But what he doesn't seem to get is the dynamics of losing in this context.

Everybody knows that this is the Democrats year. That fact will almost certainly be proved out by large scale further consolidation of Democratic majorities in Congress. What is also a near certainty too, though, is that the support for Obama will greatly lag that Democratic surge (perhaps even suppressing it somewhat downticket, but still significantly lagging it).

When it becomes apparent that it is Obama who is depressing, rather than enhancing the Democratic brand, it will be very bad news for him should he win or lose the WH.

But if he loses, it will be simply terrible for him and his wing of the Democratic Party, just as it was a terrible and decades long blow to the McGovern wing of the Party (really, the same wing, transported in time). They will have no credibility and no clout. They may point all the fingers they want, but they, as losers of a battle they absolutely should have won, will have no standing to be listened to.

. . . Obama partisans will whip around and point the finger right back at the Clintons and claim she stayed in the race too long, race-baited and created an environment that was too toxic for an Obama victory.

the harsh reality is, he and his campaign have done this to themselves.

with respect to sen. clinton as VP: ha! are you f*ing kidding me? why should she? what's in it for her?

no, this is what i envision, should (and it's by no means inevitable) sen. obama be the eventual dem nominee:

sen. obama, recognizing that his GE prospects are circling the drain, pleads with sen. clinton to become his VP running mate (if he has any smarts at all, which i'm beginning to question), in an effort to shore up his pitiful demographics.

sen. clinton, realizing that truman's VP was right, it's an office "not worth a bucket of warm spit", and not feeling like lowering herself to being second to the lesser of the candidates, graciously declines the offer, while pledging (along with bill) to campaign hard for sen. obama.

this scenario mollifies a significant % of the disaffected. not enough to get him over the top in the GE, but she's done her duty for the party, and kept her options, and power, open in the senate.

Looking at the majority of swing state polls, Hillary Clinton's performance from March to May (great analysis on this over at corrente), and the fact she is almost certainly going to be the popular vote winner, are all leading up to the fact that this contest is heading to Denver. If it comes down to a floor fight, my money is on Hillary Clinton, and not on the guy that won caucuses in February.  

If you believe that dividing the Party by not at least offering the VP to Clinton is smart politics that will help him win in November, then bully for you.

You call them "the old politics." the "old politics" represnts half the Dem Party and already they are none too happy by the like of people like you trying to drum them out of the Dem Party.

Sen. Obama is not merely spinning a publicity twist, nor is he tone deaf, nor is he propping up a straw man to knock down.

I don't know if Hillary would have even accepted it, but imo she should at least have been asked.

you can participate ion Jeralyn;s threads if you like.

Is he going to be the "unifier" he claims he is?

I agree w/ the contrarian view expressed up-thread. I think his campaign possibly sees the numbers, and would be foolish not to consider Hillary as a serious VP candidate. However, Obama, himself, has shown signs that he is not quite as astute. His views seem to be shaped not so much by demographics or statistics -- but by emotions, campaign tactics and behavioral science (Richard Thaler, Goolsbee et al.). More than anything he will therefore be guided by the crowds whose adulation might figure larger in his calculations than electoral politics. It will be his loss.

BTD, I can't imagine why you wouldn't expect self-indulgent arrogance from the Obama camp. All along they've been about the indisputably obvious superiority of Obama in every human category, and maybe a few others. They've been angry and dismissive all along at anyone and everyone who wasn't on-board with the beautification of Obama. Its really been quite sickening.

However, should they all lose their marbles and hand the November election to McCain by voting for BO and he doesn't choose Hillary as his VP, you are correct....many of the Hillary supporters will NOT vote for BO. I won't. I'm tired of voting for loser candidates. I held my nose and voted for Kerry. I'm not doing it again. There's no "making nice" after this primary. I-Am-Finished-With-The-Democratic-Party-After-
Their-Swiftboating-Of-Hillary.

I'm not so sure I would vote for a BO/Clinton ticket either. The man is not qualified to be the President. If Hillary is the nominee and chooses BO, I MIGHT vote for that ticket, but I would be holding my nose again.

I don't want Hillary on his ticket. She's too good for him. He can't win without her. Why should SHE help HIM win after what he and his supporters have done to her during this Primary? I hope she says NO to him. I'd love to see her run as an Independent. I'd vote for her as an Independent! I believe most of her supporters would support her if she ran as an Independent. It would be our best chance to get a third Party into the WH.

Obama has not called for Clinton to drop out of the race and has been careful to avoid alienating her supporters.

That, and Obama's current and past behavior, which shows me he does not have a high enough regard for the people and cannot handle power well.

Of the three candidates, ability to not diminish the country and its citizens is in this order for me:  Hillary, McCain, Obama.  

As a patriot I must vote accordingly.  It's my duty.

I've heard a version of this all of my markedly adult life. Obama and this takeover he and his kingmakers have planned is not something I signed on for and it is not a party, cause or plan I will support.

The Dems have had over thirty years to shore up Roe, reproductive and other rights and core principles. They have let those erode, spending more energy exploiting the Dem "brand" (ugh) for their own coffers and careers.

During the Bush admin, dry powder Dems have wasted real opportunities to use their brains during elections and in congress, as a minority or a majorty, into energy to blame and bullying their voters for money/support than standing up to Republicans.

At every juncture of opportunity when core Dem activists and voters have begged, pleaded and provided means to back the party up for standing for core principles, they have not.

Off=camera they've worked with our enemies and persecutors. In media used the opportunity to blame supporters, threaten worse catastrophes will occur if more money doesn't pour in and more voter compliance. After the fact, this has been shown to be the case time and time again.

Now we -- HRC supporters and disproportionately, women -- are supposed to sit back and pretend to look the other way during a ridiculous internecine power play over the keys to the cash box and an untried golden goose.

We're supposed to let ourselves be slimed by alleged partisans as ignorant disloyal hyper religious racists whose fault it will all be if the abusive parties don't get their way -- all because of the ineptitude, greed and arrogance of people who are too busy jockeying to get this "new" machine in place.

I won't support that.
I won't support Obama, his kingmakers and his "neutral" Dem nannies and flatterers in this sham.
I won't support the Dem leadership, who have had months to get their act together.
I won't contribute to this obscene food fight.
I won't accept guilt, blame or bullying for this ridiculous situation during which I've behaved ABOVE AND BEYOND what any of these individuals and groups have a right to demand, or deserve.

To my surprise during this atrocious display, the one candidate I was certain I would not vote for has earned my trust, pride, support and MY VOTE.

This is not transferrable without my say and no one should expect it to be.

I hate being spoken about in the third person when I'm in proximity, which is what the Dem braintrust and Team Obama do when they assure each other that the stupid rac!st b!tches and other doofuses will mindlessly step in line.

Newwwwp. HRC's my candidate for Pres, not VP.

But in the area of believing his own press I think Obama is as much at fault as his supporters.  He seems to genuinely believe that he represents something new in politics, that he will produce a magical surge of voters (although the evidence is somewhat on his side here), that he's above criticism, and that the Republicans will work with him in a post partisan fashion.

And, sadly, I suspect much of the media will play along.  Olbermann will school the nation on exactly why Clinton does not deserve to be VP (I mean, this is the woman hinting at assasination, remember?), and why Clinton as VP would be a disaster for the election.  People like Russert and Andrea Mitchell and Chris Matthews will have orgasms over whoever Obama does pick, asserting that whoever it is reflects the obvious brilliance of the Obama campaign; Hillary will be but a footnote for them.

And after the reliably sycophantic media have had a chance to set up the narrative, Obama can confirm in some dramatic speech that will be covered live on every outlet imaginable; if Obama even mentions Hillary, he may do so without actually ever saying her name.

And you know what?  If that's the way it plays out, then the other thing Obama will have "brilliantly" set up is his owning - lock, stock and barrel - what I think will be the inevitable loss in November.

On the other hand, it's not even June yet.  The convention is still a couple months away.  It ain't over even if Obama has decreed it so.

Imagine for a moment, Barack Obama has clinched the nomination. And he has called a news conference to announce his Vice Presidential choice. It is not Hillary Clinton. What do you suppose the story of the day is going to be?

The story of the day will be on Obama and the VP pick, detailed info about the VP pick, speculation about how this will affect the race vs. McCain. Clinton will barely be mentioned.

I say this because there will be no general expectation at that time (neither by the media nor the public) that Hillary will be selected as the VP, as presumably some time drops have passed between when either Hillary dropping out or it becomes clear to Hillary supporters that the nomination is well and truly out of reach and the time when Obama announces his VP pick; it won't be all in the same week.

But I ask them to again imagine that morning when Barack Obama announces his VP pick, and what the reaction will be if it is not Hillary Clinton. You think the Party is divided now, wait till that day.

Bush won more legal votes.  Oreo will conceed that Gore probably had more voters show up that day but they weren't able to use a punch card ballot.

Dens where let down by their own demographics.  Not by anything some evil republican did.
But why let the facts get in the way of a good story?

But I can't.  I have to vote for the candidate.

While I don't believe that Hillary had malice in mind when she made her statement about June 1968 and RFK's assignation, I believe that her courting of people who admit being unable to vote for a Black man as coloring perceptions (and I used that word on purpose).  

If Obama had been openly courting people who said they couldn't vote for a woman (and he hasn't openly said that although many people believe he has implied it), we would all rightly call him pandering to sexist voters.  But Hillary can't be accused of pandering to racist voters.  Why?

I think if we just substituted the candidate we support (and remember, even though I'm a black woman who shares Hillary's birthdate [26 October 1947], I have yet to feel that either of these candidates represent what I want from the next President) perhaps we can start rebuilding the trust and faith we used to have with each other and will need again after this election is over.

You want someone who straddles the line between credibility and obscurity. The former for obvious reasons, the latter because the presidential campaign needs to be able to mold the nominee's campaign image and mission to suit its needs.

Hillary Clinton has too firm and longstanding a national image. She brings too much baggage to the table, both positive and negative. She would steal too much of Obama's limelight, and I say that not in terms of the recent contratemps but in a broader sense. The stories would be too much about her, and not enough about him.

Moreover, they are both senators. That won't fly either. He's going to need to pick either a governor or someone who's not a sitting officeholder.

But, what Chuck Todd is doing is laying the groundwork for the narrative for a post-Obama loss. This is quite possibly the first election that has been dictated by the media, in both the R- and D- primaries.

And the media is just in a total tizz over the Argus-Leader comment, and it has been twisting every thing she meant by it. Of course, she shouldn't have even said it, but she did.

Most of the Clinton-voters will come back in the fall, no matter what Obama does re VP.

I don't know if it will be enough to pull him over  - because they won't be enthused or happy about it. That always leads to some percentage of lower turn-out, how low is anybody's guess - especially as McCain isn't a scary Republican. There isn't even the motivation of needing to help bring a nasty evil McCain down, at this point in time.

Whether they vote for McCain or not, many like me are anti-Obama for a whole host of reasons, that are independent of our support for Hillary. Some of us just think he is not a Democrat, or a DINO of the worst kind, as he has made deal-breakers and worked against so many Party principles.  Or that he would be such an appalling President.

The support of the Party in this, by fair means, but more often very foul means, is people are leaving the Party. Obama's Party is no longer a political Party of worth to some Clinton supporters.

I don't support McCain, or Republicans - but after 30+ years, have finally understood what the apathetic non-voting cynics have been saying all along.

There is no difference between the two Partys, and if Obama is the nominee then that proves it to me.

Maybe its been that way all along, but it was just this primary that brought it close enough to the surface, and so in-your-face blunt, for me to finally notice it.  

One of the problems with Hillary as VP, is because many Clinton supporters don't trust Obama, on how he wields power. He will not let her DO anything. She will be more hobbled and silenced and gagged as VP, than if she chose another career path. He might be better to offer her an important  Cabinet position, one that actually holds power in its own right, but that would be unthinkable for him.