Let's dispel one thing right now, before it gets any legs. About this running mate thing: As I have said before, I will not vote for Hillary Clinton over John McCain, and with Obama as her Vice President that will not change. I very much doubt any other independent or otherwise unaffiliated voters will either, because the Vice President is a nothing job with as much authority as the Prince of Wales. It's a window dressing position. Dick Cheney may be the exception to this, fine, but do you really think that's the way it will be with Clinton? She'll send him off to open shopping malls in Alaska and whatever other unimportant buissness she won't want to do. It's a dumb idea that Hillary might just start floating out there to try to think they can have them both, when all it does is belittle Obama. And I won't buy it.

Smith, no offense, but what you said about the sexy ticket is kinda creepy. And its not a dream ticket. It's a waste of time, and could turn into yet another Hillary cheap tactic. Hillary could suggest choosing Obama to try to scam some people who are leaning towards Obama into voting for her, thinking they can still get both of them as running mates, which simply will not happen for so many reasons.

Geographically, she wouldn't pick a person from a blue state she'd win anyway. Cynically, she wouldn't pick a minority. And her ego wouldn't allow her to even consider someone who is far more charismatic and more well liked than she is- Obama as the VP is the definition of what they call the unbalanced ticket. The only way she'd take Obama over a midwestern whitest of the white male would be if she had no choice, and the DNC shoved him down her throat. And that's not gonna happen.

So no, you cannot have your cake and eat it too. You have to choose Hillary OR Obama, you cannot have both.

Humanus, you're right, my McCain over Hillary is telling. It tells you that no matter what Hillary says I DO NOT BELIEVE HER. It tells you that I would rather take a person who I do not agree with but at least respect over a person who I have not trusted or believed in over a decade. She quite frankly in my mind will say or stand for anything, as long as she sees two polls that tell her that it works in some vague demographic. Seriously, she manages to smile for two hours and you think that makes me forget just how nasty and unethical she is?

If it comes to Hillary versus McCain, I'll vote for McCain and bank my hopes on the democratic congress on holding the line on social issues. Obama as VP does nothing to change that, because like I said, the VP is a nothing job.

Maybe it's not the White Album, but c'mon, it's not that bad. You all make it sound like its three minutes of cats being tortured.

Ultimately, Feb. 5th was a draw, but in respect to the overall race, I think Obama is clearly ahead now. Clinton is out of strongholds to lean on, and she did not get anywhere close to the distance that she'd need to be able to survive the rest of this month. Not that she'll be cooked after Saturday and the Chesapeake primary, but she could be pretty far behind if the votes in these states are really lopsided.

So she banks her hopes on Ohio and Texas. Both of which it seems pretty clear she'll have to try to win on the cheap. Not exactly a strong suit of Clinton's. Especially as Obama should have the money to really blitz both states and blanket them with full organizations and personal attention. I'm not so sure I buy these two states as Clinton favorites.

I understand fully the way the voters are breaking down with lower class whites in Ohio and Hispanics in Texas favorig her, but Obama made good inroads with both on Tuesday, and another month can only help that I think. Besides, doesn't anyone else feel a little off anytime they say to themselves the phrase "Clinton favored in Texas"?

Actually I think the $5 million loan is immaterial in all of this. Unless she doesn't have the money to cover her home heating bill this month, she doesn't have to pay off any of the loan till after the election, if even then. I don't think this is like an actual loan from a bank, with an APR and scheduled payments or anything. I mean, what is the difference between her 'loaning' her campaign tons of dough and Romney just spending tons of dough on his campaign? She might want to get it back, but I doubt she'll be in any rush. I could be wrong, of course; there might be some very clear campaign finance laws about personal spending on campaigns, but it'd be the first I've heard of them.

So apart from its possible use as a PR stunt to drum up sympathy, the loan doesn't really factor into what amount of pity money she's gotten since Tuesday.

I understand your point, and agree with you. All I was saying about the loan having no bearing is that there's no cause to deduct the $5 million from what she's raised, because there's likely no need to pay it back till after the election if even then.