Sorry, Congressman Cleaver, but this is a primary, and that’s the way it goes. So sit back and enjoy the show!

Nick, you don’t understand. Democrats, especially here in Missouri, detest contested primaries in which real people get to choose the nominee. State party chair John Temporiti is busy trying to eliminate as many contested primaries as possible on the state level. They like to have their “experts” (i.e., party insiders) decide what’s strategically best for the party to win the general election, so they’ll have lots of goodies to hand out to the favored, and they don’t want any pesky voters screwing things up for them. That’s why Nixon looks like he’s getting a free ride to the gubernatorial nomination, why the skids are greased for Page for the lt. gov. nomination. Occasionally he and his assistants fail (which is why rank and file Democrats will have an actual meaningful choice for the atty gen nomination), but it isn’t because they aren’t trying. Contested Democratic primaries are just for the seats that are so dominantly Democratic (like the 5th senate district) or Republican that the choice of candidate won’t affect the outcome in November. Efficiency trumps democracy.

In fairness, Republicans would also like to accomplish the same thing, but they aren’t as persistent or as successful in doing so.

You underestimate me, Oracle. I know his motive, but neither HRC nor Obama made it to a hair’s width from the Democratic nomination by backing down or taking one for the team.

You’re right about the Republicans, though. I still remember the debacle of the Webster-Blunt-Bailey primary.

Even tho Hillary cant win the nomination, if we all agree that the two of them together would be the strongest Democratic ticket, and we presume that Hillary wont agree to be VP, the unselfish thing for Barack to do would be to agree to be hers, and presumably she’d accept that tho you never know with her; if she wont, superdelegates should give it to him; and no one could blame him if he wouldnt agree to that; but that doesnt mean it still might not be the best thing for all concerned for him to do.

Bill-I like your thinking! As a progressive dem I like the idea of a dream ticket. I think Clinton should be at the top of the ticket too. Obama can gain experience as her vp for 8 years and then run in 2016! That seems like a better long term plan for the DNC in my opinion. Honestly, I think she would take him as her vp choice in a New York minute if it meant she could become the first female president of the United States. Lol! Gotta love a girl with ambition!

Bill Haas,

If Hillary can’t win the nomination, and Barack wins the nomination, I am having a hard time understanding why the unselfish thing would be for Obama to say, “thanks but no thanks. I want to give Hillary the nomination” because it is the unselfish thing for me to do.”

That’s not being unselfish, that’s being foolish.

It doesn’t appear that Hillary will be able to win the general election as the elected President even if Obama ran on the ticket with her as her Vice President. The question now for Democrats I would imagine is do they want a Democrat in the White House as President?

Most people see the disaster of having a strong willed woman and a strong willed man both attempting to wear the pants in the White House. Human nature will set in and what drama we will witness in this country. Our country is in no shape to risk this bid conflict and battle of the sexes that will certainly take place between her and her husband. We will not at all be getting two for one. Why isn’t people thinking realistically here?

Oh, just hand it over to Hillary because she is having another one of her childish temper tantrums and will not calm down and behave rational until she gets her way? That’s the only behavior that I have seen being displayed with Hillary Clinton, certainly not experience, professionalism or Presidential material.

Hillary needs to stop being so self-centered and start thinking about the divisions that she is causing in the Democratic Party, and the disgrace she is bringing upon herself.

Lastly, it was Conservatives playing their dirty little games that kept Hillary in the game by her wins of Texas and Ohio. Conservatives still have not learned their lesson, it was dirty tricks, deception and games by them that gave us Bush, now here they go again.

Conservatives are determined to cause this country to be brought to ruins and, their flocks are still blindly allowing themselves to be lead into damnation.

well, D.Walker, you certainly make good points and the other side of the arguments well, tho I’m not smart enough to understand the references to conservative dirty games in Texas and Ohio and Hillary. My thoughts were developed partly as a result of the talk I”ve heard about people trying to put them on the same ticket because neither is going into the convention with enough delegates, and I was thinking how they might end up together. so the suggestion is what if the superdelegates dont want to give it to Obama, and cant give it to Hillary, what do they do and how. Also, which is the stronger ticket, Hillary at the top with Obama or Obama with someone else? Hard to say, perhaps? Hillary has negatives, but Obama positives, so how does it shake out? Also, that avoids the risk of an untested, more or less, Obama having to go against those crazy republican conservatives in the general; who knows what they will do and how he will handle it? well, we hope, but you never know. Also, he has some potential negatives on horizon, that land deal and like that, and tho Hillary has the library and tax returns, she’s used to that sort of thing. I dont particular like how she handles them, but voters dont seem to mind. Theyve sort of earned the right to be on the ticket together, dont you think? One other possibility is Hillary’s superdelegates saying to her, take the VP shot or we give it to Obama, but they dont have the cahonnes to do it, plus she wont take it. Just some thoughts. If I were smart enough, I’d be the next congressperson from the 2nd; oh, that’s right, I’m going to be.

and speaking of Temporiti, someone ask him to return my several emails and phone calls asking for a meeting; I just wanted to give my respect to the party chair and like that; but he’s a busy guy, I guess; his secretary said she’d talk to him and get back to me; good luck with that plan; maybe after I win the election, he’ll deign to return my call; ask him to speak to my scheduler. In 2009.

actually, that was meant to be “in 2010″. As soon as that 787 on the math SAT kicks in, I’m going to be a lot more impressive. think I’ll go finish my mornng coffee; long overdue; obviously.

You left-wing dreamers are really living in another world. Do you really think that a ticket with Obama, who National Journal ranks as the most liberal member of the Senate - more liberal even than socialist Bernie Sanders - and Clinton, with all her baggage - really has a chance? Either one of those will be a huge target for McCain, and should the two of them run on a ticket, that will be an even bigger target.

Meanwhile, on the Republican side, we have McCain, a moderate who has stood up to the Bush administration, earning the ire of the right, but solid centrist creds. McCain, who has co-sponsored legislation with Kennedy and Feingold, demonstrating an ability to work with members of the other party - something his opponent, whether Clinton, Obama, or both, will completely lack. McCain, who has the best relationship with the media of any Republican candidate since Reagan, earning him an affectionate profile in a recent issue of the New Yorker, which has savaged President Bush since he was Governor Bush.

This will be so easy I don’t even think the Republicans can screw it up, though I’m sure they’ll make an outstanding effort. You lefties need to practice saying “President McCain.”