Can't we all just get along?

[Dirt]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/15/obama.clinton/index.html
I think this is bad for Obama's campaign. He needs to learn how to throw down. If he does become the Democratic Candidate, he's going to go up against the giant GOP slime machine.

[Brian Rucker]

This thread is worthless without pictures. I must see the Republican slime machine!

[Matthew Gallant]

This thread is worthless without pictures. I must see the Republican slime machine!
http://liberalvaluesblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/giuliani-finger.jpg

[Hugin]

No, it's good for Obama. It establishes, or re-establishes the moral high ground for him on anything race related, especially if behind the scenes he makes sure he and his people don't do anything that's percieved as sexist. Obama doesn't have to look tough right now, he has to look honorable and...for lack of a better term, wise.

[JeffL]

I think this actually works for Obama, because his campaign does not depend on hard core attacks on Hillary, while the Clinton machine has always relied on an attack approach. So now, if the Clinton campaign continues the inuendos about drugs, etc. it really makes them look bad and petty.

[BlueJackalope]

I think this actually works for Obama, because his campaign does not depend on hard core attacks on Hillary, while the Clinton machine has always relied on an attack approach. So now, if the Clinton campaign continues the inuendos about drugs, etc. it really makes them look bad and petty.

A current theory for why Hillary's camp would be pressing the race buttons is to have Obama become the "black" candidate (in the old Jesse Jackson sense of the term) while she becomes the "white" candidate. She'll loose South Carolina, but is counting on winning on Super Tuesday.

Cynical? Sure. That's politics.

[ravenight]

But maybe she's also courting him for her VP.

[NowhereDan]

But maybe she's also courting him for her VP.
The race is too tight and cut-throat for that. You court someone for Veep after you've beaten them.

[ravenight]

But you can't do that if you've burned all your bridges. Maybe she's decided to back it off a touch either for the good of the party/country if wins the nomination, or for the sake of appeasing some party leaders.

[teledyne]

Obama needs to stand down and be Hillary's VP if the Dems want to win in November. When was the last time a senator with one term under their belt made it to the Presidency? If he makes it to the general election the Republicans will pull out the experience card, far stronger than the race or sex card, and the undecided will pull the red lever.

[NowhereDan]

Obama needs to stand down and be Hillary's VP if the Dems want to win in November. When was the last time a senator with one term under their belt made it to the Presidency? If he makes it to the general election the Republicans will pull out the experience card, far stronger than the race or sex card, and the undecided will pull the red lever.
So a Senator with 1.2 terms under her belt is going to have that much more going for her than a Senator with 1.0 terms? Nah. Besides, Obama can run as someone who isn't a career politician, someone who actually represents change, as opposed to someone who is so far from change she's actually lived in the Whitehouse before. Electing Clinton isn't change, it's changing back. Which, admittedly, is better than nothing. But still.

[BlueJackalope]

Obama needs to stand down and be Hillary's VP if the Dems want to win in November. When was the last time a senator with one term under their belt made it to the Presidency? If he makes it to the general election the Republicans will pull out the experience card, far stronger than the race or sex card, and the undecided will pull the red lever.

Hey look, Karl Rove is posting on QT3. (I got money that the real Rove surfaces sometime before SuperTuesday to attack Hill and praise Obama - 'cause y'know - the opposite.)


But for a real answer I give you fellow Obama backer, Hillary hater John Dickerson

http://www.slate.com/id/2182073/

Edwards served a single term in the Senate. Obama served eight years in the Illinois state Senate and is halfway through his first term in the U.S. Senate. Clinton is about to begin her eighth year in the U.S. Senate. Going by years spent as an elective official, Obama's 11 years exceeds Clinton's seven, which in turn exceeds Edwards' six. But it's a silly calculus. They all come out about the same, even when you factor in Clinton's youthful work on the House judiciary committee's impeachment inquiry, her membership on the board of the Legal Services Corp., her chairmanship of the Arkansas Educational Standards committee, her crafting of an unsuccessful national health-care bill, and her sharing Bill Clinton's bed most nights while he was Arkansas governor and president...

[extarbags]

When was the last time a senator with one term under their belt made it to the Presidency?

Here's a research project for you: when was the last time a sitting senator with any amount of legislative experience was elected President?

[Dirt]

Here's a research project for you: when was the last time a sitting senator with any amount of legislative experience was elected President?
John F. Kennedy.

[Tankero]

Wow

45

[JeffL]

Hey look, Karl Rove is posting on QT3. (I got money that the real Rove surfaces sometime before SuperTuesday to attack Hill and praise Obama - 'cause y'know - the opposite.)


Rove has surfaced, but it was to lay out attacking points to the GOP on both Hillary and Obama:

http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/rove-previews-strategies-against-clinton-obama-2008-01-16.html