*I* think he can (although I'm not pwoxby), but I also think it may depend, in part, on who his VP pick is. And a whole host of other factors.

I think it's too early to gauge right now how hot the Clintonians are going to stay for the rest of the election. Certainly when Romney dropped out there was a massive uproar, but it calmed down into grudging acceptance after a few days. For Clinton, it will probably take longer, but I haven't completely ruled out its happening.

BUT IN ORDER TO BEGIN THE HEALING, SHE NEEDS TO *&^$%@ING CONCEDE!!!

Many of the people who voted for Hillary had no problem with Obama. They had the choice of two exciting candidates, so they chose one. They'll have no hesitation voting for Obama in the fall.

Some Hillary supporters are extremely disappointed that their candidate lost. It was a long, tough contest, so they felt just as bad as fans of a basketball team that made it to the finals and lost in game 7. Except that the finals was 5 months long and the trophy was control of the free world. Emotions are very high right now, but in a few months they'll be thinking about how much they like Obama or McCain and they'll be voting on that. People generally votes for the candidates and not the VPs.

Some people love Hillary and will never vote for Obama, but I don't think that's a large number of people. It seems like a lot on the forums because forums attract people with strong opinions, but I think most people will feel fine about Obama in a few months.

Plus, there are people who like Obama a bit better than McCain, but hate Hillary. Hillary as VP is as likely to be a detriment for them as she is a plus with her supporters. I don't think this is a large group either, I just want to point out that Obama + Clinton doesn't necessarily add up to everyone who voted for either.

I also think that most of the benefit that can be gained from Hillary as VP will be gained anyway when she campaigns for Obama. Even if she isn't offered the VP position, she'll still be calling up Hillary-or-nothing groups and talking to them about a vote for someone who shares almost all her policies being a much better way to support her than a vote for McCain. If McCain can bring around the people who said they wouldn't vote for Bush in 2000, then Hillary can bring around the people who support her now.

Unless he picks a total twit for VP -- someone who makes even the Obama supporters say, "oh, I wish he'd picked Hillary" -- he can.

Right now the Republican "brand" is at an all-time low -- and the popularity of incumbents (read longstanding politicians of undeniable "experience") is also at an extreme low. We have seen this already with the by-election results. This favors Obama significantly.

Also, the current polls show Obama leading McCain both in the popular vote and in the all-important electoral college vote. To win, McCain must win Pennsylvania (or, at a stretch, Ohio) and not lose Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico and not lose Virginia or North Carolina. Obama can win (given the other states where he is strong) in any of these three ways (keeping Pennsylvania, turning the west blue, or winning a major "New South" state). (Notably, Clinton could only viably follow the Pennsylvania/Ohio strategy -- which is why she was the weaker general election candidate.)

Further, Obama has VP choices that enhance these strategies more than Clinton does. He has Richardson, Napolitano, or Salazar for the western strategy. He has Strickland or Bayh (or Rendell if you force me to admit it) for the Pennsylvania/Ohio (and Indiana -- if you pick Bayh -- the best of the three) strategy. He has Easley/Webb/Warner/Kaine for the "New South" strategy. Any of these picks enhance one of these strategies more than Clinton enhances any. (There is a fourth strategy -- the Florida strategy -- which people think Clinton helps with. However, Florida is lots to the Ds -- and we need to admit it to survive in national elections.)

Further, while Obama has the money to compete on all three strategies simultaneously, McCain seems squeezed. Granted, money is not usually the Republicans' problem -- but McCain does not inspire the Old Money to did into their trust accounts. McCain might turn this tide -- especially with his ties to lobbyists (which the media is doing its best to sever) -- but if he doesn't, McCain will have a hard time competing.

Expect Obama to play up his religion -- like Rep. Henry Ford, Jr. -- to both refute the "islam slander" and to compete in the Virginia and North Carolina. Expect him to do something to bring in catholics -- both for Pennsylvania and for hispanics in the west (perhaps a Catholic running mate).

I personally favor Richardson as a running mate -- primarily because Richardson is both an "outsider" and "experienced" and helps a lot in the west and among hispanics. However, on this analysis, Kaine might be the best runningmate. Kaine adds votes in Virginia. He is Catholic, so he helps in Pennsylvania and the west. In face, Kaine might be the only VP choice who enhances all three of Obama's viable strategies simultaneously.

Beathan

I did not meant that McCain has to stretch to win Ohio. I meant that Obama has to stretch to win Ohio -- but he might with the right campaign and runningmate. However, McCain can't win without Ohio -- but Obama can.

Beathan

And -- I didn't mean that Florida is "lots" to the Ds -- I meant Florida is "lost" to the Ds. The last legitimate D play there was Gore's "social security lockbox gambit" and it failed and failed miserably. Clinton would lose Florida if she were the nominee -- the new kid on the block (great as he is) hasn't a chance of winning it.

Beathan

@ obamademonominee:

"Can [Barack Obama] win without Hillary being the VP come November?"

I don't see how. Hillary Clinton is crazed with the ambition to become president, if not in 2008 then in 2016. That isn't going to change. Today Clinton announced that she was suspending her campaign on Saturday. In an earlier post, I said that the tipoff to a deal would be a sudden cessation of hostilities by Clinton. So a deal has been negotiated.

(I predicted that the deal would be made in days, not weeks, based on the adkisson/pwoxby Clintonian Theory (TM). <link> Once again, the theory has been tested with a prediction followed by confirmation.)

So does Clinton already have a firm VP offer? Probably. But I predict that the public announcement won't be made for weeks. If Barack Obama were to offer Clinton the VP slot too soon after her concession, the deal would be obvious and humiliating for Obama.

To provide cover for the deal, Obama has just announced the formation of a VP headhunting committee. This is shrewd because it will put Obama at arms length from their "recommendation" to choose Clinton as VP.

She didn't drop out because of a deal with Obama. Today over two dozen high level Clinton supporters (congressmen and such) called her and asked her to endorse Obama. Her own people don't like the tact she took last night of making it look like she was trying to force herself into a position of power.

Last night Hillary really hurt her chances of getting the nod. Everyone in the Democratic party knows that if it looks like a VP forced thier way onto the ticket, that makes the Presidential Candidate look weak. Even her own supporters aren't going to let that happen.

"She didn't drop out because of a deal with Obama."

We'll see. ;)

Obama/Clinton 08!

"Except that the finals was 5 months long and the trophy was control of the free world."

Why oh why does the US continue to think they are the free world???

Because the joke is funnier with a little exaggeration.

Pwoxby,

Betting against you and John feels like playing roulette against the house, but I'm going to stick with my theory for now. As Hillary relaxes and considers her future she will realize that the best path forward is in the Senate. She is guaranteed decades of real power (instead of 8 years in the background and a shot in 2016). Her email and fundraising lists mean that she will be able to have a substantial impact on races in all 50 states. Moreover, her wonkish nature really fits in with the daily work of the Senate.

Blueshift

Blueshift --

Exactly ... and with Teddy Kennedy's Senate career winding down, there is an opening for an elder-statesperson from a "Royal Family." The Clintons became the Democratic Royal Family in the nineties -- displacing the Kennedy family.

And you are exactly right on the Senate post being more suited to HRC's strengths (wonkish detailed policy work) than executive office (which is built on something that proves her achille's heel -- management and team-building). As much as I dislike the idea of HRC as President, I love the idea that such a talented woman would be serving the national interest and keeping a figure on the policy pulse of the nation in the Senate.

Beathan

Don't misunderstand me. I agree with both of you. As a master of domestic policy issues (foreign policy... not so much), Hillary Clinton could have a brilliant career in the Senate. She is better suited to the Senate, no question.

The pertinent question, though, is this: Can Clinton overcome her addiction to power and subordinate her ambition to the best interest of the nation? I make the following suggestion without being snide and in all sincerity. Clinton could benefit from wise counsel in dealing with her addiction.

Obama/Clinton 08!

obamademonominee:

Can he win without Hillary being the VP come November?Pwoxy I need u on this.

Yes.