[QUOTE=Richard Parker]
Oh, please, tell us. What was the reason Clinton was ahead in superdelegates before the primaries?
[/QUOTE]
She was primed ready and proven, while Obama the younger was good to have on deck.
You’ll notice that there have been no new skeletons (real or perceived) surfacing for Hillary during the campaign.
[QUOTE=Marley23]
Several people here have it right - she’s saying “if you can’t choose, vote for me and you’ll have both!” Also, I think she’s trying to look Presidential and appeal to voters by suggesting she will end this drawn-out primary by graciously accepting Obama as her VP. It’s kind of haughty and a little sneaky, but that’s campaigning for you.
[/QUOTE]
Exactly. She’s trying to lure away Obama’s less fervent supporters, mostly people worried that the primaries are dragging on too long, suggesting that they can vote for her, wrap up the race and still have Obama on the ticket in November. Seems to me that most voters (but will it be enough?) are savvy enough to see through this latest ploy.
[QUOTE=The Flying Dutchman]
She was primed ready and proven, while Obama the younger was good to have on deck.
You’ll notice that there have been no new skeletons (real or perceived) surfacing for Hillary during the campaign.
[/QUOTE]
Do you have any evidence at all that before the primaries superdelegates were seriously examining both candidates and deciding for Clinton because she was “ready and proven”? I see no reason to believe that. I tend to agree with the Washington Post, which wrote today, “Clinton jumped into an early lead in the superdelegate battle, leveraging her connections and a belief among party regulars early in the process that she was the all-but-inevitable nominee.” That lead has now all but disappeared for various reasons have little to do with what you term “rah rah emotion.”
Regarding skeletons, its pretty hard for them to surface when she won’t release her financial documents and we haven’t gotten to see the relevant presidential papers. Talk to me in May.
If there was anything to find about Hillary, it would have been found. Lord knows, enough effort has been put into it, if they haven’t found it yet, they ain’t gonna.
So? Making it up, or insinuating it, works just as well.
They don’t seem to have found out about her being the Political Commissar for the Wellesley Chapter of Lesbians For Mao.
[QUOTE=elucidator]
If there was anything to find about Hillary, it would have been found. Lord knows, enough effort has been put into it, if they haven’t found it yet, they ain’t gonna.
[/QUOTE]
We just don’t know that until she discloses the information. It’s as simple as that. That is the purpose of financial disclosure.
[QUOTE=Richard Parker]
You don’t do general election-style slash-and-burn politics in a primary and then reconcile. It’s 3am, do you want an unprepared Muslim Ken Starr protecting your precious children?
[/QUOTE]
She may not, but that precious child sure does! 
And I LOVE Obama’s reply to this latest Clinton ploy:
Careful there, Drudge might report that as fact. Or Politico.com might, too.
But it’s out there now - and “fair game”. Thanks.
[QUOTE=Richard Parker]
We just don’t know that until she discloses the information. It’s as simple as that.
[/QUOTE]
Nice little bit of insinuation there.
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
Nice little bit of insinuation there.
[/QUOTE]
History seems to argue for skepticism in regards to the Clintons. I might also add that she’s doing this very reluctantly. This, also, stokes the imaginations and fears of those involved…
imo.
[QUOTE=Anomalous Reading]
History seems to argue for skepticism in regards to the Clintons.
[/quote]
Yes, skepticism about the allegations (and their allegators), based on the actual facts.
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
Yes, skepticism about the allegations (and their allegators), based on the actual facts.
[/QUOTE]
LOL…
Transparency seems an issue for them. As with the current Admin…
Lack of transparency always bothers me…
Nice retort tho (honest comment, not snark)
I don’t see this is a very deep issue. The Clinton camp will say or do anything at all that they think helps their cause (a win for Hillary). Putting forward the suggestion that there could be a ‘united’ ticket (with Obama as VP) is consistent with this strategy, so they do it.
Wish fulfilment is probably an additional factor. Clinton is articulating what she would like to be reality - an Obama who is willing to take second place.
[QUOTE=Elendil’s Heir]
Seems to me that most voters (but will it be enough?) are savvy enough to see through this latest ploy.
[/QUOTE]
Why are you calling it a ploy? Do you think she’ll change her mind and take back the VP offer as soon as she gets the nomination?
IMO you characterized the situation fairly when you said
So, what are those voters (who are savvy enough) going to see this as really being?
[QUOTE=Richard Parker]
You don’t do general election-style slash-and-burn politics in a primary and then reconcile.
[/QUOTE]
“Voodoo economics.”
[QUOTE=RickJay]
“Voodoo economics.”
[/QUOTE]
Policy criticism hardly rises to the level of what we’ve seen in this primary. I acknowledged that much of primary battles becomes water under the bridge by the fall. But I think there is a limit, and that limit has been exceeded.
[QUOTE=Richard Parker]
Cite me a single example of a VP candidate suggesting that the opposing party’s candidate is more qualified than her running mate. Time can heal a lot of wounds, and often nasty things are said in the primaries. But not this.
[/QUOTE]
Sure it can. Would Obama really turn down the VP slot should Hillary get the nomination? Not likely. Maybe if he feels that it would hurt him in his future ambitions, but surely not because Hillary’s campaign strategy. He’s as ambitious as any of the candidates.
[QUOTE=Shayna]
And I LOVE Obama’s reply to this latest Clinton ploy:
[/QUOTE]
Pretty standard reply to this sort of thing.
[QUOTE=elucidator]
They don’t seem to have found out about her being the Political Commissar for the Wellesley Chapter of Lesbians For Mao.
[/QUOTE]
That’s because everybody already assumes it. 
[QUOTE=Yookeroo]
Sure it can. Would Obama really turn down the VP slot should Hillary get the nomination? Not likely. Maybe if he feels that it would hurt him in his future ambitions, but surely not because Hillary’s campaign strategy. He’s as ambitious as any of the candidates.
[/QUOTE]
The point you quoted was addressing why Sen. Clinton can’t run as Obama’s VP; she can’t because having her as his VP would hurt him because of all that she’s said. He needs her to disappear for the general, not be standing by his side.
Neither of them would turn down the slot merely because they disagree with the other’s campaign strategy. That’s a naive strawman. Obama would turn it down because the only reason Hillary would offer it is as a compromise solution so that she can win. Otherwise he’ll likely get the top spot, and I think he’d rather have that. Even if she offered it after she had already secured the superdelegates, he might not take it given Al Gore’s experience as second fiddle to a Clinton spouse.
Aside the nastiness of the primary, the simple fact is that they don’t help each other in the general. Fewer of the people that would cross over for Obama in the general will do so with Hillary on the ticket as VP. At best she helps him secure the base by sacrificing the swing voters that really matter. And he doesn’t help her much as VP for similar reasons. He won’t be able to bring together his coalition with her at the top.