Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The 2008 Presidential Elections - Chapter 2

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Re: The 2008 Presidential Elections

    I seriously doubt that Senator Obama would choose Senator Clinton as a running mate if he wins the nomination. I believe she would be completely unwilling to play second fiddle to Obama, and Obama is aware of this. Ole Bill would be right down the hall, as well, always willing to interject. They simply accumulated too much rivalry during the course of this primary election. The only future for Hillary I see should Obama win in November is her creating gridlock against him in the senate. And if she goes overboard in that respect, she may find a well-funded democrat challenging her senate seat in 2012.

    I believe Obama will choose Senator Joe Biden as his running mate. He's the grounded, experienced figure with lots of foreign policy experience. A perfect complement to Obama's relative newcomer status.

    Another alternative would be Gov. Bill Richardson. He held out for a long time, and didn't endorse Senator Clinton even after getting together with Bill several weeks ago (was it for the Super Bowl? I think so). Richardson, being a governor with experience in international politics (UN Ambassador for US) and energy (Energy Secretary) would have some great credentials. I thought he had the most valuable political experience of all the democratic presidential candidates (I felt it was a bit disingenuous of Hillary to insinuate that she had more experience than even Richardson in that early debate).

    I also doubt Obama will choose John Edwards for VP. Although, we may see Edwards in some other secretarial post (I don't think Attorney General will be on the table for him either, should Obama win it all).
    Last edited by Vanguard; February 24, 2008, 05:15 PM.

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: The 2008 Presidential Elections

      Two problems with Biden: his characterization of Obama as articulate, clean, bright... Obama did take umbrage to it commenting that Biden was historically inaccurate in that there had been many other bright, articulate voices such as Jesse Jackson, etc. Also, Biden's past plagiarism of a speech during his presidential run would give unneeded fodder for McCain's folks.

      As for Richardson, that might bring Obama more Hispanic votes, plus Richardson has a boat load of experience. He does carry some baggage though that Obama may want to be clear of.
      * I would be most content if my children grew up to be the kind of people who think decorating consists mostly of building enough bookshelves. *
      - Anna Quindlen

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: The 2008 Presidential Elections

        Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton is NOT in the cards. No way, Jose, from either perspective!

        What do you folks think about Ralph Nader getting into the act .... AGAIN?

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: The 2008 Presidential Elections

          Originally posted by U'ilani View Post
          Also, Biden's past plagiarism of a speech during his presidential run would give unneeded fodder for McCain's folks.
          Considering how voters have largely shrugged off Hillary's charges of plagiarism against Obama in recent speeches, my guess is that Biden's past history with plagiarism (going all the way back to the 1960s) will be met with a "Duh, who cares?" type of reception from the media. The GOP will have to come up with better stuff than that to derail a Obama/Biden ticket, should it come to pass.

          Personally, I am most comfortable with an Obama/Biden ticket. Biden is one person I know who would be most capable of stepping into the Presidency should the unthinkable happen. However, I acknowledge that there may be other running mates who would better complement Obama, from a demographics standpoint. Edwards and Richardson do come to mind.
          This post may contain an opinion that may conflict with your opinion. Do not take it personal. Polite discussion of difference of opinion is welcome.

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: The 2008 Presidential Elections

            Lavagirl, you can say that again! HISTORY is being made and this is exciting stuff for even we GOPers. I'm diggin this so very much. Add to that the fact that the GOP ain't so grand these days and lacks anyone willing to stand up to the public scrutiny to run on our ticket that's also young,energetic and charismatic and I really may just stay home and bake cookies on election day. Heck, I may eat some of them, too. (still losing weight, so eating cookies is unlikely)

            U'ilani, I am like oh...twenty percent conspiracy theory nut. I actually find it hard to believe that the one running for president gets to choose who they REALLY want as VP. I believe that the power brokers meet with them and tell them that "for the good of the party" who they WILL have as VP, and that it happens most of the time. Therefore...I've been banking on a Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton ticket since summer of last year when we all speculated if Obama would run, approx.

            Menehune, I can't imagine Hillary respecting and agreeing to be subordinate to Obama, but then when faced with that spot or nothing......she may begrudgingly agree especially if he understands that she'll be the most vocal VP ever, just as she was the most involved first lady in modern times.
            Stop being lost in thought where our problems thrive.~

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: The 2008 Presidential Elections

              Originally posted by oceanpacific View Post
              Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton is NOT in the cards. No way, Jose, from either perspective!

              What do you folks think about Ralph Nader getting into the act .... AGAIN?

              I think I can be friends with Karen, despite her admitting to be a GOPer (hugs, Karen. I am GOP spawn and my parents cannot make me out at all!). That said, I have a conspiracy theory myself: Ralph Nader, once again, is being paid by the GOPers who see that they will NOT be in the White House, so they'll try to fragment the Dem ticket by throwing RN into the mix, AGAIN! That's my conspiracy theory and I'm stickin' to it.

              How can Ralph Nader be so self serving? He's gotta be getting his bread buttered somewhere! And I'm not talking Consumers Union!
              Aloha from Lavagal

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: The 2008 Presidential Elections

                Lava, and your theory makes sense. In the real world people do pay back favors. I admit I haven't followed Nadar. I don't know but you apparently do...at least seriously suspect that he'd DO this even knowing it benefitted the GOP.

                Is he neither party but was once? or which does he lean more towards of the two parties?

                Where the goals are astronomically high so are the tricks/games. I wouldn't put hardly anything past Hillary's camp in the next mos. Right now they're trying to pic of Obama dressed in African clothing. If they're smart they'll pin him down on whether he is for the Israelis or Palestinians. Surely she represents a lot of Jewish voters in NY. That could sink him with a lot of fundamentalist Christians that stand by Israel staunchly because of some scripture. I admit it, if he favors the Palestinians on land where I am convinced there have been two temples....he'll lose a bit of respect from me, too.

                Dang, I forgot to share gal, that I'm a rebel in my South Texas family. They're all pentecostal and some of the most wonderful souls on earth. I'm not their religion and dare to think outside their box, and I think they are sometimes shocked, often a little dismayed and just blow away sometimes at how I don't always think in their "bible speak." (hope that doesn't offend anyone) I find it easy to be different and stand alone anytime necessary, even when in a group of several hundred of them. Glad to see that you do, too.

                Follow your heart and you'll always be rockin and blessed.
                Last edited by Karen; February 25, 2008, 08:35 AM.
                Stop being lost in thought where our problems thrive.~

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: The 2008 Presidential Elections

                  Originally posted by oceanpacific View Post
                  What do you folks think about Ralph Nader getting into the act .... AGAIN?
                  I don't care so much, nor do I get all the outrage from the democrats' side.

                  Rewinding back to 2000, my question is not 'why did Al Gore lose Florida when those Nader voters could have given him the Presidency?" my question is "How the heck did Al Gore lose his home state of Tennessee?" Even Walter Mondale didn't lose his home state. And Al Gore had the added bonus of the name recognition of his US Senator father from the same state.

                  If Al Gore, or John Kerry for that matter, were truly worthy, they'd have represented themselves properly to the point where they'd have gotten the votes of the people they needed to win. That's all there is to it. The fact that Nader got as many votes as he did in 2000 indicates that he offered something compelling that the democratic party is not -- and he offered more so than the "conservative spoiler" of 2000, Pat Buchanan. Fortunately, my state of residence in 2000 and 2004 was won by Al Gore and John Kerry, respectively, so nobody can say I cost them a win.

                  I'm an individual who voted twice for Ralph Nader. This year, Barack Obama is getting my vote, should he make it to the General Election (I don't believe the rumor that Bloomberg is going to finance an independent Obama/Bloomberg bid). If Hillary wins the nomination, I'm going to vote for Ralph Nader a third time. But of course, I'd rather vote for Obama. I wouldn't give Nader so much credit to believe that he acts as an instant vote vacuum. I'm sure there are plenty of people like me who usually lean non-mainstream but will find other inspirations this year.
                  Last edited by Vanguard; February 25, 2008, 01:02 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: The Hillary Rodham Watch

                    Originally posted by cynsaligia View Post
                    take the time to go to hillaryclinton.com, barackobama.com, johnedwards.com or ronpaul.com., or what have you. find out what each candidate says about themselves. if you have certain special interests, find out how they've voted in the past.
                    I think you are absolutely right when you talk about doing research on the candidates to make an educated vote. But it is important to research meaningful information. Finding out "how they've voted in the past" is definitely meaningful. Getting your fill of cheap talk, rhetoric, and fanciful promises from campaign brochures and websites is not, IMO.

                    And the facts show:

                    1) Hillary Clinton, as then-first lady, was a supporter (along with Bill) for pushing the passage of NAFTA.

                    2) Hillary Clinton voted to support an authorizaton for President Bush to take military action in Iraq.

                    All the verbal double-talk, backtracking, and attacks on Obama coming from the Clinton camp won't change those incontrivertible facts.

                    And THAT is why I'm supporting Obama.
                    This post may contain an opinion that may conflict with your opinion. Do not take it personal. Polite discussion of difference of opinion is welcome.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: The 2008 Presidential Elections

                      Over 700,000 early votes in the state of California have not been counted as of 2/21/08

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: The 2008 Presidential Elections

                        I think Obama and Clinton have another debate coming up soon (tomorrow?) I wonder if it's not really awkward to face each other at this point? I think more from Clinton than Obama, if I mocked someone, called him a liar, said he was a plagiarist and someone who steals words and ideas, went on a "shame on you" rant about him and knew it was all being broadcast and repeated over and over, I might have some trouble facing that person and debating them, even if I thought I was right. I wonder what their demeanor will be towards each other when they do meet up again. The fight has become so personal and fierce, I wonder what each of them would do if the other got the party nomination? I mean, after someone wins nomination the candidates are supposed to reconcile to provide support and a united front behind the chosen candidate. How can they believably do that after all that has been said and done?

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: The 2008 Presidential Elections

                          Originally posted by Adri View Post
                          The fight has become so personal and fierce, I wonder what each of them would do if the other got the party nomination? I mean, after someone wins nomination the candidates are supposed to reconcile to provide support and a united front behind the chosen candidate. How can they believably do that after all that has been said and done?
                          I do think the the level of animosity between Clinton & Obama have gone well beyond the 1980 campaign jibes between Reagan & Bush (voo-doo economics).

                          Forget about an Obama/Clinton ticket. Ain't happenin', for sure. If Clinton can't sustain her campaign with victories in Ohio and Texas, she (and Bill) needs to graciously concede the nomination to Obama and to mend fences with him and his supporters. Failing that, Clinton risks becoming estranged from an Obama administration and becoming a pariah in her own party.
                          This post may contain an opinion that may conflict with your opinion. Do not take it personal. Polite discussion of difference of opinion is welcome.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: The 2008 Presidential Elections

                            Originally posted by Adri View Post
                            I wonder if it's not really awkward to face each other at this point? ... The fight has become so personal and fierce, I wonder what each of them would do if the other got the party nomination? I mean, after someone wins nomination the candidates are supposed to reconcile to provide support and a united front behind the chosen candidate. How can they believably do that after all that has been said and done?
                            Well, that's how politics works. Once the battle is over, s.o.p. is to line all your forces up in support of the eventual victor, for the common goal of defeating the final "enemy" (the opposition candidate).

                            Talk with people who have participated in debate classes back in high-school and college; we learned how to separate the topic from the individual defending it (usually by having to defend a stance that was against our personal beliefs). It's how attorneys can get down and dirty in the courtroom, then go share a dinner and drinks a few days after trial is done.

                            For Sens. Obama and Clinton, it's just their job. Outside of this battle, they know they have much more in common than in opposition. That's why many (not all) of their recent attacks have focused on areas such as "experience" or "plagiarism," rather than issues.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: The Hillary Rodham Clinton Watch

                              Originally posted by Frankie's Market View Post
                              I think you are absolutely right when you talk about doing research on the candidates to make an educated vote. But it is important to research meaningful information. Finding out "how they've voted in the past" is definitely meaningful. Getting your fill of cheap talk, rhetoric, and fanciful promises from campaign brochures and websites is not, IMO.

                              And the facts show:

                              1) Hillary Clinton, as then-first lady, was a supporter (along with Bill) for pushing the passage of NAFTA.

                              2) Hillary Clinton voted to support an authorizaton for President Bush to take military action in Iraq.

                              All the verbal double-talk, backtracking, and attacks on Obama coming from the Clinton camp won't change those incontrivertible facts.

                              And THAT is why I'm supporting Obama.
                              obama's stance on NAFTA isn't as "incontrivertible" as you think it is.

                              obama's stance on the war is much more nuanced than he admits.

                              there are several reasons why i prefer clinton over obama: she is consistent when it comes to women's rights (voting "present" isn't good enough for me); to my eye, her healthcare plan seems best (i work in healthcare) are a few. i've followed both clintons since i was 18 (his first run for presidency was when i became able to vote) so i'm not basing my opinion on websites or brochures. the incontrovertible fact is that the US budget was balanced under clinton and the middle class experienced a huge resurgence after suffering under reaganomics. i expect the other clinton would be able to pull up her bootstraps and work hard to make similar inroads for most americans.

                              FM, i know you won't agree with me, and that's fine--i respect that you at least took the time to examine your candidate.

                              Originally posted by glossyp View Post
                              I wonder if deep down in the BC psyche he really wants HRC to lose. His ego is famously huge (you don't run for president w/out having one of those these days) and I just don't think he relishes the role of second fiddle. While he has always been undisciplined in his personal appetites, he was always right on point when it came to politics and staying on message. Why go off now? It's not like he is going to lose any prestige when/if HRC goes down, he's still an ex-president with plenty of $$$ to pursue whatever causes/businesses/frivolities he desires.
                              if you say that about bill, what do you think about michelle?

                              hawaii has spoken as to who its dem candidate of choice is--obama. i'm just sad that there are so many obama supporters who are choosing him without examination. i'd say the same of anyone supporting any other candidate on similar, shallow grounds.
                              superbia (pride), avaritia (greed), luxuria (lust), invidia (envy), gula (gluttony), ira (wrath) & acedia (sloth)--the seven deadly sins.

                              "when you wake up in the morning, tell yourself: the people i deal with today will be meddling, ungrateful, arrogant, dishonest, jealous, and surly..."--meditations, marcus aurelius (make sure you read the rest of the passage, ya lazy wankers!)

                              nothing humiliates like the truth.--me, in conversation w/mixedplatebroker re 3rd party, 2009-11-11, 1213

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: The Hillary Rodham Clinton Watch

                                Originally posted by cynsaligia View Post
                                if you say that about bill, what do you think about michelle?
                                Ouch, that was a rather scolding column from Ms. Dowd. Having not seen this type of commentary from MO since hubby became a serious contender, I wonder if they've told her to tone it down. She stuck her foot in it in Wisconsin several days ago, but no chiding of the candidate.
                                Originally posted by cynsaligia View Post
                                hawaii has spoken as to who its dem candidate of choice is--obama. i'm just sad that there are so many obama supporters who are choosing him without examination. i'd say the same of anyone supporting any other candidate on similar, shallow grounds.
                                Obama mania disturbs me because of the 'true believer' tone of many of the supporters who don't know his political views. Makes me think of a bunch of lemmings following a pied piper. And, to all Obama supporters offended by the above, I have no problem with those who actually do know what he represents and still support him. My remarks are directed to those who are enchanted by the rhetoric alone.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X