she ended all hopes of the VP slot with her speech to night.

she couldn't even be bothered to give a nod to him winning the primaries, on the night Obama wins the nomination she says she is the stronger candidate?

she is not asking for the VP, she is demanding it, and thus he can't give it to her without looking weak.

thus she killed any chance of that offer

wtf?

Seriously, if you're going to insist on posting your semi-coherent ramblings, couldn't you at least do it one of the other 12,000 election threads?

Nope.  I don't believe he wants to offer it and be refused.  Such a scenario would damage them both politically.  He is deprived of her constituencies support.  She appears a spoiler.  Bad for both of them.  If we hear he offered it, she already accepted it.

who are we going to ritualistic kill politically and what the heck are you talking about?

Gov. Rendell just said that Barack Obama can win without Hillary as VP and he would advise against her in the slot anyway.  

Be back later, I'm gathering rocks for the public stoning -- just let me know where to aim.

I think Hillary Clinton is going to end up on the Supreme Court.  Just don't see how Obama can name her VP now (and the truth of the matter is probably this--anyone who won't vote for him now wouldn't change their mind just because she had the junior spot on the ticket).  

Most of the tribal antics now going on, I'll suggest, have to do with the atavistic loyalties people have to the only president the Dems have had for the past thirty years.  What's in play but the honor to the leige and to the ties of marriage and family, etc.?  Don't believe me?  Here's the litmus test: do you get a little chill at the thought that Chelsea Clinton might run for president in twenty years?  Politics for most of human history has been a story of chieftens, monarchs, and so on.

But if we're talking about poltics at its most atavistic, those at the top generally stay there.  This whole idea that the losers get burned as apostates and witches is kind of silly.  They get promoted into positions where they can do the least harm.  And for Obama, I suspect that means Clinton goes to the Supreme Court (which is a job, btw, I think she'd be suited for, no loss of prestiege, and while this sort of thing doesn't happen often it's occurred before, eg. the GOP elevated Taft).

How could any candidate put her on the ticket, when she's still an active candidate?

How do you ignore someone slowly?

How about pack analysis, or primate analysis?

Clinton's challenging the pack leader.  Her "leveraging" is an attempt to show that she's got the power and he has to depend on her.  She's trying to be alpha.

Obama can't back down, BECAUSE she's initiated a power play, and he can't give in without appearing weak.  Appearing weak isn't a great option, because it's crappy for his image politically.  So he now is forced by political necessity to make a public showing of doing this on his terms.

If Clinton truly wants VP, I don't think this was a very strategic way for her to play it.

On CNN too, I saw people saying a similar thing in different language/metaphor.  Someone said this is a good time for her to demonstrate the willingness to be second fiddle, a quality a VP must have.  And instead she's going head-to-head with him.  That's not what she needed to do.  

I'll also note that Bill needed to show he could fade into the background, and instead he just had another big outburst.  Hillary can only be VP if she and Bill are content to step out of the spotlight and defer to President Obama.