Obama has to ask Clinton to be VP...

Email Print posted by bobo1 05/26/2008 10:03:16 PM EST

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
If you like this story, digg it!
Hey, I know you guys hate when I do this (make sense, that is) but Obama has to make some move or gesture to the Clinton campaign for VP or she will take this to the convention!!!

Hear me out - When Hillary wins Puerto Rico (by a large margin) and competes in Montana and South Dakota (as I think she will surprise there) Obama is going to have to SHOW that he can take action and take control of the party and its running...

Even beyond the BS RFK comments and their limited fallout - even beyond the fact that these 2 probably really dont like each other - the fact is that divided, the Dems lose to McCain in the electoral map... It amuses me to see some of your maps that keep popping up - they are ridiculous on both ends (MI to the Repubs? - GA and VA to Dems? are you guys high?)

Thye need to bury the hatchet and run together - why alienate the Hillary supporters (49% of the Dem population) by snubbing her? The VP doesnt do anything anyway - It is the most useless position in the Government!!!! A heartbeat is the only requirement! i think she'll do - even if you Liberal ObamaBots hate her!

I have talked to a lot of Democrats or people leaning toward Democrat who honestly would vote for McCain over Obama - for the various reasons we argue about all the time on the live chat - Race, liberalness or "He's a Muslim" - yes, even EDUCATED people here in Arizona still think that!!!! I know its not in most peoples economic or other interests, but it still could happen...

And no, shes not gonna have him assasinated - not right away, anyway! Really, who do you think had JFK done in? LBJ!!!!!! DUH!!!!

Any thoughts?

:)
< Here Comes The Megabubble! (This is the most import blog ever written, honest!) | Screw the nuts, I'll have what HE'S having! >
 Display:
Obama has to ask Clinton to be VP... | 75 comments (75 topical, 0 hidden)
bite me (none / 0)
you moronic dolt. Find someone else to obsess on. Preferably elsewhere.

by Chinese Democracy on 05/26/2008 10:32:03 PM EST

Tiny.... (1.00 / 2)
Its dolts like you who bring the best face of true Liberalism forward - no dissent, no discussion, just bend over and take it up our ass - I know thats what YOU are used to, but there are several others here who like discussion and discourse, even if they happen to disagree.... I welcome their comments anytime!

Keep on representing - shout from the rooftops if you have to - there's a reason people like you do not hold power for very long (if you attain it at all)...

Thanks again for your comments and lucid insight...

:)

by bobo1 on 05/26/2008 10:54:28 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Yeah (none / 0)

We hardly ever hold power at all. That 35-year span between 1933 and 1968 was just a fluke.

by Randomambusher on 05/27/2008 01:38:03 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Good times... (none / 0)
The Depression, Three Wars, A Presidential Assasination, Military Industrial Complex begins, Hippies and Race Riots -

Yeah 1933-1968 were GREAT times for America, all things considered....

But then again, those Democrats weren't LIBERALS in the distorted sense of the word that our friend Chinese Democracy represents, so really, people like him did not hold power during those times...

Could you see LBJ or Kennedy supporting an issue like Gay Marraige? Never would happen... those Democrats were Pro Family and Pro America - unlike most of your garden variety Liberals like Chinese Democracy today...

Just a few thoughts...

:)

by bobo1 on 05/27/2008 01:54:41 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Are you mentaly insane? (none / 1)

I'm asking this out of genuine concern for your health.

Because claiming that the 1933-1968 weren't great times... then which were? I mean, the greatest economic recovery in history (here's a pointer: depression is pre 1933), desegregation, the rise of a middle class, the New Deal... What times did you prefer then? The Civil War? The Robber Barrons? Slavery? Reaganomics?

And that point about LBJ/Kenedy not being liberal is really, really stupid. Politics aren't static. The founding Fathers were considered liberal in their time, although many of them kept slaves. Gay mariage wasn't an issue (didn't want it) to liberals then just as segregation isn't an issue to conservatives now (don't want it).

And us "garden liberals" are and have always been Pro America, by the way - even so much so we don't want ignorant fools running and ruining it.

by Cogitor on 05/27/2008 05:09:13 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Dave, I'm not saying a word! (none / 0)
"And us "garden liberals" are and have always been Pro America."

Before
before

After
after

Before
before

After
after

by KenTX on 05/27/2008 06:33:23 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I must sucumb before all this irrefutable proof? (none / 0)

Before

none

After

none 

 

Thanks for putting them in harms way in Iraq without good reason! How patriotic of you. 

by Cogitor on 05/27/2008 06:49:29 AM EST

[ Parent ]
caskets (none / 0)
I think they were coming back from Afghanistan.

Do you want to stop fighting al Qaeda in:

A. Afghanistan

B. Iraq

C. Every Middle Eastern country.

D. All of the above

by KenTX on 05/27/2008 10:05:37 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Do you want to (none / 0)
try to help change the conditions that create terrorism or just continue to deal with the side effects?

Apparently Republicans are content to do the latter. In other words, rather than draining the swamp to stop the mosquitos, they just hand out cans of Raid and a bunch of fly swatters.

by ihavenobias on 05/27/2008 10:27:00 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Ken wins!!! (none / 0)

So maybe that particular picture of those particular coffins are from Afghanistan.

The completely voids the other guys point, right?

Because there aren't rows of flag draped coffins coming back from Iraq, huh?

There aren't a lot of pictures of them, of course, because Bush unilaterally resoted the Sedition Act but I am pretty usre they are there.

Ken, how does the origin of those particular coffins even remotely affect the argument?

Grow up and start arguing like a man. 

by ProfRich on 05/27/2008 10:58:45 PM EST

[ Parent ]
arguing like a man (none / 0)
A man wouldn't run away from a question as simple as this.

Do you want to stop fighting al Qaeda in:

A. Afghanistan
B. Iraq
C. Every Middle Eastern country.
D. All of the above

Why don't you give us a "manly" answer.

by KenTX on 05/27/2008 11:14:22 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Answer (none / 0)

A. I am fine with fighting AL QAEDA in Afghanistan.

B. Yes, if by fighting you mean occupying the country violently and unlawfully.  No if you mean actually going after terrorists who have plans other than getting us out of Iraq.

C. No, I am willing to go into Pakistan to get Osama Bin Laden (google him, Ken, you'll learn something) assuming this can be done without starting WWIII.  If it can't I am in favor of cutting of their aid.  It is notable that you are unwilling to fight the men responsible for 9-11 where they actually are.

Anything else? 

by ProfRich on 05/27/2008 11:33:52 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Yeah, I have something else. (none / 0)
It’s time for you to see the big picture.

“Yes, if by fighting you mean occupying the country violently and unlawfully.  No if you mean actually going after terrorists who have plans other than getting us out of Iraq.”

Since we are currently “occupying” Iraq in the exact same manner that we are “occupying” Afghanistan, then it sounds like you have no problem with having American troops positioned in country. The democratically elected constitutional government of Iraq is closely allied with America, and they want our troops helping Iraqi Security Forces as they battle against al Qaeda. Are you OK with this?
  
America currently has military bases in Kuwait, Oman, UAE, Iraq, Afghanistan, Turkey, Qatar, Bahrain, and throughout the Middle East. If you haven’t figured it out yet, our military footprint is inexorably growing in the region, and we are never leaving. Why the hell would we have installations in every country except Iraq?
map

by KenTX on 05/28/2008 12:14:16 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Now lets talk about Saudi Arabia (none / 0)

And why your chickenhawk ass and President Chickenhawk and Vice President Chickenhawk not only do not even say unkind things in private about the Saudis but publicly felate them at every opportunity.  You and your tough guy, Al Qaeda fighting posse.

What a crock of shit. 

by ProfRich on 05/28/2008 12:38:48 AM EST

[ Parent ]
For the record (none / 0)
When Ken starts talking about fightinh Al Qaeda and how he and his guys are willing and we aren't, all you have to do is bring up Saudi Arabia (you know, the guys who funded 9-11) and Pakistan (the guys who are harboring Osama Bin Laden and getting a 300 million dollar a year stipend plus a on time 5 billion from us to cover Osama's expenses) and Ken shuts down.  Or rather he repeats his earlier posts ad naseum or changes the subject.

by ProfRich on 05/28/2008 01:04:08 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The Professor is BACK! eom (none / 0)

by desertpear on 05/28/2008 08:24:43 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Logical Fallicy (none / 0)
Whenever Rich makes idiotic claims such as

"Bush planned and executed 9/11"

"The Saudi Royal Family funded 9/11"

"The government of Pakistan is harboring and supporting Osama Bin Laden"

I walk away, because arguing with an idiot makes you look like an idiot.

It's impossible to prove a negative, so why waste the time? It's like responding to the old "How often do you beat your wife?" trick.

Bookmark this post, because you're going to see it everytime Rich tries to debate with logical fallicy.

He's a weakling. 

by KenTX on 05/29/2008 01:13:57 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I don't recall (none / 0)

When did I say Bush planned and executed 9/11????

Is that a lie to make me appear crazy?

In fact, I never said any of those things.  I said Saudis were behind 9/11, but never the Saudi Royal Family. That is a lie, Ken.

I said Bin Laden is apparently in Pakistan and Musharef is doing nothing to catch him and we are giving Musharef a ton of money but I never said what you say I said.

Have I really finally beat you down so bad you have to resort to boldface lies about what I have said to try and discredit me? 

Pathetic.  Show us were I said these things.  You use quotes above, link to us my posts that contains these exact quotes, Ken.

Are is this another one of your fake-sourced lies? 

by ProfRich on 05/29/2008 09:20:05 AM EST

[ Parent ]
We can't afford this. (none / 0)
How do you plan to deal with that very simple, very inconvenient truth?

by jarett on 05/28/2008 02:32:07 AM EST

[ Parent ]
glad you asked (none / 0)
At $130 per barrel of oil, I know some people who can afford it. It's time they started paying some "protection money".
oil

by KenTX on 05/28/2008 02:40:08 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Not to butt in (none / 0)
but when is that going to happen?

by z1p101 on 05/28/2008 02:46:40 AM EST

[ Parent ]
this is an interesting graph (none / 0)
maybe. If only I could tell what it means. it deserves some explication and some sourcing. Without these it's impossible to interpret for the non-specialist. Beyond that you're welcome to put forward your interpretation for the reader to reject or ratify by whatever means they possess.

by hazmat on 05/28/2008 12:59:03 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Waste of time (none / 0)

I could sit here in front of my pc and answer all of your BS posts by laying out long, reasoned arguments proving how full of it you are. But you'll just post a reply containing even more BS, that's the luxury of living in a bubble: you're not bound to the laws of reason and can keep this up ad infinitum. Partly because you seem to have time to waste spouting all this rubbish. I can't, I have a life.

In stead, I'll follow the advice a Turkish wiseman once gave to me, on this very website. Somthing that should have been done a long time ago.

I'm putting you in the moron-corner. Have fun in the moron-corner, Ken.

I can only advise others to do the same. 

by Cogitor on 05/28/2008 11:38:13 AM EST

[ Parent ]
LMAO (none / 0)
bobo doesn't know when the Great Depression happened.

I guess we know who got that magic suitcase from Japan.

Hey, bobo, ration that shit out no need to smoke it all at once.

Not to mention the Depression and two wars were global events, hardly the fault of US politicians.

by richardshort2001 on 05/27/2008 01:08:40 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Dont be a douche rshort... (none / 0)
yes, the depression began in 1929, but it continued onto 1941 and the onset of WWII - the worse parts being during the aforementioned Democratic Congressional control - During the Thirties!!!

And yes, the Depression was mainly caused by poor legislation and corrupt politicians meddling in the financial sectors in the US and abroad - Republican and Democrat alike. No shortage of blame to go around there...

The wars? - Do you really want me to go into all the edicts and bills and laws passed by your Democratic congress during WWII, Korea and Vietnam? Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, anyone?

You are usually smarter than this, rshort - please do not emulate some of the other douchebags around here to try to impress them... its not worth your time!

:)

by bobo1 on 05/27/2008 11:37:00 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Unimpressive (none / 0)

The wars? - Do you really want me to go into all the edicts and bills and laws passed by your Democratic congress during WWII, Korea and Vietnam?

Are you suggesting the US was at fault entering WWII? Or the Korean War? I'll grant you Vietnam, but arguing that taking on the nazi's or Kim Ill Sung was one of the democrats "mistakes" is really a losing argument. They should be commended for that.

And you're true the depression was bipartisan - but the recovery wasn't, not by a long shot. That was the democrat's work.

If you play down FDR, you won't be taken serious. And with good reason. 

by Cogitor on 05/28/2008 11:50:01 AM EST

[ Parent ]
The depression was not bipartisan (none / 0)

by ProfRich on 05/28/2008 01:05:36 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Sure it was professor... (none / 0)
the Republicans controlled the legislatures, yes, but the Dems were also complicit in the destruction of their policies between the Wars - everybody was to blame for the colossal fuck up we call the 30s...

There's no difference in today as well - BOTH parties should be held responsible for the actions of our recent past - THEY ALLOWED THIS SHIT TO HAPPEN!!!

But then again, who is really to blame? Us....

:(

by bobo1 on 05/28/2008 01:35:04 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The 30s weren't a fuck up (none / 0)
They were the result of the 20s, which was a colossal fuck up. 
Just stop.  You look a fool.

by ProfRich on 05/28/2008 02:06:36 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Thank you Cognitor... (none / 0)
for your response - I have a few things to add...

The US can be blamed for WWII because of the way it fucked over the end of WWI. If you really want to get technical - it was our good buddy Woodrow Wilson who helped set the course for WWII by his (and England and France) insistance of the ridiculous terms of the Treaty of Versailles - but I wasnt gonna dig that deep...


Korea? Our first attempt to quell the Chinese ends in a stalemate as our good Democrat Truman was already hip deep in guilt and other shit for dropping the bomb on the Japanese... I wont call Truman a Liberal democrat though because he truly was a great American - If he were alive today, he would not be welcome as a Democrat - The Obama followers would curse him as a conservative and you know it!!!

Vietnam - yeah, we dont want to go there - just watch the current Iraq war to see where thats going... i believe we are in agreement here...

the recovery of the Depression unfortunately was brought upon by the Military spending due to the war effort - it was not the New Deal that saved us, it was the war. Period. yes, the new Deal and FDR had its good points and its successes in short, but overall what brought the economy up was the war spending and its massive influx of capital into the recovery from the war... Not FDR and his Liberal Utopian visions - If WWII had not happened, the Depression would have lasted another 20 years I suspect... War is always either the cause or the result of bad economies... This point is inevitable throughout history.

Thank you again for your comments.

:)


by bobo1 on 05/28/2008 01:28:16 PM EST

[ Parent ]
God, you are clueless (none / 0)

About the Pre WWII world anyway.

The depression was caused by the dumbass economic policies of the 20s (Andrew Mellon was the biggest culprit).

The Depression was the RESULT of the 20s econ policies.  FDR was just trying to deal with the shitstorm the pubs created, to some, but certainly not complete, success.

What you are arguing is as stupid as arguing that President Obama will be responsible for Iraq because he will be President for its end.  Or that Ford was responsible for Watergate because he was president during the hearings.  It just makes no sense.

You know even less about WWI.  Wilson was fighting like hell AGAINST the destructive provisions of the Versailles Treaty.  It was the GOP who shitcanned Wilson's League of Nations which could have prevented WWII.  Wilson, who I am not a big fan of, not only can't be blamed for failing to stop WWII, if the damn pubs would have listened to him he might have prevented it.

Also, the single biggest cause of WWII was the Depression which the 20s GOP caused.  And, the 1920s foriegn policy was a joke.  A fantasy land of denouncing war and limiting arms (but only among our allies) and it was all done by the Rpeublicans.  Your argument is a complete perversion of history.

I tend to agree on Truman, truth is Truman was pretty much a pub and Teddy R was pretty much a dem. 

by ProfRich on 05/28/2008 02:05:00 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I have to side with the Prof on this (none / 0)

To say that Woodrow Wilson was to blame for WWI is dangerously ignorant. If you know your WWI history, you'll appreciate it were mostly the French, who were sore winners. Woodrow Wilson was the only one speaking up for the Germans.

And the stalemate in Korea was much better than any of the alternatives - utter defeat or the use of nuclear arms. And Truman not being a liberal democrat today, I can only point back at my earlier point about politics not being static - if you don't recognise that, you are a true conservative, who believes nothing ever changes or should ever change.

And lay off FDR. It makes you sound revisionist. 

by Cogitor on 05/28/2008 03:38:50 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Cognitor... (none / 0)
Im not blaming Wilson for WWI - Im blaming his lack of stewardship and his refusal to stuff the French back into their little hole as to why we had WWII - Theres a key difference... Wilson had the authority to tell the French to Fuck Off and take their victory in stride, knowing full well that we would have to save their pussy-asses again, but he did not do so to "save face".

I agree about Korea, although I dont think Truman would have hesitated to use nukes again if he had felt the genuine need to - The point about him being Liberal or not was in reference to the original argument against our friend Chinese Democracy - he and I share different views on what constitutes a Liberal of TODAY - you're right - It is not the same as it was in histories past...


As for FDR - This is where you and I diverge I think - I do not believe FDR was GOD - you obviously do, or at least you believe he is beyond criticism or reproach - and thats scary because that turns into Charismatic worship and away from political admiration - Much like we see with our current candidate Mr. Obama - Thats where the real trouble begins!


Thanks again for your comments...


:)




by bobo1 on 05/28/2008 04:38:10 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Wilson and FDR (none / 0)

Wilson DID stand up to the French and, more or less, succesfully.  It was the Republican Senate who refused to ratify the treaty Wilson fought for that fucked us.  Read a book sometime for chrissakes.

And certainly there is a middle ground between not blaiming FDR for the Great Depression (which violates the law of causality) and worshipping him as a God.  Just like you can decide Obama is the best option available without building a cathedral to the guy.  They aren't Reagan you know. 

by ProfRich on 05/28/2008 04:52:53 PM EST

[ Parent ]
FDR wasn't god (none / 0)
But he was the best president of this century. Possibly ever, although this on I could concede if need be.

by Cogitor on 05/28/2008 05:22:16 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Don't back down (none / 0)
He is the best ever.

by ProfRich on 05/28/2008 09:03:56 PM EST

[ Parent ]
just wanted to let you know (none / 0)
And no, shes not gonna have him assasinated - not right away, anyway!



hate you so much...

by Bungle on 05/26/2008 11:16:12 PM EST

Are you kidding? (none / 0)
Are you that insecure to think that something is going to happen? Do you know how much Secret Service Obama has around him 24/7? If he wins, do you know that they will Triple that? Jesus people, y'all are fanatics!!!!! Get over yourselves, seriously - it was a fucking joke!!!! How many times have we chided on this site that we would like to see Bush or Cheney disappear? Hundreds of times!!!!!!!

You Liberals make me sick.... Do you have any humor? Or is saying ANYTHING against your messiah blasphemy? Damn you hypocrits!!!!

Un-fucking-believeable!!!!! !

:O

by bobo1 on 05/27/2008 12:06:21 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Bobo's crazy punctuation theatre!!!!!!!!!1!!! (none / 0)
You and Ken have really went crazy lately.  Please keep in mind, us liberals are supposed to be the unhinged ones so don't jack our swagger son.  Oops!  Sorry to shove that black culture down your throat.

by Spencer on 05/27/2008 03:24:03 AM EST

[ Parent ]
No (none / 0)
This will make Obama's "change" candidacy inauthentic.  Hillary is anything but the candidate of change.  Enough of the damn dynasties already.

That said:

  1. He has already made very loud noises about how "she would be on anyone's shortlist" and how she's so competent, etc. etc.
  2. She will almost certainly get a cabinet nod.  Which is fine with me.

by jarett on 05/27/2008 12:06:24 AM EST

I would argue... (none / 0)
That this whole "change" candidacy is inauthentic as can be, but we can disagree on that later ...

Thank you for your comments, Jarrett - I agree she will eventually get some higher post (State?/UN?/Majority Leader?) She wont get the Supreme Court - she is already too old for that ...

:)

by bobo1 on 05/27/2008 12:16:32 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Several new cabinet postions come to mind... (none / 0)

Secretary of Racial and Special Interest Politics: Since there is no one dominant "majority" in the US anymore she and Bill can find ways to cull out specific groups that are opposed, or support, any particular policy or piece of legislation for the maximum political gain.

Secretary of Acrimony : She'd be a natural at this, basically the Obama administration attack dog. Her assistant would be Geraldine Ferraro, Undersecretary of Left Handed Compliments

Secretary of Tears and Empathy : A new role for Hillary, she would go to the White House briefings. When vigorously questioned she will tear up and say " You know its really hard sometimes...

by MRFred on 05/27/2008 09:57:50 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Hey bobo (none / 0)
I feel that she would be the best VP choice for many more reasons.

You are right that uniting the party is paramount to a victory in November.

She has the experience he needs to get things done both on the campaign trail and in the WH.

She can do his dirty work in the campaign and inside the beltway. Wanting change is one thing, making it happen was quite another.

Everybody here wants to believe that victory will be achieved easily. that Nov. will be a landslide and that Obama with a Dem Congress will get everthing he wants. We both know that isn't how Washington works.

Some complain that she is the ultimate insider or that she's a dirty fighter. I say why not use it to full effect.

United we stand divided we fall

by LORD FOUL on 05/27/2008 08:38:00 AM EST

LF is talking sense (none / 0)

wish I had time to expound on this more, but there are very good arguments for having Hillary on the ticket. One point LF made on some earlier thread was that Obama supporters should get past their dislike of Hillary to be consistent with campaign themes. The argument against--that she represents everything Obama's campaign was about running against--doesn't hold much water. He's going to have to deal with the old politics on both sides of the aisle. The only thing that really gives me hesitation is that Hillary would have too strong a presence in the west wing, and create enormous difficulties for president Obama. Some of this would be intentional, no doubt. A secondary to this is that their management styles are incompatible.

by hazmat on 05/27/2008 12:20:40 PM EST

[ Parent ]
No generic "dislike" of Hillary (none / 0)
At any rate, Hillary has insanely high negative ratings, the highest of anyone running for president for either party if I remember correctly.

And she IS very polarizing. Maybe that started off only as a talking point, but at this point it's quite clear that it's true.  And yes, many republicans (the ones who are *at best* lukewarm on McCain) WILL turn out in droves to deny any kind of Clinton presence in the White house.

Finally, she *does* cheapen his change message, very much so. Sure, he'll have to work with plenty of status quo once elected, but he doesn't need to have the status quo shoved up his ass on the ticket.

PS---The best scenario for everyone involved is for Obama to offer the VP slot knowing that Hillary will deny it. That way her bitter supporters can relax a bit and concede that it's time for them to fall in line and support our future Dem president, at which point Obama can go about selecting a better VP choice to smooth out his negatives (i.e. old, southern white guy with military/foreign policy experience). 

The End.

by ihavenobias on 05/27/2008 02:33:05 PM EST

[ Parent ]
problem is (none / 0)

she'll never refuse! Everyone knows that.

I disagree that she cheapens the ticket. She cheapens herself all the time, its true, but people don't vote for veep ultimately. But yes, I agree that she'll energize republicans against Obama. Do I sound conflicted? Its because I am.

Ultimately my sense of Obama is that he's thinking more about how his choice will affect his administration than how it will affect his chances to win. From that perspective, Hillary has little chance of being selected.

As to her divisiveness, if she wants to be on the ticket, publicly proclaiming that she will poison the well is a horrible miscalculation. In the end most Hillary supporters (bobo not withstanding) are not going to follow her to the gates of hell. Every presidential election I've participated in, I've watched what were in my view lesser candidates rise to the top (with the exception of Mr. Clinton), and I've always overcome my misgivings and given the democrat my full support. I don't expect the same of anyone else, and don't require it. So hold your fire, my Clintonian friends. Voting for president is a personal decision, and I made my choices based on what I felt was best for me in the long run, not out of loyalty to any unfulfilled candidacy. But that's just me.

Hillary makes gaffes and strategic blunders like the assassination thing with such alarming frequency that one begins to think she should not be put in a place of responsibility and leadership if it can be avoided. Her strategy seems to be to convince Obama that she will make herself more a liability if he refuses to select her than she will undoubtedly be if he does. This is a losing proposition for her.

by hazmat on 05/27/2008 03:56:12 PM EST

[ Parent ]
IHNB (none / 0)
It is not the Pub base you need to fear, the will come out in droves to vote against the black, muslim Seantor with the most Liberal record.


Hillary gives you the other half of our party and a good portion of swing Dems. If Hillary is on the ticket we win Pa, OH & FL

He can then use her skills as a policy wonk to fix numerous problems, not to mention helping him push through his agenda. She can get her health care and then when the time is right nominate her for SCOTUS.

by LORD FOUL on 05/27/2008 05:17:00 PM EST

[ Parent ]
2 things Haz (none / 0)
A President cannot fill his/her room with yes men. Put another way if Clinton somehow managed to win the nomination would she be right to cast off Obama because of management style? Or because he would be to strong a presence?

If he can't handle Clinton how can he handle POTUS?

They compliment each other perfectly.


by LORD FOUL on 05/27/2008 05:05:37 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Obama is very open minded (none / 0)
But being open to the status quo bullshit is not the kind of open-mindedness we need. He listens to and considers opposing ideas, so much so that it bothers some people.

Oh, and for the record I HATE when anyone says "If (fill in the blank) can't handle (fill in the blank) how can he/she be expected to handle the presidency".

9 times out of 10 it's a terrible argument (hint: this isn't that 1 exception).


And no, they absolutely do not "compliment each other perfectly". She has no military background and as we've seen, no *real* foreign policy experience (2 areas where Obama is perceived as weak).  And on a superficial level, you'd be combining the concern over race with the concern over sex into quite the double whammy.


Again I repeat: Obama's VP will be an old, southern white male with military/foreign policy experience.


The End

by ihavenobias on 05/27/2008 05:23:02 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Great (none / 0)
Zell Miller

by LORD FOUL on 05/27/2008 05:41:58 PM EST

[ Parent ]
yes men (none / 0)

there's a difference between surrounding yourself with qualified dissent, and surrounding yourself with people that are prone to self-destructive behavior. Maybe Hillary isn't one of the latter, but her current behavior suggests she is.

I don't think its the job of POTUS to "handle" his veep. I don't doubt that Obama can hold his own against Hillary (after this primary, do you?), but the question is, would that be a good situation for the country? I think America needs a break from inefficient, incompetent, and overly partisan government. I'd like to reiterate that I'm very open to Hillary getting on the ticket, but it has to be for the right reasons. The strategy she's using, that I outlined above, is unacceptable.

by hazmat on 05/27/2008 06:46:01 PM EST

[ Parent ]
by unacceptable i mean (none / 0)
not that I have any say in it (obviously) but that I think she's shooting herself in the foot. That's all.

by hazmat on 05/27/2008 06:52:39 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Could it be? (none / 0)
Jesse Ventura for VP.

by juebawl on 05/27/2008 11:16:54 AM EST

That would be awesome (none / 0)
Obama/The Body 08

by chrisandyasemin on 05/27/2008 02:37:48 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I don't know about that (none / 0)
Like Ron Paul, Ventura is right on some foreign policy/war issues and constitutional issues, etc.

But also like Ron Paul, he's a pseudo-libertarian who is more questionable on domestic policy that would work just fine on some desert island with 50 people but not so fine here in America with millions.

Not that it's all bad (of course there is a lot of waste and corruption that needs to be dealt with), but it's clearly also not in line with much of what Obama seems to be going for IMO.  Then again Ventura pisses off the really hardcore (read: insane) libertarians, so I guess that counts for something.

by ihavenobias on 05/27/2008 02:49:30 PM EST

[ Parent ]
He's a meat-head (none / 0)
Before leaving the governor's office, Jesse Ventura's parting gesture to the city of Minneapolis was a completely unnecessary and unwanted light rail line connecting downtown and the Mall of America in nearby Bloomington.  The Hiawatha Line was a $700 million pet project, and nothing more.  If there's something we need more of, it's less authority for Jesse Ventura.

by OneHitKill on 05/28/2008 09:49:35 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I don't live in MN (none / 0)
And I don't know the specifics of the light rail (did it cost far more than projected?) in this case, but considering the horrible gas prices that won't be getting any better (but could grow considerably worse), I have to disagree with anyone who says light rail is a bad thing.

I know you didn't say that generically, but I'm sensitive about this issue.

We need a hell of a lot more trains just about everywhere, that's for damn sure.  That is unless we want to continue to waste insane amounts of money on gas, not to mention time and sanity wasting traffic on our congested and crumbling roads.

by ihavenobias on 05/28/2008 11:05:54 AM EST

[ Parent ]
You're right (none / 0)
I also agree in principal; if the thing had existed three years earlier, I could have taken it to my internship every day and I would have spent a lot less time moving my car to let people get out of the horribly inadequate parking at the building where I was working.  But the project was opposed by residents -- progressives and conservatives alike -- because it didn't serve their needs.  If you live in Minneapolis, how often would you need a train to the stupid Mall of America, let alone the airport?  The route just seemed sort of hare-brained.  If the light rail system is expanded in the future and becomes a genuinely convenient form of mass transit for residents and visitors alike, then I'll say, "The Body was right," but until then, he's wrong.

by OneHitKill on 05/31/2008 09:02:47 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Thoughts (none / 0)

Any thoughts?

Yeah.  Good thing Obama won't be consulting you on the matter.  An "educated" person who still thinks Obama is a Muslim is drastically exaggerating his or her level of education.

by OneHitKill on 05/27/2008 10:45:34 PM EST

Obama must be a Muslim. (none / 0)
Ted Kennedy thinks so.

by KenTX on 05/27/2008 10:51:20 PM EST

[ Parent ]
And? (none / 0)
He is, quite literally, on drugs.

by OneHitKill on 05/28/2008 05:41:06 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Obama's got a problem (none / 0)
According to recent polling, he is running poorly with white people, and many voters think he's a Muslim.

by KenTX on 05/28/2008 05:59:17 AM EST

[ Parent ]
So, with dumb people, you mean (none / 0)
Probably all the same people that think that snakes are slimy, that cellphones can disrupt pacemakers and that the Atkins Diet is a healthy idea.  We need all these people rounded up and buried alive in Nevada.  Ken, grab a shovel.

by OneHitKill on 05/28/2008 09:39:44 AM EST

[ Parent ]
It's too late to appease.. (none / 0)

If anyone thinks that by offering Clinton the VP slot will unify the party then you are mistaken. The way I see it is since Obama worked to keep my vote from counting in the primary election, then he can do without it in the general election. No, I will not vote for McCain, but I will not vote for Obama either. I will just not vote in the top line of the general election. This is not just my view either and no, I did not vote for Clinton in the primary, so you can forget about calling me any of those nice names you Obamabots like to use for a Clinton supporter. My decision to skip voting for president in the general election in November is a protest to Obama actively working against a re-vote in Florida and Michigan. Regardless of the reasons for the DNC disallowing those votes, it leaves those of us who were raised to believe that our vote matters. But again, since Obama thinks that our votes were not worth fighting for in the primary, then he can get elected without them in November. While most will be campaigning for one candidate or another, I will be pushing for people to sit out voting for president at all. Why bother, in the last few elections they did not seem to care what the real vote was anyway.

On a similar line, I will be re-registering as an independent for the first time in my 24 years of voting. After 24 years of being a loyal democrat, they have lost my loyalty when they choose to punish me for the actions of a republican run state legislature. Nice work DNC. 

by Mystic24 on 05/28/2008 06:47:25 AM EST

here's how to get even (none / 0)
Vote McCain. That'll show 'em!

by KenTX on 05/28/2008 07:01:12 AM EST

[ Parent ]
No Spite vote (none / 0)
That would be an option if I were out to spite them, but that is not my intent. When given the choice of two evils, I choose neither. Either way I will end up with a president I don't care for so I will leave that decision to the fanatics to slug it out. Either way this nation is the looser and we will all suffer. So instead, I will just keep working on my goal of going off grid completely. By the end of 2010 our homestead will be able to produce enough power to keep us off the main power grid and with our well and garden we can produce enough food stuffs to feed our family all year. With gas prices on the rise with no end in sight and the ever growing food shortage, I see revolution in the future and I for one will be ready.

by Mystic24 on 05/28/2008 07:16:03 AM EST

[ Parent ]
God help us (none / 0)

Obama just lost the survivalist vote. Stop the presses!

Now he's surely doomed.

by Cogitor on 05/28/2008 11:40:36 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Bravo, Mystic 24!!! (none / 0)
I commend you on your decision to vote independent - I think everyone who is not a rabid fanatic on both sides should let the parties know who is in the majority and that we shall not be fucked with anymore!

Good luck on your Homestead and project - I too would like to be off the grid, but unfortunately it is not a reality for me at this point in time...

Dont let the elitists and the Obamabots here discourage you - they know not of the future that holds for them with these types of people in control... They'll learn, eventually...

:)

by bobo1 on 05/28/2008 01:32:25 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Just wondering... (none / 0)

What so radical about Obama? He has the same positions as Hilary (who you supprt) on every issue, exept health care (where he is the centrist one) and Iran (where Hilary is louder, through not sincere - she won't obliterate them). The only difference is rethoric, and even then marginal.

Seruiously, what's radical about universal health care? Diplomacy? Pro choice?

What's radical about the democratic party anyway? You're always going on about there being no center... But what is that? Name some oficial policy positions of the democrats you find radical. Not blogposts. Oficial policy positions held by the national democratic party. What policy oficial policy position will destroy the US?

This one is to bobo only; I'm profoundly curious about this one. 

by Cogitor on 05/28/2008 03:50:12 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Let me respond for bobo (none / 0)

"I don't support Clinton.  I hate everyone." or "It's just my opinion." or "It's a joke." or "I'm older than you" or anything else to inoculate him from criticism. 

Just so you know, the debate is pointless.  They all end the same way.

by Spencer on 05/28/2008 04:40:32 PM EST

[ Parent ]
When did I say Obama was a Radical? (none / 0)
Again, I will restate my position on Senator Obama - Its not him that I have the problem with - To me, he is just another Chicago Slickster politician who knows how to give a good speech and knows which strings to pull to amplify his otherwise weak policy stances... he's not a radical in that sense, he is a Shyster/ a fraud/ basically another Chicago Democrat...

What scares the Hell out of me, Cognitor, is the Rabid Radical following Obama and his minions have produced - It is reminiscent to me of radical movements not so much in policy stance (because, as you have indicated, the differences between he and Clinton are not that great) but in absolute faith and devotion to some sort of political Deity - Obama has gone past just being another candidate to a lot of people and has nearly become the object of worship - And that is why I shy away and repulse the sayings and urgings of the Obamabots - Most of them dont have any idea about what Obama really stands for, but they will follow and support him in a "blind devotion" I have never seen in recent (or past) political history. Its beyond orgasms by chris matthews and Norah oDonnell - Its beyond RockStar - Its scary.....

I am not in the mood or the inkling to elect a God - Thats what they did in China with Mao, or in Germany with Hitler - the Charismatic charm and the vibrancy of their followers ultimately blinded people to the realities -

Now before you guys get your panties in a wad, Im not saying that Obama is akin to Mao or Hitler, but the movement is setting those levels of sight, and thats why I will not conform - or as I like to say "I Wont Drink the Kool Aid"!!!

Again, thanks for your thoughts and questions, Cognitor - you may now let the shit fly!!!!

:O

by bobo1 on 05/28/2008 04:49:56 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Again (none / 1)

That's all very nice, but not what I asked. Yes, the Obama following is a bit too enthusiast - but the very same can be said about the Clinton acolytes. That has little to do with the candidates, and everything with the curent atmosphere in the country, the inherent American (media) craving for sensation and the polarisation that follows a long and tight race.

I don't care very much for Obama on a personal level, I just think he's the right choice politically. I think he 'd be a competent man to have in office, and I agree with most things he says. And he can write a good speech.

But as I said, that's not what I asked.

Here's what I would have liked answered:

What part of the democratic policy propositions are radical to you? You always say the US needs a center-party. Why? What's so radical about the democrats? Not opinions of bloggers, but party policy. Point out what you think will destroy the country, official policy wise.

by Cogitor on 05/28/2008 05:19:55 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Radical Liberalism... (none / 0)
Thank you for your response...

There are a couple of things i disagree with when it comes to the Democratic "Platform" as it were. I dont know how they are spelled out in the specific party information (I never get that technical), but here are just a few things...

1. Gun Control - Liberals want to take my guns away, or at the very least restrict my access to them... Guns dont kill people, criminals and psychos do - if we didnt have guns, knife and baseball bat sales would soar - they're still gonna kill people, regardless of what they use...

2. The environment/Global Warming - I hate it when kooks and pseudoscientists tell us we cant consume or have to change our way of life and it always eventually will cost me more money - I shouldnt have to drive some rice burning, Electric plug in golf cart so starving children in India can have Ipods - There is always room for give and take I understand, but Liberals and wackos in this country want to fundementally change the American way of life and bring us down to the Level of a second or third class country, JUST TO MAKE IT FAIR - Life isnt fair, they need to get over it ... Global Warming is just the latest trend and fad that drives their Marxist/Communist agenda...

3. Government control over Education - NCLB was the most Liberal thing Bush ever did (with the help of Kennedy) and it has been a disaster of epic proportions - The Department of Ed needs to be abolished and the States need to be given authority over the schools...

I hope this clarifies at least a few of your questions - I dont know how to say anything succinctly (as you could probably tell), but the main thing is basically this - Liberals are a bunch of wienies and they are no less corrupt or evil than the Conservatives - I could never be a true Liberal because I am a Straight White Middle Aged Gun Owning Questioning Authority Male, and there simply isnt any room on the platform for people like me - Im not Gay, Black, Hispanic, a woman or anyone who does not accept the mantra of Liberalism at its word or any other thing that Liberals tend to care for...

I hope that helped! Thanks...

by bobo1 on 05/28/2008 10:13:32 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I would continue this discussion (none / 1)

Until I read this:

Global Warming is just the latest trend and fad that drives their Marxist/Communist agenda... 

The Reds are comming. 

Sure, bobo, sure. The democrats are all communists. And so is the United Nations Panel On Climate Change. And the European Union. And all the scientists who know better than you.

Europe 

You're outside the reality based universe. Have fun in the moron corner; you and Ken can play cards there. 

by Cogitor on 05/29/2008 04:27:31 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Don't forget... (none / 0)

Hillary worked to keep your vote from counting too.  She signed on like all the rest.

If you think Hillary cares one whit more or less about your voting rights than Obama, you are a fool.

Whoever won Florida would be fighting for it to count, all those who lost would be fighting for it not to.

Wake up, white people! 

by ProfRich on 05/28/2008 10:40:44 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Obama has to ask Clinton to be VP... | 75 comments (75 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: