I have heard a lot of Democrats opposed to Clinton being the running mate say that if she were on the ticket it would motivate Republican voters (who may not otherwise participate) to show up at the polls on election day.  I'm not saying I agree with this...just that it seems plausible.

The RNC is still raking in money.  Bush is still pulling in donors.  And McCain's support among his base is higher than Obama's among his.  There may be a difference in energy level.  But that isn't going to keep Republicans from voting.  They know what is at stake.

I would respectfully disagree that choosing HRC gives Obama the best chance at victory.  The overwhelming majority of democrats and republicans who are dissatisfied with their party's candidate will end up voting for their candidate anyway.  Independent voters are far more likely to be undecided at this point and are more likely to have their opinion swayed by the VP pick.  I think people make too big a deal out of the primary results in certain states.  There seems to be an assumption that many of the folks who voted for HRC will not vote for Obama.  I just don't buy it.  

1) will turn out Republicans who might otherwise stay home so they can vote against a Clinton

2) would NOT appeal to independents

it is hard to imagine a major Democratic politician who would do more harm to the idea of change, especially given the presence of her big-mouthed husband

There are a lot of reasons why this ticket can't happen -- but in my opinion they are all subsumed by the most important factor for Democrats this fall, which is winning. Obama is running a very conventional campaign at this point, with bland messaging and frankly the same schlock ads from Democratic consultants. Were it not for the fact that the campaign is focusing HEAVILY on field organizing, I'd be worried.

If we're talking about a conventional campaign, then I think the math heavily works in HRC's favor. It's really undeniable if you look at the state by state polling. Bringing all the Democrats home seals the deal, potentially in landslide fashion electorally.

Frankly I think a VP choice can only potentially add supporters -- very rarely can a VP choice lose voters. Perhaps it will energize some of the Republican base to come home and vote against Hillary, but the Republican base will always be there. They vote, and, just like my parents, the noise machine will take them off the fence and squarely into McCain's camp. It's the way they work. Bring home all the Dems, split the indy's, and the election is ours.

Now, there are other routes. I love Wes Clark, Mark Warner, Kathleen Sebelius, or Brian Schweitzer as VP picks. Warner would be the closest thing to a checkmate in Virginia, which makes the election near impossible for McCain. But I don't see how Obama can pick another sitting senator before Hillary, so in my mind it comes down to Clinton and all the other non-Senators on the short list.

Don't disagree that it muddies the change message. And they will need to find a way to muzzle Bill to make such an arrangement work and get rid of the clowns that ran Hillary's presidential campaign (esp. Penn and Wolfson).

[All my $.02, obviously. And the math* is an intentionally Rovian phrase :) ]

given that Obama is already ahead in enough states to win, and there is no evidence that he is going to lose any state won by Kerry, and at a minimum is going to win IA and NM, and probably CO as well.  

The states where Clinton supposedly makes a difference, for example KY and WV and AR, are unlikely to be going Dem and if they are Obama has already won the election.  As for Virginia, all evidence is she would be a drag on the ballot.   And since if Obama wins VA's 13 EVs, holds the Kerry states and wins either IA or NM he is elected, I still fail to see what she brings to the ballot.

OH?   PA?    Obama will have no problems with PA with the possible exception of Ridge being the Republican #2, and that might have as many negatives for McCain nationally and possibly in PA as well. As for the Buckeye state, even putting Portman on the ballot is not likely to put it into play for McCain.

Let me go back to CO and NM  -   McCain wants to change the Colorado River water compact -  he has been slammed, especially in the Colorado newspapers, including the conservative ones.   He may have already lost that state by just that foot in mouth.  If so, he could even pick off one Kerry state and probably still lose.

Obama is in position to be competitive in a batch of states:  AK, MT, ND - which should not even be under consideration.  Together, only 9 EVs, but without which McCain will not win.   None of them is in play if Clinton is the running mate.

Again, it is not clear what net gain she could bring.  Most people who do the cold hard analysis come to the conclusion she is a net negative for the national ticket, and having her as a target is poison downballot in places like NC, where we have a Governor's slot to hold and a Senate seat to pick up.

...how do you think Obama did last night?  I thought he did ok, but not great. Unfortunately McCain's simplistic sound bites seemed to get a lot more applause than Obama's far more nuanced responses. On the other hand, I suppose Obama wins just by showing up at a forum like that and holding his own.  Thoughts?

Many Evangelicals want to hear that life begins at conception, and they then want to hear that after gestation their president will hunt down and kill people.  Nuance is lost on many of them.  Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition, etc, etc.

There are fortunately up and coming young Evangelicals who thing outside that box.

I mean, does it say ANYWHERE in the Bible that life begins at conception?  Check this out from a discussion at NLS:

Dear, dear t, it is actually a difficult and complex issue, not as cut and dry as you make it out. I quote back at you, the Holy Bible:

The Bible places no value on fetuses or infants less than one month old.

And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver. -- Leviticus 27:6

Posted by: Doug | August 17, 2008 at 11:42 AM

Are you a child? Not until you are a month old:

Number the children of Levi after the house of their fathers, by their families: every male from a month old and upward shalt thou number them. And Moses numbered them according to the word of the LORD. -- Numbers 3:15-16

Posted by: Doug | August 17, 2008 at 11:43 AM

And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. -- Numbers 31:15-17

Posted by: Doug | August 17, 2008 at 11:44 AM

Also:

http://www.ffrf.org/nontracts/abortion.php

Space permits only a small sampling of biblical commandments or threats to kill children:

* Numbers 31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones.
* Deuteronomy 2:34 utterly destroyed the men and the women and the little ones.
* Deuteronomy 28:53 And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters.
* I Samuel 15:3 slay both man and woman, infant and suckling.
* 2 Kings 8:12 dash their children, and rip up their women with child.
* 2 Kings 15:16 all the women therein that were with child he ripped up.
* Isaiah 13:16 Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled and their wives ravished.
* Isaiah 13:18 They shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eyes shall not spare children.
* Lamentations 2:20 Shall the women eat their fruit, and children.
* Ezekiel 9:6 Slay utterly old and young, both maids and little children.
* Hosea 9:14 give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts.
* Hosea 13:16 their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.

Don't these evangelicals believe that the Bible is the literal truth of God?  If so, then how do they reconcile their belief that life begins at conception with what's written in the Bible?

The Bible is the Republican talking points, not the book.

whether all Evangelicals have read the entire Old Testament; the bible is really long and not everything is as exciting as Exodus.  Plus, as the name Evangelical implies, the Gospels are most important.  And even if we look at the Old Testament, in Leviticus, the importance of reproduction is stressed.  You aren't to masturbate or lie down with other men.  If God is going to all the trouble of writing all these rules for sexual behavior (and Leviticus has more than I mentioned) to ensure reproduction, is the importance of the results of reproduction not implied if not explicit in the instructions given?

But in the end, we can quote the bible all day and that won't change the theological doctrine or beliefs of the major Christian denominations.  Ultimately this is not a winnable argument.  The answer to your questions is it's faith, it's belief.  It's not bound by reason.

The Bible itself is self-contradictory on this issue, and certainly does NOT ever define life as "beginning at conception."  Also, I'm not sure I agree that faith and reason are irreconcilable, polar opposites.  In fact, there are many people of faith who are extremely rational, reasoned, intelligent, informed, etc.

You'd have to ask them what their faith means.  In the way that I was using it, their faith in the Gospels and the teachings of their pastor, minister, priest, church, etc...

As to reason and faith, many have tried to reconcile the two.  You have those enamored with Greek philosophy that tried to marry the two in centuries past.  But there is no reasoned, absolute, ultimate proof of the existence of God or that the interpretation of God in the bible or in Christian teachings is the correct one.  There is just belief at the end of the day.  If you deconstruct one of your beliefs using reason, then how does that not call into question the whole?  

I'm not saying that reason and faith cannot coexist.  They do.  But do the reasoned, intelligent, informed people you know apply the same reasoning and critical eye to their faith?  And even if they do, do they arrive at a reasoned basis for their beliefs?  At some point, you have to say I have faith that this is the way it works despite lingering questions out there.  To take reasoned arguments to their conclusion is to be agnostic.

Both pollster.com and fivethirtyeight.com show that Obama is a favorite in all the Kerry states, with only Michigan and New Hampshire (and perhaps Oregon) competitive. New Mexico and Iowa currently favor Obama. However, after that base of 264 EVs, the path to 270 is much more competitive. Current polling show Colorado and Ohio moving back toward toss-up status from their 'lean Obama' status during mid-summer.

So, in my mind, Colorado, Ohio, Virginia, Florida, North Carolina, Indiana, and Missouri are the states that can put Obama over the top by themselves, while any two of Nevada/North Dakota/Montana/Alaska could also seal the deal.

In at least Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, Indiana, and Missouri, Obama receives less than 80% of the vote and John McCain receives around 20% of the Democratic vote. I would imagine that many of those Democrats that are voting McCain were Hillary Clinton supporters in the primary and could be brought back on board by putting her on the ticket.

It's worth putting more pressure on McCain's resources by putting Ohio and Florida and North Carolina fully in play even if it marginally reduces our chances of winning Colorado or Virginia. However, I have yet to see any compelling proof that putting Hillary on the Clinton reduces our chances of winning these (or any) states. You don't provide any proof that Hillary on the ballot would take AK, MT, or ND out of play.

I'm just looking at what the data say and figuring out what might be the best way to bring all Democrats home for November, and it's rewarding the candidate that got 18 million votes in the primaries. Now, perhaps many of those will come home anyway once the convention and debates happen, but again I'd rather not risk it. The crosstabs from the recent polling on Democratic voters scream out.

As for downballot races, well, I fail to see how unifying Democrats in North Carolina harms Bev Perdue or Kay Hagan's chances. To the contrary, with Democratic self-identification surging, the most important thing we need for victory is unifying the base. Approx. 45-47% of Democratic primary voters voted for Hillary. Their enthusiastic support, monetary support, and votes will be crucial to winning in November.

So, I say she solidifies our chances in Ohio and shifts Florida dramatically, and that she'll help solidify our chances in at least New Mexico and Nevada (where she performed well). Arkansas instantly comes in play if she and Bill are campaigning there. And I think she helps in North Carolina, Missouri, and Indiana. That's an impossible map for McCain.

It may make life harder for us in Virginia, but at the end of the day the Virginia race will be won/lost with the Webb-Allen map -- gigantic margins in NoVa and Richmond, and a competitive Tidewater.  

I believe that Americans believe in the Clinton brand, remembering fondly the Clinton years. However, I thing that a Hillary Clinton Administration would be a disaster for the country. I will gladly support a female candidate for president and I will give her my full support. I just don't buy into Clinton's story at all. I know plenty of others who don't as well all across the political spectrum. Every leader eventually becomes polarizing. However, we need leaders who do not come polarizing. The political map across the US is changing right now. We cannot go back in time even if 18 million voters think we should. We cannot even if a majority think we should.

This is too important.

Republicans are so revved up to stop Obama that adding Clinton will not bring out more of them, they are at full tilt.  Adding Clinton will add what Obama's biggest weakness tends to be, his limited resume in national politics.  Clinton as VP certainly will assure moderate independents that experience is accessible a few feet away.  Whether Obama will seek and listen to that experienced voice (or voices) is debatable, but  it would be very comforting to thousands of voters that he has  chosen experience over ego, the mark of a leader.  Prediction time:  without HRC on the ticket Obama loses Virginia and the election.  With her on the ticket he gets enough fence sitting women votes and moderate white votes to eke it out and wins the election. Second prediction, if Obama and Hillary win the next Secret Service recruitment will be for food tasters.  Whoever disagrees with my predictions should have the sand to put up their own in reply.  It is too late after the election to venture a guess.

this interesting:

If Virginia were a person, it would look a lot like Rod Markham, a federal contractor, retired from the Army, who's leaning ever so slightly toward Obama but is still of two minds about the presidential race. "There's a part of me that wants so bad to go for Obama," he says, "and another part that says play it safe and go for McCain."

The part of Virginia that wants to go Obama is here in the northern tier that includes the Washington suburbs and the booming Dulles Technology Corridor, which has replaced downtown D.C. as the region's business center. So diverse is the area that some 100 languages are spoken at home by kids in Fairfax County public schools. The last Democrat who won this state in a presidential contest was LBJ, but Virginia's demographics are changing so quickly that the question this year is whether Obama will win big enough in the north to offset support for McCain in the state's much more conservative south and southwest. Turnout, especially among new voters, is expected to decide the outcome, along with swing voters like Markham, a centrist who expects to be arguing with himself right up to Election Day.

What exactly is on her resume? Being First Lady in my mind adds nothing to your national policy experience. Also, Virginia voted for Obama over Clinton. Plenty of people here do not like Clinton and do not remember her in the White House with fondness. I know the Secret Service didn't like her. I doubt that Clinton will be able to convince Appalachian voters and bring in enough of them to counteract all the Northern Virginia voters she would lose for the Democrats.

Honestly, I think Obama would be stupid to bring her on the ticket and I doubt he will. I don't want another Clinton White House, I want democracy.

"...Clinton as VP certainly will assure moderate independents that experience is accessible a few feet away..."

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one.  First, I don't see HRC's experience as that much more extensive than Obama's.  Second, I would guess that a pretty low percent of folks who call themselves moderate independents are fans of HRC.  

I don't necessarily think that picking HRC as the VP would cost Obama the election, but I think it would kill Obama's momentum in states like Virginia.

PPP now shows a tie in Ohio in their just-released poll.

Barack is only getting 75% support from Democrats. Take that number up to 90% (and reduce McCain's support from Democrats), and we're talking about a 5 point lead for Obama.

It's the safest pick. Doesn't mean he needs to do it (or will) -- I think Barack wins the Presidency regardless. But I'd rather have a rout than a nail-biter. If the McCain wins Ohio and Florida, Obama's route to the presidency goes through Iowa + New Mexico + (Virginia/Colorado), and is predicated on holding Michigan and New Hampshire.

With HRC on the ticket, IMO there are more paths to get to 270 EVs. Ohio and Florida being the two biggest reasons.  

Polls show that primary voters in many northern states and cities cited race as an important factor in voting for either Obama or Clinton at a higher rate than voters in many rural areas, including Appalachia.  After all, whether black or white, if the race of a candidate is the primary basis for a voter's support, that is racism.  What does seem to matter more is the candidate's stand on certain hot button issues, whether guns,  gay rights or patriotism (perceived or real).  Obama has to pick a VP who brings more predictability to the slate or, the day or two before election, most of the latent fence straddlers will come  down for McCain, a well known entity.  We have seen it in every recent election when the polling is close, the liberal candidate loses a point or two at the very end due to fear of substantial change, the very essence of the Obama movement.   With HRC, these voters will feel more confident, although her presence may not make any difference at all in reality.  HRC or Wes Clark will engender more confidence among these swing voters than Kaine or any of the others on the short list.  If Obama loses, the media will play up racism, and no doubt there will be some racism impacting both presidential candidates, but lack of confidence in what Obama might do in tight situations will be the primary reason for last minute voters trending toward McCain unless  Obama's VP candidate can make up the difference.  McCain will hurt himself with Romney and Obama will hurt himself with fellow neophytes. The VP could very well end up being president someday, so it is very important.  Conversely, Bush's best insurance has been Chaney, no one wished for W to slip on a banana peel with Dead-eye Dick in the wings!      

Bill would be the loose cannon on deck. Obama has already said Bill would be a liability.

Obama has offices in only 49 states. There are no offices in Arkansas. Taking this along with the following, the question becomes "Who needs an office in Arkansas, since Hillary will be the VP".  

After all, why give Bill Clinton the important spot before the VP, unless he is going to introduce his wife as the VP?  

Considering all the support Obama is giving towards the name in nomination, it certainly points in that direction.

Also consider at one time Obama had around a 51%-42% lead and it has dwindled to 44%-44%. Those figures could certainly be a wake up call to any candidate, that he needs more help than a Biden or any other male candidate.

Everything points to Obama needing help from a strong female candidate and that leaves Hillary Clinton.  As far as the polls go there is only one thing in Obama's favor; McCain has never been above 44%, which indicates the hard core Republicans and Indenpendants are sticking with  McCain, unless he picks a Ridge or Leiberman.

Last night's forum was a total win by McCain.  Of course, when one listens to the applause as each entered the stage, it certainly was a McCain crowd. It has me thinking, why did Obama even agree to last night's forum?  Was it to silence the radical emails etc. circulating loke "He's a Muslim", that was probably all that was accomplished at last night's forum for Obama. Looking deeper into last nights forum, McCain certainly showed his pro-war side. Almost everything he said was about war.

Taking all the past events including the slide in the polls, it becomes abundantly clear that if Hillary is not the VP, forget a Democratic President being sworn in, in 2009.

...ot say "if Hillary is not the VP, forget a Democratic President being sworn in, in 2009" is ridiculous.  Obama can win the White House with numerous running mates, including Wes Clark, Joe Biden, several others.

All I saw were McCain's responses; on the personal experience ones, he excelled because he was so candid.  On the social issues ones, his responses were red meat for the crowd.  The most comical I thought was when Rick Warren asked him: How do you define rich (in the sense of taxing the rich)?

And McCain responded: "Raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens, Bright copper kettles and warm woolen mittens,
Brown paper packages tied up with strings..."  "... and that, my friends, is why can't tax the rich."  I'm paraphrasing, of course.  Seems to me if the people he knows that have lots and lots of money are unhappy, then having them part with a little of it would make them less unhappy, right?