Palin is a good political gamble for McCain.  Her narrative steals the media focus.  Her image is a constant reminder of the lack of a Democrat dream ticket.  Arguments against her beg similar rehashing of Obama's past.  But most importantly, in my opinion, her choice frees McCain by allowing him to move his message back to maverick centrist, with substantially less likelihood of loosing his conservative base.

People vote for the President not the Vice President, and candidates are the most effective and persuasive when they can be themselves.  McCain, as the maverick centrist, is an established, resonating perception, with which he relishes and under which he thrives.

Palin's presence on the ticket brings the limelight and allows McCain to once again to board the `straight-talk express'.

"To my supporters, to my champions, to my sisterhood of the traveling pantsuits..." [HRC]

Clinton's speech last night was very emotionally charged, substantive and effective.  There is no doubt that she released her delegates and supporters from the burden of having to oppose Obama in order to defend her.  She should be highly commended.

It is now up to Obama to bring these disinclined voters home.  The Democrats should see some modest bump in the national polls, as those that may have been vocally argumentative to Obama's campaign, but were and are substantially supportive to all the positions of the party, finally allow themselves to be brought fully into the fold.

Regarding voters in swing counties of swing states, I remain unsure how this election plays out.  Obama still needs a strong case to connect viscerally and practically to these voters (the pro-life Democrats, those concerned about national security and appropriately projecting power abroad, those which need more traditional manufacturing opportunities and perceive themselves as not benefiting from either party's recent domestic policies, and those that make their voting choice late and purely from the gut).

I disagree with many of the editorials and commentaries from the main street media, which indicate that the Obama campaign needs to take a more negative approach.  I think the McCain campaign is and will continue to be largely immune to these tactics.  For many, this election is about choosing between something they know and trust, for better and worse, and between something for which they hope but need reassurance.

Obama should demonstrate strength, through conviction to a set of core causes, which have a definitive plan.  He needs to lay out his vision of the set of hard, but correct choices facing our nation, regarding the economy, health care, energy, education, environmental policy, trade, taxes and foreign policy.  A fear of eight more years of pander, of weak leadership and of polarization will drive the election towards McCain not towards Obama, because, in the end, gut check voting is still McCain's stronger suit.  Demonstration that, for these issues, Obama will make the tough choice, which is correct but not politically expedient, will go along way to bringing theses swing voters home.  This convention is his forum to do so.

He needs to feed our minds and our souls by bringing us back to the dinner table rather than the latte shop.

The whole Obama VP pick atmosphere has gotten tired and reminds me of a grade school popularity contest.  What is this 'I am not going to tell you my awesome secret' shtick?

The Obama campaign certainly needs a slam-dunk not to leave everyone disenchanted at this point.

On a more important note, I believe that, in addition to the Clinton supporters that are not currently supporting Obama in the polls and want her to be his Vice Presidential choice, there is an equally large number of weak Obama supporters waiting for him to show his mettle by not making a lame, antagonistic to the other half of the party, choice.

I don't envy his predicament, and would not find it unexpected to see a negative bounce from his VP choice under many circumstances.

My advice would be for him to suck-it-up and pick Clinton.  I think the best choice of the candidates, that would fit his natural inclinations, would be Richardson.  However, we will likely see a Biden, who I respect, as his VP choice, leaving everyone largely let down and begging the question for some of `why, if we need the tough old white guy, not vote for him as President'.

Diarist Note [2008-6-6 10:50:00 by Liame]:
It would seem that this information strongly implies a unity, Obama / Clinton, ticket. Although there are other alternatives, they tend to be regional options. There is, of course, still the possibility that a particular State may be deemed critical and, as such, a regional player might become the best alternative. However, with the timing of Edwards’ announcement, this, at the very least, was a nod to Clinton’s supports, that she is at the top of the VP options list. Otherwise there is no reason for Edwards to publicly address this issue at this time, especially in light of favorable polling that seemed to support a viability of his place on the ticket and in light of the value of keeping one’s opponents guessing.

--------------------
Perhaps life does in fact mimic fiction ... or was it psychic precognition?

[Farse with poll from June 4, 2008 diary] John refuses VP; Elizabeth supports Hillary for VP nod.
--------------------

--------------------
The Early Show’s (CBS) video interview this morning with the gentleman-statesman, John Edwards.


--------------------

**main story link**

REPORT: EDWARDS RULES OUT OBAMA VP SLOT
by Associated Press
Friday, June 6, 2008

MADRID, Spain -- Two Spanish newspapers are reporting that former U.S. Sen. John Edwards has ruled out accepting the vice presidency.

The country's leading dailies El Mundo and El Pais say Edwards told them he would decline the honor even if presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama offered it to him.

Calls by The Associated Press to several Edwards aides went unanswered and independent confirmation of Friday's reports was not immediately possible.

Edwards was a presidential candidate in this year's U.S. Democratic primaries.

In a brief pre-lights-out moment at the Edwards' household, Elizabeth informs John that she prefers Hillary's health care proposal and would like to see her on a joint ticket with Barack.  The matter is settled shortly thereafter as John reflects that there are too many pols sharing his bedroom.

;)

Clinton keeps base together & sets up firewall, as her first VP duties for Obama.
____

What seems to be missing in people's comments is the understanding of what was possible for Clinton to say, at this exact point, given the nature and expectations of her supporters.  Clinton supporters believe, not only that she should have won, but that she really did win and was denied that win by the party and its use of the rules, strong arming of her, coddling of him and allowing of the one sided media narrative.

What she did tonight was give them that win in as low a tone as possible, so not to be overly disrespectful to Obama.  Had she not, they as a group would have likely martyred her, and moved beyond her and consequently the party.  It was shrewd, and it is highly possible that this posturing was known and agreed to by both candidates and the DNC.

It is also true that she placed her constituents, her candidacy and herself in a position as a firewall for the Democratic Party, should his candidacy falter.  This as well is shrewd, and it is highly possible that this posturing was known and agreed to by both candidates and the DNC.

I expect that in a few days or earlier, based upon a pulse taking of her constituents, she will make the speech of praise and congratulations, whether this includes an actual concession, I believe, is immaterial and perhaps a calculated element by the party.  Remember, it is far easier for Obama to obtain the support of Clinton's constituency if it continues to move as a block with her than if it fragments.  Also remember that there certainly is a fear, among everyone, that another media circus may occur regarding a last-straw swift-boating of Obama.

Perhaps I am being to optimistic about the ability of the DNC to be competent, however there is no question in my mind that the Obama and Clinton campaigns, especially if they are talking together in any way, would have seen some of these pitfalls and developed an appropriate strategy.  This is the beginning of moving her base, of protecting the party in the case of the need for a sudden reversal, and of, I hope, her role as his Vice President.

As a Clinton supporter, and with Obama poised to become the presumptive nominee, my vote has gone from a Democratic Party certainty to somewhere between `theirs to loose' and `win me back'.  The hard line Obama constituency will likely say good riddance to voters like me, but, even though I fit directly in that same hard line Obama constituency demographic, I have had a tin ear, even as I have on occasion wanted otherwise, to his role as the persuasive Pied Piper.

I was appropriately asked elsewhere what it would take from Obama and what Obama supporters should do in order to convince voters like me, the remaining low hanging fruit, to commit to his general election candidacy.  The somewhat snide, but nevertheless truthful, answer is that I will know it when I see it.  That being said, the precursor that his supporters could do for people like me is demonstrate that you are not completely enraptured by an unrealistic image, with blinders to his failings and hostility to his detractors.  The Obama candidacy has some real weaknesses and Obama as a candidate is flawed, as are they all.  We need to air, acknowledge and overcome these limitations as well as examine his Achilles' heel, should there be one.  The empower yourselves meme has already run its course, a more scrutinizing approach will help some of us on the outside to feel like we are not joining a cult, if we decide to throw our support his way.

Although I and many others are compelled to strongly repudiate the Bush administration and its legislative supporters, John McCain is about the only Republican that would qualify for that role, even if it is just barely.  Additionally, it is my strong belief, especially in more conservative areas of the county, that the idea that "the deck is already stacked against McCain"  [Michael Cohen, The Politico, 6/3/08] is much more of an illusion than pundits would have you think.  McCain, I believe, meets the repudiate threshold, carries a strong personal life story and shares a necessarily similar approach to Iraq.  The deck is stacked against Republicans (i.e. Congress) but many people believe in a separation of Congress and Presidency approach, which could lead to universal punching of all the Democrats on the ticket except for Presidency.

Voters, I believe vote foremost from the gut, and currently, I would argue, McCain has Obama beaten at this level for undecided voters.  Obama must somehow convince us that he can make the hard choices, at the appropriate time and in a way that will either reflect us or at least not diminish us.  McCain demonstrated this capacity in his choices as a prisoner of war and in bucking the party line at certain critical junctures.  Obama has not.  The obvious answer to this touch point would be his offering of the Vice Presidency to Clinton.  Perhaps there are other ways, but in my mind choosing Edwards, Biden, Webb or Sebelius as Vice President, no matter how much I may like them or they may appear to help the ticket, does not provide this grounding.

Without the gut check, moving to policy issues, I believe, is somewhat irrelevant.  However, let us assume that Obama is able to satisfy the undecided voter's character considerations.  My take on this election's issues in order of importance are or will be as follows:

----------
The economy (A) as characterized by (i) health care, (ii) energy policy and (iii) fair trade; and

Social issues (B) as characterized by (iv) immigration that addresses control and worker visas, (v) affirmative action as a class rather than race issue and (vi) equal protection nomenclature and methodology for gay and conception / life issues; and

Foreign policy (C) as characterized by (vii) our world reputation and (viii) a prudent policy towards Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, China, Russia, Israel / Palestinians and others.
----------

Let's (1) start a list of ways for Obama to provide a necessary character touch point and (2) further discuss the politically significant (i.e. those that voters, not policy wonks, will perceive) policy differences regarding the topics above or others that may have been overlooked.  I will try to start and maintain a master list of these differences from an uncommitted, Clinton supporter's perspective.  We should pay particular attention to issues that affect the swing counties in the traditional, and any high likelihood new, swing states.

Any takers to start The Grand List?

Regarding the Obama campaign declaring victory shortly after the end of the primaries:

(I) I am betting very strongly on the premise, due to a shortage of super-delegates likely willing to commit by or just after the completion of the primaries, that the Obama campaign would not have been able to declare victory at the end of the primaries if both the Florida and Michigan delegates had not been cut in half.

(II) I am also betting strongly on the premise, due to a shortage of super-delegates likely willing to commit by or just after the completion of the primaries, that the Obama campaign would not have been able to declare victory at the end of the primaries if the Michigan uncommitted delegates had not been allocated to the Obama campaign by the Rules Committee.

(III) I am also betting on the premise, due to a shortage of super-delegates likely willing to commit by or just after the completion of the primaries, that the Obama campaign would not have been able to declare victory at the end of the primaries if the Michigan `four bonus' delegates had not been allocated to the Obama campaign by the Rules Committee.

.
I hope that I am wrong on all fronts, but would be reasonably satisfied if statement II and statement III turn out to be incorrect.  What do you think?