Onestepper wrote:That would be the reason to do it. Not advocating it, just that it would passify her base.
Good point.
Moderator: Andrew
Onestepper wrote:That would be the reason to do it. Not advocating it, just that it would passify her base.
Barb wrote:Didn't Mrs. Obama already veto the idea of Hill being the VP?
Onestepper wrote:The_Noble_Cause wrote:Onestepper wrote:Expect Bayh from Indiana.
Clintonite lackey - won't happen.
That would be the reason to do it. Not advocating it, just that it would passify her base.
NealIsGod wrote:Saint John wrote:NealIsGod wrote:Saint John wrote:If she does she has zero pride...none. Why be a VP on a ticket that you got dissed out of because black people turned on you and voted for Obama solely because of his skin color? Her and that fat-assed old man catered to blacks for years, giving them everything they wanted. Nice payback...voting against her based on skin color.
I love how you know what everybody's motivations are.
This one is academic. You have a white lady whose husband was referred to as the "first black president" because of all he/they did for blacks. You have a black candidate that surrounded himself with successful white crooks (Tony Rezko and his posse) and a nutjob pastor. When the less qualified candidate to get the black vote receives over 90% of said vote, there's a motive...in this case it's skin color, plain and simple. You agree or disagree?
I don't agree with sweeping generalizations. Sure, many blacks voted for Obama because he is black and they identify with him. Many women voted for Hillary for the same reason. I like to think most people look at more than just skin color or sex when they vote.
Playitloudforme wrote:and if McCain wins, I'm moving to Europe. Dead serious. I will not be in this country with another warmonger as president.
Pelata wrote:Playitloudforme wrote:and if McCain wins, I'm moving to Europe. Dead serious. I will not be in this country with another warmonger as president.
http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008/02 ... to-canada/
Tito wrote:I think the negatives outweigh the positives for taking Hillary on as V.P. The uniting the party thing is overrated, they will mostly be united come November anyway. I'm not sure how much she'll help him anyway, he will win New York, plus Clinton may actually unite the Republican party which has a problem right now.
As far as other names and backing Clinton, I think that is irrelevant. First, that may help mend any broken fences by taking a Clinton surrogate. Second, no one really needs the Clintons now, so they'll move on to the next thing.
Quick analysis by Tito of some names:
Evan Bayh, no doubt in my mind he was going to be Hillary's V.P. choice. He may be a good choice for Obama for mending fences and also may put Indiana in play or possibly steal. Obama is from the neighboring state and will do well in NW Indiana. Bayh is popular in his home state and may be able to push Obama over the top there.
Ed Rendell, another Hillary supporter. This would play the unified party card and put Pennsylvania out of reach. Something Obama needs.
Bill Richardson, could help with hispanics and help win some southwest states or put them out of reach as well (Obama favored in Colorado and New Mexico).
John Edwards is a bust. He didn't do anything for Kerry, won't help Obama.
Jim Webb does bring military experience, which would help Obama. But, only two years in the senate could hurt. Probably one of the Virginia governors would be better pick from that state. Along with Bayh or Rendell, would get a white male on the ticket.
Ted Strickland, I believe is only a first term governor, so lack of experience hurts.
Janet Napolitino (sp.) or Kathleen somethinglis (Kansas). Could appease the woman vote, but it could backfire as pandering. Also, not totally sure if that needs to be done anyway. All things being equal, Napolitino would be the better choice, but being from Arizona will hurt her. McCain should win that state, so she is basically useless. Kansas governor, may make it interesting along with Obama's Kansas roots. McCain should probably still win there though. Not much experience and a total unknown. Probably wouldn't help anywhere else.
Best bets for Obama:
Rendell
Bayh
followed by:
Warner or other Virginia governor
Webb
Also, can we now finally say Bill Clinton and the Clintons for that matter are overrated. If Bill was that good, how come he couldn't get his V.P. elected in 2000? Forget Florida controversy too, it shouldn't have been that close if he was that good. Now his wife can't win the nomination. Although very close, she was rejected by her own party. Ran a horrible campaign too. Remember, Bill never won the majority of voters (49.3% in 1996 was the highest) and only fairly recently had approval ratings in the low to mid 50s. I don't think he's a popular as some would like to believe.
Playitloudforme wrote:With half of the democratic votes going to her, Obama would be a pure idiot not to have her on the ticket. The backlash he'd get from that half could and would kill his ability to win the presidency.
and if McCain wins, I'm moving to Europe. Dead serious. I will not be in this country with another warmonger as president.
Gibby wrote:Then begin packing your bags. Obama will not win no matter who he chooses as his running mate. The Democratic party is so fucked up right now - any honest Democrat will tell you that (me being one of them).
Gibby wrote:Party leadership is terrible. There was a perfect opportunity to take the white house and the best that could be found was Clinton or Obama? This will go down as one of the biggest political fuck ups in history. The Bush administration served up a gigantic softball to the Democrats and they swung and missed. Unbelievable.
Gibby wrote:Playitloudforme wrote:With half of the democratic votes going to her, Obama would be a pure idiot not to have her on the ticket. The backlash he'd get from that half could and would kill his ability to win the presidency.
and if McCain wins, I'm moving to Europe. Dead serious. I will not be in this country with another warmonger as president.
Then begin packing your bags. Obama will not win no matter who he chooses as his running mate. The Democratic party is so fucked up right now - any honest Democrat will tell you that (me being one of them). Party leadership is terrible. There was a perfect opportunity to take the white house and the best that could be found was Clinton or Obama? This will go down as one of the biggest political fuck ups in history. The Bush administration served up a gigantic softball to the Democrats and they swung and missed. Unbelievable.
Prepare for President McCain and let us know what country in Europe you will call home.
NealIsGod wrote:Hillary has too many haters. I predict Edwards will be Obama's running mate.
4ever4Steve wrote:I was for Hillary from the beginning. No one else has the kind of experience she has had...Obama is realitively inexperienced in comparison. Promising everyone a chicken in every pot and a "pie in the sky' doesn't mean shit if you can't back it up with solid plans.![]()
So, now, it is what it is. Obama cannot aford to lose 20 million voters by excluding Hillary from the ticket...just remember this was no 'slam dunk' on his part..it was damn close!( and Hillary won all the "big" states).
If he doesn't chose her for VP, then I shall sit this one out...and hope for the next election. But, after the damage Dubya has done in the last eight years...I really fear for our country right now....we don't need an old man, nor a novice in this job....The next prez better know what the hell to do, because ,we, my friends, are going to hell in the proverbial hand basket.
I believed Hillary could have done a good job..but, she still could be of value as a VP.![]()
Peace,
Anne
Playitloudforme wrote:Any country would be better than a McCain led America. But I don't think I'll need to pack at all, thank you very mucha.
conversationpc wrote:Playitloudforme wrote:Any country would be better than a McCain led America. But I don't think I'll need to pack at all, thank you very mucha.
I can't believe people, Republican or Democrat, say such stupid things as this.
conversationpc wrote:Playitloudforme wrote:Any country would be better than a McCain led America. But I don't think I'll need to pack at all, thank you very mucha.
I can't believe people, Republican or Democrat, say such stupid things as this.
Saint John wrote:I pray to God Obama picks Clinton. McCain's victory would be easy.
Playitloudforme wrote:conversationpc wrote:Playitloudforme wrote:Any country would be better than a McCain led America. But I don't think I'll need to pack at all, thank you very mucha.
I can't believe people, Republican or Democrat, say such stupid things as this.
Too bad Dave. I'm not stupid.
conversationpc wrote:Playitloudforme wrote:conversationpc wrote:Playitloudforme wrote:Any country would be better than a McCain led America. But I don't think I'll need to pack at all, thank you very mucha.
I can't believe people, Republican or Democrat, say such stupid things as this.
Too bad Dave. I'm not stupid.
I didn't say you were stupid. I said it was a stupid thing to say, and it is. I think Obama would be a total disaster as President but I would never even think about saying that I would consider moving out of the country because of him or that other countries would be better because of his being the President. McCain is no despot worthy of that kind of comment. He's not nor will he ever be a Saddam Hussein, Pol Pot, Kim Jung Il, etc.
classicstyxfan wrote:I think you 2 should meet after school....at the bike racks !![]()
![]()
![]()
( thats how all the fights/disputes at my middle school were resolved )
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 55 guests