When I point out the advantages for Obama of a Clinton/Obama ticket, Obama supporters sometimes answer suggesting that whatever the practical advantages, it would be somehow dishonorable for Obama to agree to that -- citing various sports metaphors. I hope some Hillary supporters will help me explain to them why their kind of sports metaphors don't quite apply to this present contest.

Basically ... a primary season is not like the Democratic nominee vs the Republican nominee in November. It's more like tryouts, or an audition, to choose a job applicant.

And the Democratic Party primary process is not settled by raw ballots going to the Supreme Court, or any other numerical metric. It's more like a figure skating competiton that is settled by a panel of judges voting on who has made the best performance and is likely to be the best competitor when he/she goes to the Olympic arena (which may differ from the local try-out arena in known ways).

(I’ve missed the last few days. I’m sputtering mad. I’m not sure what Obama is trying to pull, but at the moment I’m in a mood to meet simplicity with simplicity.)

Dear Hillary,

I’ll support you through Denver and through however many legal challenges and Eagleton revelations you might think of after Denver if Denver is idiotic enough to nominate Obama.

Pls do go ‘nuclear’ May 31, including enforcing the DNC rule that says Obama gets NONE of his Florida delegates because he violated the no-campaigning pledge.

Where I wll NOT follow you is into the Obama camp.

According to a profile in the Chicago Tribune, when first elected to the US Senate, Obama and his advisers were thinking ahead. Some called it the "2010-2012-2016" plan: a potential bid for governor or re-election to the Senate in 2010, followed by a bid for the White House as soon as 2012 or, if not, 2016.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/polit ics/chi-obama_senate_recordjun12,0,10100 06.story

Imagine if at that time (early 2005), Obama had been told that he could jump stright to a VP nomination in 2008. That might have seemed too much to hope for.

So -- isn't that really a prize worth taking now? VP on a unified ticket now, in line for POTUS on a unified ticket in 2016?

Would this be unacceptable to his supporters? Imagine your man with a 16-year bully pulpit worldwide, starting Jan 2007 (well, Nov 2008 really), first as VP then as POTUS.

Question for those who do not currently support Hillary.

Now that we've seen months of campaigning  and have more data to consider, what kind of evidence would it take to convince you that Hillary is the candidate more electable in November?

Hm, this article may explain why some people would jump ON a sinking ship -- especially if their own constituents are locked into it already. Some SD are worried about Hillary coming out with the popular vote while Obama has some lead in delegates.

“Party leaders then would face a wrenching choice: Steer the nomination to a fading Obama, even as signs suggested Clinton could be the stronger candidate in November; or go with the surging Clinton and risk infuriating Obama’s supporters, especially blacks, the Democratic Party’s most loyal base.

Some anxious Democrats  want party elders to step in now to generate more “superdelegate” support for Obama, effectively choking off Clinton’s hopes before she can bolster them further."
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080329/ap_on_el_pr /democrats_endgame

November 08 is not a caucus. Everyone can vote. Those who can't get to a polling place can vote absentee. Obama's red states will go red, his "Dems for a Day" will go back to their real preferences. Even if some of them were sincere, Inds and GOP won't like the Wright tapes they will be hearing for months on their car radios.

Not everyone in the DNC or the SDs has drunk the koolaid, and even some who are rigging things now for Obama (Pelosi etc) may still have a little survival instinct about November and pull back to sanity eventually.

Soon it's going to become obvious to the insiders (including Obama) that Obama CAN'T BEAT MCCAIN. Then there may be some little core of SDs and DNC palace intriguers who would for some reason rather lose in Nov than switch to Hillary, but I can't imagine that being very many. (How many netkooks and Nader types are actually Superdelegates?) Remember, the official SD vote doesn't happen till August.

I'm beginning to see Obama as sort of deluded. Perhaps his intentions are good; he was raised among nice people (white guilt liberals, at least his grandfather).

But somehow Obama got the idea that the only way to be realistic and win is to do dirty Chicago style backroom stuff -- like getting ALL your opponents thrown off the ballot (see Alice Palmer story at http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/polit ics/chi-0704030881apr04,0,6468332.story

Now Obama is gaming the system in other ways, rather than letting the voters decide by making an honest up-front case to the voters on the issues. That is, Obama will do anything to win. It's like he thinks his personality will be so great for the world that the end justifies any and all means. See quotes below....

I'm beginning to see Obama as sort of deluded. Perhaps his intentions are good; he was raised among nice people (white guilt liberals, at least his grandfather).

But somehow Obama got the idea that the only way to be realistic and win is to do dirty Chicago style backroom stuff -- like getting ALL your opponents thrown off the ballot (see Alice Palmer story at http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/polit ics/chi-0704030881apr04,0,6468332.story

Now Obama is gaming the system in other ways, rather than letting the voters decide by making an honest up-front case to the voters on the issues. That is, Obama will do anything to win. It's like he thinks his personality will be so great for the world that the end justifies any and all means. See quotes below....