position is as strong as their main one.

I do not expect Obama to simply submit to this schedule. I WOULD not expect Obama to simply submit to this schedule. But he is NOT in a bad situation, win or lose.

--p!

[Ken Burch]

16. Why assume she'd deal a "death blow" to the radical right at all?

The last Clinton brought them back from the dead in only two years, after caving in to their demands on everything in his first two years when he never had to. What makes you think this Clinton era would be any different?

[Dogmudgeon]

24. Because they hate her. Their pride is on the line.

And they are facing a ferocious adversary who has grown stronger resulting from their attacks.

They will lose.

I would also like to address the revisionism of the Bill Clinton years. Anyone who can't study Bill Clinton's effects on the world without being drawn into left-wing attack literature will fail to see how effectively he gummed up the Gingrich Revolution. (Remember Newt? Why is he never mentioned in the anti-Clinton broadsides? Is there a "One-Devil-at-a-Time" law?)

This revisionism is broad-brush and poorly done. Just yesterday I read http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4485795">a typically propagandistic post (see also post #29) about how Clinton was responsible for the real estate bubble because he repealed the Glass-Steagall Act. A little digging revealed that it was destroyed by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act, pushed by Phil Gramm in the Senate. Veto-proof, it was signed by Clinton who promptly took credit for it. The Republicans ranted that Clinton had "stolen" their bill, a trick he pulled with a number of their pet projects; Newt actually brought his rage and scarlet face to millions of TV viewers. But the radical-chic take on it seriously downplays Gramm and Gingrich, omits the name of the bill, and gives the impression that Clinton waved his magic sceptre and did the foul deed unaided.

That is not to say that Bill Clinton was without fault. (Though my fellow leftists have often attacked me as being uncritical of Clinton, and possibly in his -- and Dick Cheney's! -- employ. I'd love to know what happened to the checks!) And since he signed the bill and took ownership of it, it is, indeed, his bill, so a certain amount of criticism is justified. But there is no legislative difference between the two possible outcomes. The difference was that he made the GOP look like a pack of fools, and they look even worse in hindsight.

The Hillary Clinton era will indeed be different. No two people are alike, and Hillary has a number of different positions than Bill had in the 1990s. Even Bill has changed his mind about a number of things. The idea that "Hillary = Bill" is predicated on the talking point that "since Hillary wants to run on Bill's record, she should share Bill's blame". But that is a rhetorical move, and if taken seriously, it is intellectually lazy. Hillary can not be honestly equated with Bill. It may seem unfair that she can run on the record of her husband, but Barack Obama has some unfair advantages of his own.

The radical right is on the ropes. They want to run against Hillary because they think John McCain has a chance to defeat her, and if she does win the presidency, that they will have another opportunity to bring her down. If Barack Obama runs, she "escapes" while they undertake to destroy Obama. She can claim moral high ground, come to Obama's defense, and strike afresh. That's not what they want. They can't win against Hillary, and they can't attack Obama, win or lose, without soiling themselves in their own filth.

So none of their plans to destroy Hillary will work. They didn't work in New York state, and they won't work when Hillary is the president. In the event Obama is the nominee, they won't be able to touch Hillary, who will still be able to counterattack as Obama's proxy and defender.

I find that a lot of people, not just Obama supporters, seriously underestimate Hillary; and when she shows her abilities, the spin is that she cheated in some magically undetectable way. On the contrary, she has developed into a powerful Senator and leader. If Teddy Kennedy is the lion of the Senate, Hillary may well be its tigress.

--p!

[Popol Vuh]

23. Why not the other way around?

Besides, there are many of us who see Hillary's talking out both sides of her mouth and her stated positions and voting record with respect to Iraq and Iran as too troubling to qualify her as a person to occupy the White House.

But I digress, in your opinion, why not the other way around?

[Dogmudgeon]

25. The other way around

To make it as optimistic as possible to Obama supporters.

Bringing Obama in as VP gives him 16 continuous years in the executive branch.

Age is probably the biggest factor. He is 47, Hillary is 61. He will have a longer career ahead of him and dominate the government and politics for decades, to an even greater degree than Bill Clinton has. I am assuming that Hillary will want to "retire" at age 69. But if the order is switched, there is no reason why Hillary would be too old to run and hold office at 69. She would then be on the 16-year track.

There are reasons on each side of the argument, but the "worst case scenario" for everyone is a pretty good scenario, too. The only difference is the 14 year age difference.

Of course, this is all speculation. I think that a dual ticket is quite possible, but "quite possible" and $2 will get you a cup of coffee at 7-11. I am sure that it is one of the many scenarios that Howard Dean has been working on in the event of a too-close race. But again, I want to stress, the worst case for either candidate is pretty good, and Obama has the leg-up based on his being younger.

--p!

[John316]

18. AG? What about VP

Funny I thought VP might be her slot. But you have a good point. Except until she comes clean on the SPP, NAFTA & CARLYLE let's not be so quick to put all of our eggs in this basket. We could still wind up getting "scam"bled by all this hokieness of a new and wiser Hillary. Change could still be blocked by another Lieberman move and you know who set that up.

[Ken Burch]

21. I was thinking she'd take VP as too demeaning a role.

As AG, she'd be able to run the shop herself and could order all sorts of investigations on the GOP scamsters. That would be the kind of thing that would REALLY "do a death blow to the radical right".

She'd never be able to do that by getting in and keeping the war going just to show "toughness".

[Dogmudgeon]

26. Now it's my turn to ask the obvious question

Why do you assume that Hillary, and not Obama, would prolong the war? With the exception of the IWR vote, they have nearly identical records. Relying on the IWR vote as a predictor of future behavior is misleading. It was a hawkish vote, but she was also lied to. Though her opponents say that is an excuse, there is another thing to consider -- she is looking to undo a lot of damage, AND as much of the military Bush "legacy" as possible.

Although I support Hillary, I do not excuse her vote. But I do understand it as a complex situation with repercussions and options that do not necessarily make good campaign material.

And I agree, the job of AG would be a good one for her. If she isn't available, I know someone who would excel in that position: John R. Edwards. He's had some free time an his hands lately.

Just about any way it works out, there is going to be some serious whoop-ass distributed around Washington starting next year. Only John McCain remains in the way. Our job will be to press whoever we elect -- Executive and Legislative -- to take appropriately strong measures against the Republican excesses.

--p!