I sense that you are deeply troubled, Joel. You so want to resist the lure of 16 years of rampant plutocratic socialism, yet you seem unable to do so and find yourself cheering for Hillary/Obama. Your former admonition to just not vote now seems only to apply to Republicans. The hypocrisy is rich and fruity.

Dave

Part of me insists this has to be ironic, a cynical attempt at humor. Because I have rarely/never agreed with this writer before!

It's true that the power elites will be more comfortable with the devil they know [i.e. HRC]. That doesn't in itself make her threatening or evil.

However, if Obama wins Iowa and New Hampshire, which looks increasingly possible, we might be looking at an Obama/Mark Warner or Obama/Jim Webb ticket instead [that last one's for Dave].

And that might really be unbeatable.

Ugh. Perhaps you should make Clinton the VP, eh? Still don't like it though. The powerful folks just need to know we've had enough of their BS. Period.

Dear Dave:
Do you actually read articles before commenting on them? There is no cheering for Hillary by me, nor the Clinton/Obama ticket.
And my conclusion remains consistent: better not to vote for any Dem or Repub!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No cheering for the ticket? You write, "I'm all for it!" and call it terrific. You also say that this would be the ticket which could turn our country into a democracy.

Well Dave, though the indentation was lost in publishing there was a colon indicating what followed were what OTHER had said on the NY Times website, as follows:

Clinton/Obama would be an unbeatable ticket. She has the experience as both a senator and she knows the foreign nations as her work as First Lady, remember Bill's campaign slogan "Two for the price of one." with Bill back in the White House, her as Pres, could surely let Obama earn his stripes and after 8 years will become what could be America's first black president.

I too would love to see a Hillary-Obama ticket. I believe Obama would settle for a VP position because he is young, has served only 2 years as a US senator, and has a long career ahead of him.

If the Dems are smart, and I hope they are, the ticket will be Clinton-Obama and it will be unbeatable in 2008 and again in 2012. Then in 2016 and 20020 Obama will be top dog on the ticket thus providing sixteen years of a Democratic presidency.

Hey, Clinton/Obama is pretty powerful sounding! I'm all for it! You folks who have been programmed to hate Hillary need to get over it already. She is one smart woman who has more than enough experience in the white house and she will make one hell of a prez! Obama will learn a lot from president Clinton and will be ready to lead our great nation in 2016 or 17!

Obama and Hillary on the same ticket would be terrific. With these 2 candidates the country could become a democratic society for 16 years!

I would think that an editor would catch contradictions such as are apparent in this piece and check with the author rather than accusing him of being 'deeply troubled'...how about someone putting quotation marks where they belong to eliminate the confusion - ?

OK. That tempest has been contained in the teapot. Someone should go back and fix the article though.

Now for my biggest objection to the article. It suffers from the pre-convention problem of overestimating the importance of the VP candidate. You know, we keep hearing that Gore and Cheney were the most powerful VP's in history, but do we know that to be true? It was Gore who claimed that he was important, and Cheney's critics who say that he has too much power. Not the most neutral sources.

The story line over the next few months will be the top of the ticket. They'll have all the positive press. The VP choice will be fascinating during the week before the convention and maybe the day of the vice-presidential debate.

The choice of a running mate was supposed to balance the ticket. At least that's what they used to say. The last two VP's have been a Southern baby boomer and a Southwestern oil man. The running mate apparently doesn't add much. Several times, they've failed to carry their home state.

I'll grant you that the modern VP does more than oversee NASA. But he has less power than the Chief of Staff or the National Security Advisor.

PS - Editor, the tag line for this article carries a pro Clinton/Obama message. If that's not the intent of the article, that should be fixed too.

Isn't the tag line a direct quote from the article?

You must be reading Heloise too much. I predicted that some months ago, even got bold enough to put it in a kos diary.

Also, realized that ole Newt Gingrich, predicted same in July 07. I don't read or listen to Newt but thought it a case of great minds thinking alike. Actually, Newt is starting to grow on me. He seems more like a human being since he has been out of the limelight.

Anyway, it will be Clinton/Obama for many reasons. They both have political express that won't latte up.

Heloise

with clinton and obama, we could be the new USSR

United States of Socialist Revolutionaries

might as well remove those 50 stars and replace them with a hammer and sickle...not to mention...change those stripes to a more crimson red

"with clinton and obama, we could be the new USSR"

Silly.