IF Sen Clinton wasTHE stonger candidate ... she'd be in the lead ... Period!

Despite having OVER WHELMING odds in her favor ie ... money ($200 million +), national name recognition, backing of the most famous ,well respected, former President living, estabished national organization, arguably the best and experienced, seasoned campagin team in Demo politics, support and backing of the largest donators in the demo party, support of Senators, Congress people, Washington politicos, early large lead in super delegates, early support of Unions, Newspapers, influential vocal National support, the major news media,its pundits AND a national consensus that SHE is THE front runner (that against 5 white males and 1 Hispanic male) ... etc.

Sen Clinton IS behind ... delegate count. super delegates, money raised, states won, legitimate universally recongnizes popular vote, support of Unions, Newspapers, donors, Senators, Congress persons, major news media, pundits, endorsements of former competitors in race AND national consensus ... etc

Sen Clinton IS LOSING to a guy whom the American public 15 months ago could not pronounce his name AND is an African- American male with little national exposure ... WHY you might ask?

Sen Obama ran and continues to run a better organized, smarter, financially responsible campaign. Has been in public office WITH a track record of doing what he says he believes in. Presented policies and postions that the American people want and offered an invitation to the American people to help in making the same happen. AND has PERSONALLY demonstrated himself to be a rational, thoughtful, level headed, intelligent, open minded, inspirtational, good natured, responsible PERSON ... that's who WE ... THE American people want in the White House!!!!!

Is that too much to ask?

You didn't get Bill Clinton's memo, did you? Bill is telling everyone who will listen that there's a vast conspiracy aimed at denying Hillary the nomination. How else to explain how an unknown black dude with a joke of a name could beat the invincible Hillary Clinton?

The flaw in this conspiracy theory is so huge it is not readily apparent. But ask yourself this: How stupid or incompetent would these conspirators have to be to even think that they could take down Hillary with an unknown black dude with a joke of a name? So the Clintons don't actually believe their conspiracy theory.

So where are the Clintons headed with their conspiracy theory? They won't fool the superdelegates. No, they are rolling out Hillary Clinton version 6.0 for public inspection. Version 6.0 is Clinton portrayed as the ultimate victim of a vast conspiracy.

The whole MI and FL charade is part of version 6.0. Clinton is making laughably absurd demands knowing full well that they will be rejected. More victimization! And this isn't just complaining about victimization, real or imaginary. This is deliberately setting the stage for victimization for all to see.

So, again, what is the point? Why are the Clintons furiously whipping up sympathy for a cruelly and unfairly victimized Hillary version 6.0? Well, this is not setting the stage for either a win or a dignified and graceful exit. This is setting the stage for Armageddon.

Armageddon, aka Mutual Assured Destruction (M.A.D.), aka an independent Clinton run for the presidency. Why would the Clintons want M.A.D.? They don't. Let me emphasize that. The Clintons are not self-destructive. They may even care about the Democratic party.

The Clintons are intelligent, ruthless, and desperate to get Hillary on the ticket as VP. The threat of M.A.D., crude blackmail, is their only option. Crude blackmail, though, would be remembered by voters in 2016. Better to disguise it under the cloak of outrageous victimization.

Obama/Clinton 08!

Clinton/?????? 16!

Good posts -- up to the point of inclucing HRC on the ticket with BHO.

The problems with Hillary as VP are many:

1. The 'publicans were salivating at having her at the top of the ticket. There next best option would be to have her (and Bill) in the #2 spot.

2. Polls have shown that when Hill is not in the picture, BHO does much better against McCain than when Obama's support is diluted by Hillary hanging around. For example, with John Edwards in the #2 spot, BHO wins quite nicely, thank you, in OH, PA, and even in VA.

3. There are lots of other powerful choices for a VP among democrats that add to BHO's electability, Webb, Richardson, Biden, etc. By comparison, Hillary's negatives could be a real electoral liability.

4. The reasons above turn just on electability - but the VP candidate has rarely had much influence even in this respect. Moreover, a VP choice really has far more important and practical long-term implications - and these are many:

The first big decision a future president makes is so crucial. Do we want a president who turns this into a political calculation? Or do we want to be re-assured that a new generation of vision and energy becomes part of the decision-making process in the White House, a la Jim Webb?

Do we want to have a ruthless, power-hungry, resentful Clinton in the wings, or do we want an experienced Richardson or Biden, or a well-spoken, thoughtful Amy Klobuchar ready - but not pushing to take over? (By the way, Klobuchar would probably cement the fate of that traitor Norm Coleman in MN.)

Clinton may have a role to play in an Obama administration (I don't know if she'll ever be a really great senator) - and this is likely to be as a major cabinet officer. Give her something she can dig her sharp teeth into, like Defense, or her energy, like State, or her wonkishness like Health. But VP - no way - unless the "boss" decides otherwise - and still I think that would be a bad decision, and I will tell him so.

Obama. Barack Obama is the stronger candidate.

Period.

No wayt would I ask or put Sen clinton on the ticket! Why?

Too divisive, polarizing, angry and not trustworthy! Oh yea ... Bill !!!!

They are a team unto themselves ... for themselves ... so let's leave them to themselves.

AND ... there are a number of qualified people who can bring POSITIVES to the campagin.

GO OBAMA!

The stronger candidate is the one who is winning---the one with the greater number of states won, the higher number of pledged and super delegates, the only legitimate polular vote and the one who has raised the most money. The last point is a reflection of all the other parameters, because people tend to pour their resources behind a winning candidate.

Based on the foregoing, it is clear as noonday that Barack Obama is the stronger candidate, and Hillary Clinton is the weaker one. No amount of arm wrestling by the Clinton camp can change this stubborn fact and, at this 11th hour, there is no chance in hell for Clinton to overtake Obama. It is simply too late.

As for Clinton being on the ticket as VP, I think it will be suicidal for Obama---not just for his life, but for his administration. Clinton is part of the old politics, and bringing her on board will severely dilute Obama's freshness and message of change. Moreover, the two cannot really work together. Clinton has a penchant for exaggeration and lies. She is also very divisive. I think she will poison his platform with her evil, bitter spirit.

Clinton should go away.

OBAMA 08

DITTO again !!!!!!

Good bye Hillary ... Buh Bye ... So Long ... Hasta la Vista ... See ya ... you WILL go down in history as the candidate that LOST to the Black GUY!

There is no shame in losing to a stronger candidate (for ALL the reasons stated above) ... who RAN a campaign that THE AMERICAN people want!

Unite now for the good of the Country!

The "One" being jammed down our throats and giving a pass by the national media does not make the stronger candidate. Thanks to that and the DNC though, looks like you'll be getting a front row view of that soon enough. I'd suggest a rain poncho.

OT: Doesn't all this preaching to the choir in these threads feel a lil incestuous to y'all?

He's "being jammed down our throats" by Democratic voters, despite the odds, against the establishment candidate. That doesn't really add up to the sort of top-down conspiracy you are implying, does it? Sorry that any result other than the one you desire one strikes you as illegitimate.

The answer is elsewhere! People overseas, including myself, do not believe that the presidents of the USA truly represent the choice of American citizens. They (citizens) are taking part in the election game without having a real impact on the final outcome. That is why we seem to have acquired certain logic to acknowledge your President beforehand. Just listen to the pretenders to the presidency when they begin the famous speech which is headed toward some distant countries trying to seduce those who advocate for and behind them. They promise too much love, sympathy and all the American citizens cherish most, their lives, in this case.

Conclusion:

As I said somewhere above, the answer is within these questions:

1-Whose votes really count?

2-Who really has the last word, US citizens or Lobbies?

3-Who really retains powerful influence on both the Democratic and Republican parties?

4-Who really has power to influence a presidential candidate's choice of staff?

Nosey foreigner!

I hope you find an answer elsewhere.

Until then, no haste!

) This is setting the stage for Armageddon (.

= Too pessimistic!

) there is no chance in hell for Clinton to overtake Obama. It is simply too late. (

= How come?

) There is no shame in losing to a stronger candidate.... who RAN a campaign that THE AMERICAN people want! (

= Really, was it?

Wishful-thinking seldom works since enormous scandals, like slow-burning fire, are awaiting those who are subject to the wrath of some local invisible actors who detain magic doses to change the Deal.

Nosey Foreigner!