I'm dissappointed in Joe Lieberman for making a dishonest case for John McCain last night.  He reminded me so much of the bloggers here and the partisans elsewhere, who instead of celebrating the greatness of the country by engaging in an honest politics, they use our political system to demonstrate their personal character flaws.

For instance, to ask democrats to "vote for the best person" regardless of party, at the Republican Convention where they explicitly are not going to do the same thing is dishonest and shameful.   There was irony  in that McCain didn't choose the best person for the country to run as his Vice President (perhaps Lieberman himself) because he put the party first.

It's sad because a newcomer to politics might become seduced with the "bipartisan" rhethoric only to be dissillusioned later.

There are many honest cases to be made for both Senators to be our next President.  

By "honest"  I mean they are logical, based in actual truth rather than political spin, and would be recognized as valid a year from now by fair observers from both sides.

Here are my reasons for voting for Obama:

- He will bring with him a team of Democrats to staff the various agencies in government, as well as make appointments to the Judiciary with whom I generally agree with more than McCain would do.

- I agree with Obama's approach on an issue like Universal HealthCare.  His general framework along with a Democratic Congress will produce a better system for all Americans.  I especially like the idea of making affordable healthcare available to everyone, while making an effort not to force people to buy it unless it was actually necessary for the system to work.  McCain has a more piecemeal approach that relies more on the individual in a market that clearly has failed to work as well as it should.

- Though it probably won't be passed out of Congress, Obama supports common sense gun regulations and safety measures that coupled with continued law enforcement could make the U.S. safer.
McCain would be much less likely to sign these measures.

- In the current system, I agree with the Obama plan to cut 95% of the people's taxes and raise taxes on the wealthy.  This is better than running a deficit that will have to be addressed in the future.

I don't believe McCain would actually veto spending bills when push came to shove.  So the political choices are: more debt, more taxes on the wealthy.  I think we are better off as a nation with less debt for mundane business.

- I'm a yellowdog democrat who is dedicated to building up our party.  I think it is important for people to choose sides and stick with them.  Fight to improve them if necessary, but I don't like "swing voters" who are able to be swayed by the media and tv ads.  They cheapen the process and put our democracy in peril by their intellectual laziness.

-At this point, Obama needs to be elected because we as a Democratic Party haven't dealt with the emotions of African Americans if he loses.  It could be really dangerous both physically and psychologically.  So, it is important Obama win because of what it would represent to Americans and people around the world.

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

2 examples of dishonesty that I reject are:

-McCain would be a Bush 3rd term.  He has demonstrated his indepedence from Bush on the War, drilling, taxes, spending.  It nearly cost him the nomination, but he survived.
Sure he has flipped/flopped, but no one honestly expects McCain to be just like Bush.

-Obama will bring real change to Washington.  There is nothing that I can point to that makes that a reasonable statement other than he is black; which most people explicitly state that is not the reason to vote for him.

---
now I wish Obama:

-  wasn't culturally a left wing person.  I would prefer a Biden, Hillary, or others who might have to deal with the left but wasn't one of them instinctively.

-supported a stronger defense by being more aggressive.  I don't believe for instance that he would actually attack Bin Laden in Pakistan without their permission.  Though it would be the right thing to do.  I think he's saying something that he doesn't expect would ever happen to look tough.

-advocated for school vouchers for everyone so we all could choose the best available school for our children.

- promoted traditional moral values, he sometimes talks about them (like in the Warren forum), but again I don't believe him based on the infrequency and lack of passion.

-advanced fair trade that would actually make the world a better place by demanding higher standards around the world before you could trade with us.

- legalized internet poker and sports betting, and other gambling, and let the government regulate it.

But this is not a perfect world, so I make my choice:

Obama/Biden.

I have tried to warn my party about the danger of nominating Barack Obama under the current circumstances.

He was the least qualified among the major the contenders.

His base supported him because of identity politics.

The media shielded him from many legitimate criticisms.
---
Now as Obama engages in his first REAL nationial campaign of his life, he finds himself against John McCain who is actually trying to win and Republicans don't have to worry about  hurt "feelings" from their strategy or attack.

The choice of Palin was brilliant.  I thought it would be a woman (Hutchinson of Texas) for the very reason it turned out to be Palin.

Obama and his crew won by leveraging the black vote, irrespective of issues.  

If each democratic primary voter chose their candidate based on the issues, then Obama wouldn't have gotten 90% of the black vote, and Hillary wouldn't have gotten the lion share of the older white women vote.   There really wasn't any serious issue debate in the Democratic Campaign.  It was a circus about identity politics.  The subtext of Jesse Jackson Jr., Michael E. Dyson, John Lewis, John Kerry, and others either overtly or in more subtle ways alluding to Obama's race was/is bad both morally and politically.

I pleaded with Obama (and supporters) to reject the support on that basis, and now it will come back to harm him.

Gov. Sarah Palin is making a cynical appeal to women, BECAUSE SHE'S A REAL WOMAN!

Never mind the issues.
She's a 5 time mother.

Never mind the politics.
She's a spouse and a working woman.

What should concern us as a nation is:

SARAH PALIN is totally unqualifed to be President or Vice President of the United States.

Democrats will try to make a rational case as to how being a woman with a right-wing agenda doesn't help women, but the problem is we've spent months voting/not voting based essentially on women vs blacks vs men  vs whites.  The Obama team did the math and realized that if they combined the black vote with the young voters and elite liberals, they couldn't be stopped, and superdelegates wouldn't move against the first black candidate with a chance to win.  The Denver convention showed why the Obama camp was correct.

But now we have harmed our country by lowering the standard for POTUS.  The republicans have nominated someone who doesn't pass the laugh test.

Before 2008, Democrats would have said this loudly and clearly, but now we have to redouble our efforts and find a sensitive way to criticize Palin while not harming Obama with the same shot.

By the way, I judge Palin as I do every other aspirant:

She has not assumed power or elected to an important position (governor in this case), done a great job and been re-affirmed (re-elected) by the people.  She has not been tested in a real way.  

Now just as many  blacks support Obama because he's black.  Even though many of them are very conservative and disagree with Obama on many issues.

Gov. Palin is seeking similar support from women, white women especially, and has the various "cards" to play:

mother of child with disability
mother of son in Iraq
working woman "not afraid of the good ole boys"
reform against her own party.

The truth of each assertion doesn't matter, just like Obama's real position on Iraq or various issues doesn't matter to many of his supporters.

Republicans have now ruined their party's principles to win an election.  They used to stand for merit and now that is clearly another tenet that has been abandoned.

They chose their VP based on factors other than merit.

If you listen to her speech, she sounded like a Democrat.  She's a working mom, part of a Union family, and celebrating the anniversary of women suffage.

I know she is right-wing, but she is the "new" right-wing that asks for Left-Wing votes based on Identity politics.

It would be nice if we as democrats would have rejected this in the primary.

But no one wanted to listen.

---
Before the conventions this election was a dead heat with a slight lean towards Obama. After the conventions I expect much the same, except if Palin doesn't mess up, the lean towards Obama will be less so.

Going forward,
Democrats should get ready for a big battle in the fall by advancing issues that matter to people:

-judges on the Supreme Court
-Universal Healthcare
-better foreign policy
-cleaner environment

and stop talking about "history".  This is code for "vote for the black guy" so America can move beyond race.  

The Republicans found their answer this morning, "vote for the white woman".

They aren't exactly equal in that Palin in running for VP, but it gives enough energy on the margins to make a difference.

Especially in light of what happened to HRC, it might work.

Learn the lesson today and quickly.

Craig Farmer

btw.  this wouldn't be a bad time for Joe Biden to drop out of the race, and let HRC take her rightful position.

If you read the reports about Barack Obama's historic nomination, the subtext is clear. America is less racist because Democrats chose Obama. The opposite was being threatened if he somehow was denied: "Democrats (and America) are still racist and a black man can't get ahead".

I reject this thinking as insulting to me as an African American, and to my great country.

It is also an affront to Martin Luther King's stated vision of America.

Obama and Clinton were never judged by the content of their character.  Instead, blacks, liberals, and some young people judged him by his skin tone and what they thought he represented.

They concluded he represented progress and the future.  
No one seriously thinks Obama is "change" in a real sense that will matter in our daily lives.  If so, how?

This is all about race.  Exactly what King said it shouldn't be about.

The question we must ponder is: If obama loses, is America racist? That was the implication in the Primaries.

Well let me answer:

America is not racist. This is true whether or not Obama won/lost the Democratic nomination.

America is not racist. This is true whether or not Obama wins in November.

It is fine and great for many people to reflect on the racist past of America and to celebrate progress, but it is not fine to attempt to emotionally blackmail our political system into choosing a person we wouldn't otherwise choose.

Many people have said Obama won not as a black candidate but one who just happened to be be black. That is a bold faced lie. Were Obama a white candidate he wouldn't have had the audacity to run for POTUS. If he did, he would have done just as well as John Edwards or Dennis Kucinch.

This election is a victory for the radical left and the African American community who basically threatened the Democratic Party with mass apathy and chaos if Obama didn't win.

Hillary's only chance was to prevent Obama from ever getting going. That was impossible because the same people above were guaranteed to give him a chance to get going. The liberal electorate was never going to pass up this chance to prove they "weren't racists" anymore.

So far from being above and beyond race, this election is all about race. Sometimes shamelessly as in the Obama campaign in South Carolina, other times in a sad way such as right now.

By the way, I'm under no allusions that Hillary wouldn't do the same thing in reference to gender if she were allowed to. But the media's Clinton fatigue, plus the fact that race trumps gender in politics never permitted it to happen. Witness her "crying moment" in New Hampshire. The media was cynical from day 1 (As they should have been). Contrast that with the "Rev. Wright--I could no more disown him than my own white grandmother speech". The media accepted the bogus template completely.

I will vote for Obama in November because

- I'm a yellow dog dem and I want my party to rule the country
- Obama will appoint better judges than McCain
--Obama will work to make the criminal justice system more effective than McCain will.
-Obama supports a strong government to give people a fair chance to succeed and so do I.
-Obama supports gun control and so do I.

The policy reasons go on and on, but that's not why Democrats chose Obama and why he is being celeberated today.

It is sad that Democrats have chosen because of his race.
Many white Democrats saw/see this as their opportunity to solidify their black vote for the rest of their life and they have taken it.

This was the wrong way to make history.  It has been done numerous times the right way:

Thurgood Marshall on the Supreme Court
Jackie Robinson in MLB
various ceo's in business(we couldn't name them all if we tried)
Colin Powell in the military

The proper way to break a barrier like this was to run a qualified African American, win fair and square based on the issues, and then recognize the achievement afterwards.

Once again, Obama can change all of this tonight, by acknowledging the above, and saying he should be judgeed on the merits.  Either way, he and Michelle (yeah right!) will still love this country as a fair place and the best place to live.

Craig Farmer
making the word "liberal" safe again!

On July 8th I predicted an obama-biden ticket would win 306 electoral votes:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/7/8/12553 4/6701

Since then there have been many changes that have forced me to change my opinion.  First, here is what I expect to happen:

1.  Obama-Biden to end up the Democratic convention leading McCain in the polls by 13:
Obama 52
McCain 39

2.  I expect McCain to pick a woman (Hutchinson of Texas) or some other non-white male.

(If somehow Colin Powell joins the ticket it is over for Obama. But I predict he won't do that because he truly supports Obama.
It would spell disaster for Obama because McCain would challenge him for the "change" label in a racial sense and give moderates who feel guilty voting against "the black guy" an easy out)

3.  After the Republican Convention, McCain-Hutchinson will take a slim lead:

McCain 46
Obama  44

4.  On the night of the 1st debate:

Obama 46
McCain 44
--------------
Here are the problems that have changed an Obama victory into trouble (no order):

1.  Colorado has an  Affirmative Action ballot question that will force Obama to take a position:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008 -08-24-affirmative_N.htm

McCain will support preferences based on economic need
Obama will wind up supporting race based preferences and opposing the initiatives because of the leftwing in the Dem and black community.

This will cause defeat in Colorado and Virginia because of 3rd party ads.

2.  The U.S. will declare (rightfully) declare victory in Iraq and announce a timetable for withdrawal based on conditions on the ground.  This timetable will be essentially the Obama plan.

So McCain will present the same plan as Obama EXCEPT:

McCain will argue his surge plan led to victory,
while
Obama opposed the surge and didn't have a plan for victory but just wanted to withdraw.

Obama will lose badly in this area.

3.  McCain will own the energy issue with a combination plan of drilling, conservation, new technology, etc.  There isn't any rightwing group to offend, so McCain can offer anything he wants.  Obama has to keep the leftwing happy by trying to move the U.S.  away from oil drilling.  

This is a political loser.  He either flip flops for political gain or takes a political hit for being too "liberal".

4.  Obama and his people continue to resent Bill Clinton and HRC to a lesser extent.  By not retiring her (public) debt, consulting her with the VP pick, and making some grand gesture of apology for the primary, I expect the Clintons to sabotage this election in a passive-aggressive way.

I don't think it will happen this week at the conventions. I think they both will be great actors and read the lines the proper way.  But as the election grows near, this could all fall apart as people get ready to Cover their A's.

-----
That said, I support Obama-Biden 2008 and have solutions that can help Democrats sweep into office in 2009:

1.  Offer a mend it-don't end it update to Affirmative Action that says:

move away from racial preferences towards a needs based agenda in most areas.

still support affirmative action where there is a historical need for diversity in positions of power.  

So this would mean no race based AA for colleges, jobs, etc.
Instead use economics, life circumstances. (In most cases, the most neediest of minorities would still get a preference, but so too would many whites).

Also it would mean we would continue to have AA for top jobs like College Presidents, Leadership training programs, Military, government jobs, business loans/programs, etc.

Most people understand we need our leaders to truly represent the population in as many ways as possible, but they also understand that on a daily - everyday level, race doesn't factor into the lives of many people and it is unfair to have any preferences there.

We need to make it clear that we understand that America is a good place today, way better than it used to be, and is on path to eliminate the need for any race based remedies in the next generation.

2.  Support "real change" in a policy way.  I have advocated this from the primary. It can be on any number of topics.  Obama-Biden need  to break away from at least one of the Democratic constituency groups and show that they represent a "new" approach.

I propose

a.
 Universal School Vouchers.  Not means tested, but for everyone.  People who want to support the public schools can take their voucher there.  It can be coupled with INCREASED educational spending so people can't argue there would be a money drain on the public school.

b.

A real drilling plan that creates jobs in America.  Challenge the private sector to use American technology to do it safely.

This coupled with plans for Alternative Fuels would be good for America and good politics.

Set a goal for more energy production within 2 years, and Energy Independence in 8 years using alternatives and fossil fuels.

3.
Find a way to get the Clintons invested in an Obama victory.  They both like McCain and are comfortable with the Democrats controlling the Congress and a McCain White House.  

Obama should:
a. explicitly apologize to Bill for his supporters attack on Clinton.

b. work with Clinton on the above Affirmative Action policy
c. support HRC for Majority Leader in the Senate, and allow HRC to have veto over domestic policy.
d. allow Bill Clinton to have veto over foreign policy

I realize the word "veto" is strong, but Obama must convince both of them, that an Obama admin. would be a 3rd Clinton admin.

e. make it clear that Bill Clinton modernized the Dem party and America and made it possible for him to run/win.

3.  Strongly oppose the California Supreme Court decision, and strongly support traditional marriage.  Even though it appears to be popular in California, failure to stand up to this will lose key states.

---
This next week won't matter one bit in November.
We're in trouble again on the Presidential level.
But we have plenty of time to offer America a positive agenda, and install Democrats as a true majority party.

Craig Farmer
making the word "liberal" safe again!

I know the above is tough medicine

A few years ago, Kwame Kilpatrick represented the hip-hop generation coming of age and taking responsibility in an important way.

Now, Kilpatrick is in danger of stereotyping an important segment of the population-young African Americans interested in politics, and also bringing down Obama and the Democratic Party with him.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/24/k ilpatrick.investigation/index.html

Shows the initial charges of corruption.  Of lying and obstructing justice.  Of marital infidelity and official misconduct.

Recently, more charges have been added:

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news /story.html?id=966a7371-3491-4e2e-b9bf-1 d0c062e46ea

and as politico is reporting, there is increasing  "racial" tension between Detroit and it's suburbs:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/080 8/12433.html

3. Michigan's in play for McCain. In the year of the downturn, the hard-hit upper Midwest should be prime Obama country. Instead it's a potential minefield. Obama is still ahead by two to five points there -- similar to margins of victory enjoyed by Gore and Kerry in the last two presidential contests -- but McCain has quietly crept up over the past month and could vault ahead if he anoints ex-Gov. Mitt Romney as his running mate. Simmering tensions between predominantly black Detroit and its white suburbs could hurt Obama. And McCain's surrogates were handed a gift in the jailing of Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, an Obama supporter. "Watch Michigan -- the Democrats think they've got it but they don't," says Quinnipiac's Peter Brown, a longtime Michigan observer. "Obama should be killing [McCain] there, but there's a lot more racial tension in Michigan than in other states."
---

Currently Obama has about a 3 point lead, and is under 50% in Michigan.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ 2008/president/mi/michigan_mccain_vs_oba ma-553.html

Since I think a fair analysis of this election is:

The country wants a Democrat, but is Obama acceptable?

Barack Obama must bring REAL CHANGE to the Democratic Party and to the country.

This could and should come in the form of making sure people take personal responsibility for their actions in real and concrete ways.

The Detroit Mayor should be told to resign by Obama!

Obama should pressure the Michigan governor to remove him.  She has that power.

Obama needs to show the country that Bush type loyalty and party politics will not be tolerated in an Obama administration.

That can start with him setting the tone as the leader of our party.

We don't need to wait around for trials and long-drawn out processes to know from what is stipulated and admitted to on the record should force Kilpatrick to resign.

Spitzer resigned and he should have.
William Jefferson hasn't resigned and he should.
John Edwards should have never ran
Kwama Kilpatrick should resign also.

For the politics, we don't want to get in the Republican mode of covering up for bad actors.

But I'm arguing for a real standard of morality regardless of the politics.

Democrats should stand for honesty in government, and good family people.

We can define standards that demand that people at least be honest in their public statements, and be accountable for their actions in a way that matters: their job and money.

Obama is in danger of being grouped with people like Kilpatrick in Michigan and it might cost him the state.

If Obama makes it clear, America comes first, good government comes first, then he won't be liable for every supporters' or colleagues misstep.  

But if he is associated with them, and responds to gross bad behavior in a normal political way, then many American people will judge him to be just like the rest of them.

Obama needs to take a vacation from vacationing and

stand against Edwards
stand against Kilpatrick

and

get on offense in the POTUS race and stop playing defense.

Craig Farmer
making the word "liberal" safe again!

Let's stipulate:

We all make mistakes.
We're all human.
Everyone deserves a second chance.

That said. The Democratic Party needs to distinguish itself as an institution and fight for the survival of a strong marital institution.

While candidates like John Edwards take nearly every opportunity to promote their "family values", and make their private situations public for their political benefit, there is a disturbing pattern developing in our culture where everyone refuses to set moral standards, and hold people accountable.

A look at all the "elite opinion" basically states:

the infidelity was wrong and unfortunately is a part of our society, but the "real" shame is how Edwards lied to the American People, and how he let down so many young people.

I agree with their second point, but we must not allow the idea of men and women being faithful in their marriage to become an "unattainable" standard.

This will take good men like Obama to take the unpleasant but necessary step of standing up for the America we want to live in, and define it in positive terms.  Obama should set standards as a candidate for President.

Real Change can mean:

1. a faithful honest husband, Americans can trust (change from Bill Clinton)

2. an honest political leader who will make good decisions (change from George Bush)

Mind you, setting a standard doesn't mean anyone who breaks it will receive something equivalent to the death penalty.  

But it does mean that we establish a tradition that we work hard to build on and ultimately pass on to our children better than we found it.  

It also means that we as a people both through our government and through various methods in civil society establish right and wrong, and define moral values.

Some of them are easy like being against murder,rape, stealing, etc.; while others of them like marital infidelity are becoming increasingly difficult to attack because of the sheer propensity of "good people" to do bad things.

Obama should throw John Edwards "under the bus", and for good reason.  

He can reiterate that John is his friend.
That he still wishes to work with him in the future.

But that for John Edwards to lie to the American People while running for President was wrong.

He should say that having sexual relations with another woman is wrong. He should say that this has lead to many problems for John that he will have to deal with.

This was not a lie about some distant past that was "over" and done with. This was "real-time" dishonesty that we as Americans should not accept.

Of course, the potential damage to the party and the country should be factored in, but the real damage is to the idea, that you can have an affair, supposedly tell your wife, lie about it, and not establish bad examples for our young people.

Today, I went to a baseball tournament for 19 year boys/young men.

I thought to myself that Edwards behavior had increased the cynicism about politicians especially since his campaign was built on a moral foundation.  But also that he is helping to institutionalize bad behavior, and now we are lowering the standards in our country.

My solution:

Edwards could have kept this completely quiet had he decided to work in the private sector and not seek to be an official representative of the U.S. as POTUS.

but...

Once he decided to run for President, Edwards should have had the courage to be honest with the American People, tell how he failed, how he is committed to changing in the future.  Furthermore, his wife should have insisted on telling 100% of the truth, all the time.

Obama should say these painful things, and say that he will be trying to establish a Presidency, a Politics, and a cultural change that values Marriage.

The message we need to say without hesistation to our young men and women growing up:

take Marriage seriously, be a honest person, take responsibility for your mistakes and that's more than saying,
"I take full responsibility".

Craig Farmer
making the word "liberal" safe again!

I am determined to continue my mission to move us as a democratic party toward a mainstream agenda that promotes opportunity for all Americans, and demands reponsibility in turn.

One strain of thought that has persisted in the Democratic Primary came from Obama supporters who basically assert that America is racist.  They allow that we may have made some progress but the problems of race are a major factor in the lives of many people daily.  

If you listened to the criticism of HRC and WJC, if you listen to the rants of Rev. Wright and Fleger, if you listen to Michelle Obama, if you listened to Obama and Oprah campaign in South Carolina, there was a tone set that was not only inaccurate but harmful.

I am an African American who used to acknowledge the racist nature of this country.  That is until it stopped and we, the Civil Rights Community, the Democratic Party, we the Liberals won and America has changed.

While there are exceptions, and statistics to highlight the problems, the rule of fairness and equal opportunity is evident before our eyes everyday in so many ways that it doesn't make sense to try to list them.  From appointments to important jobs, available credit,educational opportunities,  to the ability to work and live where you please, the opportunity to start a business, a charity, a church, to make mistakes and get second chances etc.

Yet, time and time again, we hear people on the extreme Left, who still have too much power in our party point to examples that basically say, "If he were white, it wouldn't have happened".  

The "It" can be 1 or thousands of scenarios that assert some racial bias.

I linked to this article about a WHITE MAYOR near my home in Maryland who got treated the way the extreme Left say BLACKS GET TREATED REGULARLY:

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/b al-mayor0807,0,4563211.story

The police shot his dogs, handcuffed the mayor and his family, and generally did a bad job.

Were this mayor, black, the issue of RACE would be paramount.

But the fact is, police have a tough job to do, and no matter the color, they make mistakes sometimes.  They get it right way, way, more times.

There are bad police with racist motivations.  Just like there are bad teachers with sexist movtivations.  Or bad firemen with anti-Catholic motivations.

But the system is set up to be fair, and the people in general are working hard to make it a reality.

What I'm saying is, we as a Democratic Party and especially the online community, need to transistion away from the

"Jena 6" type cases and the "Duke Lacrosse" type cases, and even the "Diallo"type "41 shot" cases because America is a good country at heart.

For us to be a Majority Party, we must first believe that, and then help make it more so.

It doesn't mean you ignore facts or patterns, but it does mean you don't try to connect dots that could just as easily be random.

I chose this above case because if the Mayor was black it would be the normal story repeated time and time again. Yet, these scenarios happen to many white and other people everyday.

Here in this case:
a white mayor treated without respect and horribly.  It might show the need for reform in that particular police department.

But had this been a black mayor treated without respect and horribly.  It might show the need for law enforcement to respect african americans in general, and that this country is still dealing with "racial issues".

That needs to change if we want to win.

Obama whether he wins or not has received a fair chance.

If Obama wins America is a great country.
If Obama loses America is a great country.

I'm voting Obama, I hope you do too.
I also hope you start celebrating the greatness of our land.

Craig Farmer
making the word "liberal" safe again!

I think many HRC voters are viewing the Obama campaign with an idea that Hillary would be doing better were she the nominee.  Some thought and continue to think, Obama may need to add Hillary as VP to give him the best (maybe only?) chance to win.

I disagree with this.

Were Hillary the nominee, we would have 3 or 4 more "did you hear what Bill Clinton said?", and "Former President back in hot water again" type stories.

The press views Clinton through their own personal issues and can't resist the love/hate relationship that is totally irrelevant to the election, but nonetheless would dominate it.

Hillary also would have had so many staffing and advisor issues that her ability to lead would be questioned.  Whatever you might think of Hillary, and I thought much:

The fact that Hillary chose such a bad campaign leadership is distressing. It's hard to imagine a person planning for so long to be "ready on day one", yet her very first major decisions about staff were almost all wrong.

It's true that no one could have anticipated Obama's rise, but everyone who either runs or even observes Presidential politics knows to EXPECT SOMETHING NO ONE EVER THOUGHT OF--THAT MATTERS MORE THAN ANYTHING.

So the number one thing you must do as a potential candidate is to position yourself to be ready for anything.  It is good practice for being POTUS.

Hillary failed that critical test.  So to think she would have all of sudden turned that around in this General Election is not credible.

Right now:

Obama 45   Mccain 44 ---my guess if HRC had won

HRC   42   McCain 46

Accompanied by the requisite, is "hillary too polarizing" and "many congressional dems so no thanks to Hillary invite".

--

Obama has a chance to make mistakes and re-engineer his campaign while others give him the benefit of the doubt.  HRC would not be given that courtesy.

So as we go forward, I'm still expected Obama to have a blowout win because, right now we are seeing a mirage.  Obama's biggest advantage is his appeal to unlikely voters  in the election season. Right now, we aren't in the election season. There aren't any votes, and therefore no point to rally people up.

As Democrats we just need to do the basics: win the battle of ideas, present a positive vision for America, continue registering people, and then ride a rising tide in November.

Obama is a top prize fighter waiting for the fight to begin, but it doesn't really happen for another 3 months.  His task now is to simply get to the opening bell in good shape.

While HRC was a great candidate, she didn't know enough to prepare properly, so stop looking at how green the grass could have been on the HRC side.

Obama was/is the democrats best hope this year.
I say that because he won.