Hillary as VP or Obama probably loses

 title=

It's crystal clear. Obama needs a game changer and Hillary is it. No doubt in my mind.

Picking Hillary would strike the fear of God into the Republicans. She would immediately deliver half of the 20% of Dems who are holding out and, as the GOP base have already polarised like sheep around the most right wing candidate, there is very little downside.

Sure there are a few independents, who understandably won't be comfortable with it initially but ultimately Obama is the presidential candidate and Hillary will be his deputy.

If you're a woman who wants to preserve the right to make the most difficult choice you may have to make in your life, then Obama is your only option. If you're happy with a bunch of grey haired angry conservatives telling you that even if you get raped, you have to bear the baby to term then go ahead and vote for McCain because McCain has made it crystal clear that if he gets the chance to appoint a Supreme Court justice, Roe v Wade is dead and once Roe v Wade dies and a one day old embryo is considered to be a person, abortion will logically have to be banned in ALL circumstances. Fact. They will have police guarding the border to Canada with sonography equipment to prevent women crossing over for terminations. Welcome to a McCain presidency.

But it's not just hot button issues like abortion that are crucial indeed it's much bigger issues such as the economy. If you agree with Bush/McCain that tax cuts should go exclusively to the rich then please, vote for them. If you think tax cuts should go to the working and middle classes then Obama is your candidate and having Hillary as his deputy changes nothing.

The one downside to Hillary is the personal issues that exist between her/Bill and Obama. Can she really be trusted to advocate for him 100% and be his trusty attack dog as Lieberman and Romney would do for McCain. If not, he can't pick her. But I think she realises that this is her only chance to become president in the long term. If Obama loses, she will be blamed for it and the party will not touch her again.

I would still prefer Bayh but Clinton would spark a media frenzy that would steal the narrative for weeks and deliver the critical states of OH, MI and FL. It would be a bold choice and would demonstrate that Obama is big enough to work with someone who has previously assailed him mercilessly. If I were a McCain supporter I would want him to pick Sebelius. She's a great person but an ineffective speaker and people would not regard her as ready to be president in the way that Clinton so clearly is.



Display:


Re: Hillary as (2.00 / 2)

Well one thing that we need to do is get tne media off the narrative of what is wrong with BO and why isnt he doing better.

david


by giusd on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:19:37 AM EST

Re: Hillary as (2.00 / 1)

Perhaps the one thing Obama's campaign has done poorly is to manage expectations. The "why isn't Obama further ahead?" narrative is based on the presupposition that Obama should be running away with it when recent elections have shown that in fact the electorate is very evenly divided.

It must always be remembered that no matter how common sence says people shgould vote, the fact is half of them or more were stupid enough to vote for Reagan and Bushboy -- twice each.

The one thing we can't expect from half of the electorate is common sense, even with regard to their own self interests.


by Glaurung on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 01:01:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary as (none / 0)

Which was his primary message 24/7 vote for me it will be a landslide because I get her voters she doesn't get mine.

Obama did all of this to himself.


by dtaylor2 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 02:30:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary as (none / 0)

You're the last person anyone should trust to portray anything Obama has ever said. You're a regular midas (or McBush) when it comes to turning anything about him you touch to crap.


by Glaurung on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 02:50:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary as (none / 0)

Cite one quote where Obama says he will win in a landslide.  Just one.


by niksder on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:45:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary as (2.00 / 1)

Obama doesn't say much himself.

He has his surrogates say it.

That is a separate reason why he is losing.

McCain talks for himself.

But since you asked for a specific Obama quote and I can deliver....

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics /2008/01/01/2008-01-01_obama_confident_p redicts_a_landslide-3.html


by dtaylor2 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:52:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary as (none / 0)

"I intend to whup 'em so good that it won't even be close."

Well I certainly hope so: it would be weird if he intended to lose, or just squeak by.

Try again?


I'm voting for Saxby Chambliss!
by Jess81 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:23:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary as (none / 0)

Yeah. He dipped a couple of points for a couple of weeks. It might mean he's bound to lose. Or he might just rebound back.


by Dale Johnson 007 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 02:24:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary as VP or Obama probably loses (1.40 / 5)

Ya know you people that still can't believe your Candidate fucking lost months ago...are simply NOT writing enough on this subject...
Please write more...
"harlequin speech of suicide, demanding instantaneous lobotomy"
by nogo postal on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:20:09 AM EST

Re: Hillary as VP or Obama probably loses (2.00 / 4)


Oh yeah very mature of you, with supporters like you Obama might even manage to lose to McCain. Quite a feat, congratulation.
by TaiChiMaster on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:23:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary as VP or Obama probably loses (2.00 / 2)

You know, you don't have to look in the diaries if you detest them that much.

What will you do if OUR candidate looses the GE and it becomes apparent that the thing that would have tipped the scale in his favor would have been a VP pick of Clinton?

Before you start berating me, I am on record as a Hillary supporter who doesn't want her relegated to the 'also ran' spot of VP.

This isn't about your wish that the Clintons drop off the face of the earth, like most Clinton haters wish, it's about a Democratic win in the GE and turning our country around and back on track for ALL Americans.

See the big picture for once, if you dare.


Hell's bells, even the GOP didn't have to crucify Eisenhower's record in order to make Reagan their 'saint'. We can have two great ones, you know?
by emsprater on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:43:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary as VP or Obama probably loses (2.00 / 3)

They'd never admit that bringing Hillary on board would have done any good.

If we lose, they will blame her.  They'll say she didn't do enough, that she undermined Obama by not personally getting in a bus and driving her 18 million supporters to the polls, one by one.

They'll never admit that they supported the weakest candidate the Dems have put forth in...i don't know...history.


by GoldLame on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:46:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary as VP or Obama probably loses (none / 0)

You got it.  If Obama loses Clinton is going to shoulder a lot of the blame.  


Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius
by Blue Neponset on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:48:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary as VP or Obama probably loses (2.00 / 2)

Yup.  I'm sure of it.  Of course, its just one more injustice.

Obama's primary supporters, wild-eyed and dreaming as they were, will be to blame.  

Oh! And the damned media.  "Evil, narcissistic Hillary will do anything to be president; she's attacking poor, ole' sweet Obama."

Now, what do you hear from the media?  CNN spent a full ten minutes last week discussing whether Obama fits the biblical description of the anti-Christ.  

Funny.  What a difference the clinching of the Democratic nomination makes in terms of the corporate media.


by GoldLame on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:54:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

So picking Hillary ... (none / 0)

...will make the press stop the bogus reporting?  

It seems to me, picking Hillary for VP will just give the MSM another big target upon which to aim its sights.  


Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius
by Blue Neponset on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 12:00:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So picking Hillary ... (2.00 / 1)

Of course not.  The MSM is against the Dem in every cycle.  

This is something of which the Clintons are very much aware...and always have been.  That's why they are fighters and that's why she was always my pick.

Picking Clinton would consolidate the party.  I believe the only way we can lose is with a divided party - the Dems enjoy, thankfully for the first time in a while, a sizeable lead in party ID.  Look at that WSJ poll (i think it was WSJ), showing Obama up 3 over McCain; if Clinton were in the race, she'd be up six.

We need her on that ticket.  Its just a matter of simple math.

The fact that she lives for the blood sport only makes her the more obvious choice.


by GoldLame on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 12:30:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So picking Hillary ... (none / 0)

a matter of simple math ... that you've just made up off the top of your head.

I'd be fine with Clinton being picked, but she doesn't make or break this election either way.  Much as she won't be the reason for the loss (or win) if she's not picked, she also won't be the reason for a win (or loss) if she is.  If she's picked, there will still be 12-15% of "Democrats" that won't vote for Obama for a myriad of reasons.

There are no magic bullets that guarantee the win, and thinking that there are is a dangerous fantasy.


by bottl4 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 01:04:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So picking Hillary ... (none / 0)

I never even hinted at a silver bullet.

We are talking VP pick.  She, by far, makes the most sense.

Obama may be so weak he won't win anyway.  The GOP may be so weak McCain won't win anyway.

The point is, agaian, Clinton makes the most sense.


by GoldLame on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 01:51:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So picking Hillary ... (none / 0)

Simple math?  It sure is, this simple:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/200 8/08/20/should-obama-choose-clinton/

Consider this finding from the new Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll out Wednesday night. A bare majority of Clinton supporters, 52 percent say they will vote for Obama. Twenty one percent favor McCain, while 27 percent are still undecided or say they will vote for "someone else.''

And here is where the other pts were in reference to..."Would Clinton add to the ticket? Apparently. The poll shows Obama leading McCain by three points. If Clinton were at the top of the ticket, she would be leading McCain by six."


He that lives upon hope, will die fasting. -Ben Franklin
by TxDem08 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 01:59:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So picking Hillary ... (none / 0)

Alright, I'm willing to agree the numbers weren't made up.  But that doesn't make them meaningful.  We've had 2 solid months of Obama taking hits from the Republicans and Clinton largely out of the public eye.  I'd argue that moves Clinton closer to being the "generic Democrat" or an idealized candidate.  If Clinton had been the candidate, I'd argue we'd see a similar story with an Obama question.  


by bottl4 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:36:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So picking Hillary ... (none / 0)

1. Hillary couldn't get the A.A. vote during the primary, so what makes you think she could "consolidate" the party?

2. And if Hillary really has 18 million supporters, why aren't they following her lead and supporting Obama?? If they're hers she should be able to lead them.

As for the rest, if, if, if, if.  You don't have any PROOF for your statement that she would be up by six.


by venician on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:09:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

and suddenly the press will love them together? (none / 0)

or will it be "The Anti-Christ/Evil Bitch ticket is picking on the ticket of poor sweet old war hero/Jesus loving patriot"


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 12:05:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: and suddenly the press (none / 0)

LOL No, that's not what I was saying at all.  See response above.


by GoldLame on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 12:34:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary as VP or Obama probably loses (1.00 / 2)

The capable efficient smart woman should prop up the weak inexperienced man. If she doesn't prop him up strongly enough, it is her fault he fails. A life lesson, no?


by Marjoriest on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 12:19:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Capable at what? (none / 0)


by JJE on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 12:26:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary as VP or Obama probably loses (none / 0)

Is that you Harriet???


by venician on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 04:36:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The "injustice" arguement.... (none / 0)

...would make a lot more sense if we weren't being subjected to Bill Clinton giving TV interviews where he refuse to say Obama is qualified for the presidency, and where he praises McCain for his green stance.  Where we get to hear HRC supporters, such as Ms. Buell criticize Obama's European trip, and listen to Mr Wolfson complain about him from "the fairest newchannel on TV"-Fox News.

You bet she is going to get a lot of blame if she doesnt reign in some of this crap.  Just campaigning for Obama to give herself cover aint' gonna cut it.  


"You might well think that. I couldn't possibly comment"
by xenontab on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 01:51:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary as VP or Obama probably loses (2.00 / 1)

The sad part is you actually believe that it would be her fault, no matter what she does to campaign for him.


Hell's bells, even the GOP didn't have to crucify Eisenhower's record in order to make Reagan their 'saint'. We can have two great ones, you know?
by emsprater on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 12:04:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well first (1.00 / 1)

she actually has to aggressively campaign for him.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 12:07:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well first (2.00 / 1)

You know, if she did that 24 /7 for the next 70 days it wouldn't be enough for some of you folks.


Hell's bells, even the GOP didn't have to crucify Eisenhower's record in order to make Reagan their 'saint'. We can have two great ones, you know?
by emsprater on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 12:09:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well first (none / 0)

A good start would be for her to have Bill shut the hell up.  That would be nice.  And would make her support seem a bit more sincere.


"You might well think that. I couldn't possibly comment"
by xenontab on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 02:56:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well first (none / 0)

Just more CLinton hate.

Gore and Kerry both also 'ran' away from Clinton in their bids for POTUS.

How did that work out again?


Hell's bells, even the GOP didn't have to crucify Eisenhower's record in order to make Reagan their 'saint'. We can have two great ones, you know?
by emsprater on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:08:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well first (none / 0)

I have never seen on either side of aisle, the spectacle of a leader of a party, refuse to say that his party's nominee is qualified to be president.  Can you suggest one?

But you are correct, this is an example of Clinton Hate.  The hate that is eminating from Bill Clinton.


"You might well think that. I couldn't possibly comment"
by xenontab on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:30:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary as VP or Obama probably loses (none / 0)

Why is that sad?


Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius
by Blue Neponset on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 12:08:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary as VP or Obama probably loses (2.00 / 1)

Because it underscores your hatred for Clinton.

No matter what, she's to blame.


Hell's bells, even the GOP didn't have to crucify Eisenhower's record in order to make Reagan their 'saint'. We can have two great ones, you know?
by emsprater on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 12:11:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary as VP or Obama probably loses (none / 0)

I don't hate anyone.  

I certainly don't like Clinton, but IMO she bears some responsibility for the current state of the Presidential race.  If you want to dismiss that then maybe it is you who is choosing not to see the whole picture.  


Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius
by Blue Neponset on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 12:15:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary as VP or Obama probably loses (1.33 / 3)

Why is it NEVER Obama's fault? How about the Saddleback fiasco? That was Hillary's fault, too? The flip-flops? The lack of foreign experience or know-how? Hillary's fault, of course. Some Democrats who supported a great candidate in Hillary, aren't now coming to adore Obama? Hillary's fault, of course. Goofy.


by Marjoriest on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 12:22:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So... (none / 0)

....Hillary's supporters aren't going to vote for Obama because of the "Saddleback fiasco"?  

That is just silly.


Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius
by Blue Neponset on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 12:27:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Ya know you people that still can't believe..... (none / 0)

I've decided that pity is what they need. I mean, put yourself in their miserably bitter heads for one minute.


by Glaurung on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 01:05:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary as VP or Obama probably loses (2.00 / 1)

I agree with the premise.  I think Obama needs Clinton for the sake of party unity.

However, I don't think the downside is Bill.  Bill is a professional and knows what he's doing.  He knows the difference between campaigning for his wife and being the spouse of a sitting VP.  

I think her downside is her vote for the Iraq war.  I think think the ticket can over come that, simply because adding her will ensure a unified Democratic Party going to the polls in Nov.

A bigger problem would be for Obama to pick someone other than Clinton who also supported the Iraq War (Bayh, Biden, Daschle, Kerry).  How can you criticize McBush for Iraq when your VP supported it?  If its Hillary, all you have to say is, look, 'party unity.'; its what Kennedy did when he chose LBJ.  That's a simple, strong narrative.

Otherwise, chosing someone else who voted for Iraq War, would leave Obama's ticket without a heart or soul.


by GoldLame on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:21:56 AM EST

Re: Hillary as VP or Obama probably loses (none / 0)

Obama to pick someone other than Clinton who also supported the Iraq War (Bayh, Biden, Daschle, Kerry)

The difference maybe which of these has come out and said they made a terrible mistake voting for the war. I think this is where Clinton advisors really screwed up. Telling her not to say she was wrong on that vote.

Could I be wrong on this, if you ask my family I'm always wrong :)


Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof.
by jsfox on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:29:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary as VP or Obama probably loses (2.00 / 2)

As much as John Edwards tried thru the primaries, I don't think making such 'apologies' meaningful worked by any stretch of the imagination.  

Everyone can stuff their sorries in a sack; the fact is, they all screwed up royally.  Actually, to say you are sorry sort of implies you knew what you were doing was wrong.  I know that's not the case for every apology anyone ever makes, but on this subject that's the way I feel.  

For Clinton, I think she defended her vote better than anyone else ever has.  Coercive diplomacy.  That's a real thing and is exactly how John Kerry attempted to defend his vote.  Hussein was a threat; weapons inspectors hadn't been in Iraq since 1998.  So, use the threat of force to force inspectors back in.  And, it worked.  They were there and, in fact, told the world there was nothing there.  It's simple.

Now, no one, especially these otherwise respectable Dems, should have NEVER trusted this idiotic madman who is president.  But, what's done is done.

Anyway, didn't want to argue over this yet again.  I just always thought it was funny that everyone demanded from Hillary a Jimmy Swagger (sp?) "I'm so sorry, I have sinned, Dear Lord forgive me" apology with sniffles and flowing tears.  Never gonna happen.  Iraq is Bush's disaster.  


by GoldLame on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:40:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The problem is (none / 0)

she trusted Bush to use that "coercive diplomacy" wisely.  Easily forseeable blunder.

That shows extremely poor character judgement (on all of their parts, not just Clinton's).  A robot would have made a pretty good Senator just by systematically opposing everything coming out of the White House.  They were and are that bad.

There are only two possible explanations for going along with the WH on anything: being a well-meaning dupe or doing it out of political calculation.  I'm absolutely certain Clinton, Kerry and Edwards all did the latter, even though none of them can admit it (it is a mortal sin for a politician to admit to being a politician).  Two of them eventually came around to confessing to the lesser charge and apologizing.  Weak and less than pricipled, but better than nothing.  Clinton deserves all the criticism she gets on this.

And since we're sort of rehashing the primaries anyway, may I remind everyone that she didn't read the NIE before voting, unlike Bob Graham (who also planned to run for president and represented a more conservative state).  There is no better evidence that her priorities as a Senator are totally out of whack.

I also wish these ClintonVeepers would acknowledge the most substantive arguments against her (high net disapprovals and lots of baggage, for example) instead of suggesting how she gets along with Obama is the most important question mark.


by corph on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 12:34:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The problem is (none / 0)

If you read my comment, you'd see that we are not wholly in disagreement.  No one should have voted to give Bush authority.

However, I'd be nice for those who feel Clinton's vote for war disqualifies her, also apply that to the other Senators (the MEN) who also voted for it.  Besides genitalia and breasts, what makes her so fundamentally different in this regard?

What the hell does Obama stand for, really?  He can pick Clinton because he has to.  If he picks any of the other war voters (the MEN), then his candidacy is as hollow as McCain is trying to make it out to be.

Obama staked the entire premise of his campaign on his opposition to the war.  If he can't suck it up and pick Clinton for the sake of party unity, then why in God's name would he pick another war voter?  Its simply astounding, the possibility that may happen.


by GoldLame on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 12:44:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The refusal to apologize (none / 0)

makes her worse on the issue than Kerry or Edwards.  To be fair, I don't know if Biden has, and if not shame on him.

And of course it's not the only issue.  I for one could have overlooked the AUMF vote (less so the NIE neglect), as I did when supporting Kerry last time.  But there are plenty of other reasons to support a candidate other than Clinton, even if they voted for the war.

The woman thing is a red herring for me; Obama can't be seen as either pandering to or discriminating against a woman veep candidate.  Kerry and Biden both have substatial foreign policy experience.  Obama also kind of owes Kerry for giving him his springboard in '04 and endorsing him early.  Biden got in the best zinger of the primary season, and despite his blabbermouth reputation hasn't tarnished himself recently by bashing other Democrats.


by corph on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 01:36:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The refusal to apologize (2.00 / 1)

I'm not saying you're sexist necessarily.  It may be because you simply can't stand Hillary.

For many, though, it is a double standard.  Hillary's vote for war is cast as treason, whereas Biden and Kerry have other 'strengths' that can compensate.

Give me a break.  

So many Obama supporters worked themselves up in a tizzy over Clinton's vote; they were sure it totally disqualified her from public service.  A Bush clone, they suggested.

Now, these same people are APOLOGISTS for the MEN who voted for the Iraq War.  

And, lets see.  Who again voted to give immunity to telecoms and who didn't?  Sorry, I just had to throw that out there.

None of those men had 18 million Dem primary voters vote for them only months ago.  Just wanted to throw that out there too.


by GoldLame on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 02:52:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The refusal to apologize (none / 0)

When all else fails.............play the sexist card. Typical.


by venician on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:14:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The refusal to apologize (none / 0)

Typical that you'd be evasive when having to explain exactly how Clinton's vote for war is fundamentally different from the others - all of which happen to be men.

Its typical because people do that when they can't defend their positions.

If her vote disqualifies her from public service, logic would have it that everyone who voted for war would be disqualified.  Yet, many Obama supporters are now apologizing and advocating for just those senators.  

Line them all up.  Which one is different?  The woman.

Explain it.


by GoldLame on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:31:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That she hasn't apologized for it? (none / 0)

I believed that I mentioned that in above posts.  And that I also mentioned the vote itself wouldn't have been a deal-breaker for me. I never called the vote treason.  I'm sure she regrets the vote and wishes she'd been more diligent.  That she can't damn the consequences and simply apologize for it goes to the heart of why I don't like Clinton as a candidate.

I find her waaayy too calculating.  I find that she talks down to voters too much ("young people who think they are immortal", "women's rights are human rights", etc.).  Despite her being portrayed as a strong, decisive leader, I find her unsure of herself and unable to act forcefully on her principles (which showed in her campaign).  She has too many mental filters which prevent her from speaking from the heart.  In short, I find her to be a smart, capable and fundamentally decent person, but a poor politician.

I don't care about her anatomy or her wardrobe.  I'm disgusted by those nutcracker trinkets, but revulsion at her worst detractors doesn't make me any more inclined to support her.


by corph on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:02:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The problem is (none / 0)

Party Unity My Ass. Since when did you want unity Harriet. Have another glaass of wine and a smoke and just RELAX.


by venician on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 04:39:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Bill is not interested in an Obama win (none / 0)

Not clear if he's opposed or just indifference.  Also unclear if Hillary as VP would change his attitude.


by JJE on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 12:15:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bill is not interested in an Obama win (none / 0)

We get it.  President Clinton is a racist who can't fathom the idea of a black man as president.

Your trolling is quite persuasive.


by realistic democrat on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 12:38:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

nope (none / 0)

he's just angry at how the primary went.

Your dumbassery is quite persuasive.


by JJE on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 01:21:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: nope (none / 0)

Today he's not a racist...interesting.  You're so busy trolling you can't keep your story straight.

You really should learn to play nice in the sandbox.


by realistic democrat on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 01:24:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

how do you manage to tie your shoes? (none / 0)

I never said he was a racist.  You must be thinking of the nurse in your psych ward.


by JJE on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 01:43:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Recess is over (none / 0)

You clearly made that argument yesterday and you were rightly ridiculed.

Grow up.


by realistic democrat on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 01:54:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Wrong again (none / 0)

Are your falsehoods the result of dishonesty or stupidity, newbie?


by JJE on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 02:06:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wrong again (none / 0)

I'm not a newbie and you are simply lying.

You are quite lucky that your comments were contained in a dairy that was pulled of the site.


by realistic democrat on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 02:28:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Nah (none / 0)

If you'd been around more than a week you'd realize that I would never say something as simplistic as you are claiming.


by JJE on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:10:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wrong again (none / 0)

realistic dems first comment:

posted by realistic democrat on 08/12/2008 11:05:59 AM EST
attached to Obama/Bayh?

Not a newbie you say????????


by venician on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:01:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bill is not interested in an Obama win (none / 0)

That's rich coming from someone who just got here and who's own views are suspect. We have no idea what your true intentions are here. You have no HISTORY here. Until you have a history I tend to view all you newbies here with distrust.


by venician on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:34:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bill is not interested in an Obama win (none / 0)

I've been posting here since the early days of the primary season.  No detective badge for you.


by realistic democrat on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 09:30:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary as VP or Obama probably loses (none / 0)

Obama thinks he is Muhammed Ali well that period of his life ended when his pastor opened his mouth and drove the white men who were coming to him away. That is all it took.

Now he needs a different game changer and Hillary is it.


Obama/Biden 08
by W126 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:30:56 AM EST

Ah, the Wright reference (none / 0)

The only people that care about Wright now are people who never wanted Obama to win in the first place (like the media, Republicans, and PUMAs).


The pebbles have voted and the avalanche has begun.

President-Elect "That One"

by Dracomicron on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:33:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ah, the Wright reference (1.16 / 6)

I am an older white woman (bitter? not so much....) but when I heard Wright I thought it was a horror. It may be my age, but to me it was awful, and so are all the other preachers around Obama. It was hate speech, and the idea that it is likely that O feels the same way because he stayed in that church is one of many things against him.


by Marjoriest on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 12:52:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Cut the melodrama (none / 0)

Also bonus credit for bringing up "bitter."  Really racking up the McCain points here.

The only bad thing Wright did was use a parishoner for publicity, and undermine his presidential bid.

Who, exactly, are "all the other preachers around Obama?"

Padre Pfleger?  That guy who rhetorically pulverized O'Reilly's ambush artist interviewer and almost single-handedly revitalized an inner city Catholic diocese with outreach ministries and gun violence protests?

Oh, I suppose I'll give you Hagee and Parlsey, those guys... wait, they're the guys McCain wanted until they became inconvenient.  

So who, really, are you talking about?  What did Wright say that was "hate speech?"  

The fact that people are trying to ressurect this boogeyman shows that the anti-Obama forces are simply bankrupt of ideas or credibility.


The pebbles have voted and the avalanche has begun.

President-Elect "That One"

by Dracomicron on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 01:40:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Cut the melodrama (1.00 / 2)

You will never understand. You also won't understand why "We are the ones we are waiting for" is meaningless jargon (when he really means 'I am the one you have been waiting for), why his website and ads with the light and lines coming from behind his head is off-putting. You may think GD America is peachy, that humping the altar was amusing because it was anti-Clinton.


by Marjoriest on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 02:25:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"meaningless jargon" (2.00 / 1)

Alice Walker would disagree on how meaningless you think it is.

The amazing thing is that you guys are just as big on clownish buffoonery as Reverend Wright.  It's like how Communists and Fascists come around to amounting to the same thing through the degree of their fanaticism.

Rational adults were not impressed with Wright's anti-Clinton ranting, but know that it was far from "hate speech."  Rational adults know that "GD America" (as you put it so McCain-pointedly) was a reference to the country's transgressions against Christian ethics that are irrefutable.

This may shock (or more likely: disappoint) you, but not everyone who is for Obama was against Clinton.  Certainly her antics in the primary made me MORE pro-Obama, but very few actually wish her any harm.

Take care.


The pebbles have voted and the avalanche has begun.

President-Elect "That One"

by Dracomicron on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:04:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Cut the melodrama (none / 0)

And you and your me, me, me, generation will never understand what it means to be NOT white in America. Have you any idea what it feels like to grow up and live in a country that enslaved your relatives, drove your relatives off THEIR OWN LANDS, or rounded them up and put them in concentration camps??? No instead you whine about how poor little OLD white you is not being understood.

Good Grief the world does not revolve around you and your selfish generation.


by venician on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:30:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Grow up and stop whining! (none / 0)

YOU were never enslaved, driven off your land, or put in a concentration camp and neither were any relatives you likely ever met or knew.  If we go back far enough, probably the overwhelming majority of people in this country can claim some sort of egregious injustice to their ancestors.  Cut the bullshit unless you want to be a living breathing stereotype of a professional victim - exactly the kind of people who give liberalism a bad name.


by lombard on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:30:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

My ancestors (none / 0)

never really experienced any injustice since they came over on the boat.

They did, however, see injustice being done in this country.

My grandparents settled in Miami in the early 1960's and immediately left for New York because the racism down there made them sick.

My cousin is black, she has a black father and white mother and I grew up with her and saw the prejudice against her...in New York no less.

In a way, I'm lucky to have been born a white Christian male because I never have to go through the horrors of prejudice others face.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 02:10:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ah, the Wright reference (none / 0)

I agree with you; I was offended by Rev. Wright. Many on this site cannot understand why Wright is offensive and that's why the very same people cannot understand why Obama isn't doing better in the polls. Many at Mydd claim that Wright and Obama's relationship didn't have anything to do with Obama's loss of support but I believe it's the main reason Obama isn't doing better. You can't wipe away a 20 year relationship overnight.


by soyousay on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 01:45:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Actually... (none / 0)

It's mostly the people that were "offended" by Wright that seem the most "concerned" about why Obama isn't doing better in polls.


The pebbles have voted and the avalanche has begun.

President-Elect "That One"

by Dracomicron on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:06:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Actually... (none / 0)

I'm not concerned, I expected the outcome.


by soyousay on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:10:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What 'outcome?' (none / 0)

Nothing's happened yet.  How can there be an "outcome?"


The pebbles have voted and the avalanche has begun.

President-Elect "That One"

by Dracomicron on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:14:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What 'outcome?' (none / 0)

I was referring to the poll numbers. Obama's VP is important IMO. Otherwise, I'll expect the trend to continue.


by soyousay on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:24:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ah, the Wright reference (2.00 / 1)

And many white people have never steped outside of their bubble to actually consider how people who are not white, actually feel about this country that enslaved them, used genocide against them, and put them in concentration camps. Try talking to black, brown or Asian people some time and see how they feel about things.


by venician on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:25:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary as VP or Obama probably loses (none / 0)

Wright may be a factor in his struggles w/white male voters but I believe economics is a much larger force.


by realistic democrat on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 12:40:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary as VP or Obama probably loses (none / 0)

I believe that economics may keep some from voting McCain. That being said, I believe that many people will stay at home this year. It's a 50/50 presidential election....again.


by soyousay on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 01:48:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary as VP or Obama probably loses (none / 0)

Given his economic agenda, I surely hope this issue drives voters into the Obama camp!


by realistic democrat on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 01:56:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Enough (2.00 / 3)

If Obama needs Clinton to win, then we need to pack it in right now, because that would mean that an ages-old trend of VP selection not mattering much in the long run has been shattered, and Obama isn't the strong candidate that polling, policy wonks, and any one with eyes and ears can plainly see he is.

Obama will pick who he'll pick.  He's already made his pick, in fact, and it's pointless to speculate on it now.

So get over it and talk about something important.


The pebbles have voted and the avalanche has begun.

President-Elect "That One"

by Dracomicron on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:32:27 AM EST

This just isn't true (2.00 / 1)

McGovern's crap pick sure tanked his campaign.  And what about Mondale's?  Gore definitely helped Clinton as well, particularly in a certain southern state called TN.


Regardless, Clinton wouldn't be the norm or even comparable to a historical trends just because of who she is.  Almost 18 million people got out and voted for her- a good many of those were Democrats who haven't voted for a Democrat for POTUS in a very long time.
by linc on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 12:08:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sure (none / 0)

Like McGovern was a strong candidate in the first place?  Mondale didn't have a chance against Reagan no matter who he chose; I give him credit for at least trying to scratch the glass ceiling.

The "18 million" statistic that people throw out about Clinton is nigh meaningless.  The vast majority of those 18 million are already for Obama;  many of the rest of them were only for Clinton because she wasn't Obama (I'm not saying that the reverse didn't exist, but it is true).

Primary voters don't translate into general election votes.  There are other factors at work in a general election.  Give it a rest.


The pebbles have voted and the avalanche has begun.

President-Elect "That One"

by Dracomicron on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 01:45:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Not true about the 18 million (none / 0)

or did you miss the 3.1% MOE poll that said only half of those supporters are for Obama?  Its not good and Obama is a smart guy...


by linc on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 08:11:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

and other polls (none / 0)

have that number at 71% or 80% or 78%.

Half is an outlier, I've never seen any other polls, including recently, that showed the number at 50%.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 02:11:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This just isn't true (none / 0)

Really? How many? Show us your proof. And what does it matter how many people voted for her? If she can't convivce them to vote for our Democratic Presidental candidate then it doesn't seem to me like she has that much power or is that good of a leader.


by venician on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:45:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You don't get it (none / 0)

Clinton's group is as much a cult of personality as Obama's core group is.  Did you mis the 3.1% WSJ poll that said half of her 18 million won't vote for Obama?  You don't think those hold outs won't go with her to the Obama ticket?  Do you KNOW any Clinton primary supporters?  They are just as fanatical as you.  Believe me, I spend all of my free time putting out anti-Obama/PUMA fires - its not pretty.


by linc on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 08:13:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You don't get it (none / 0)

Yeah I do know a number of Clinton supporters and they ALL have come to terms with her loss. They care more about our country then being a member of the Clinton fan club.


by venician on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 08:34:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I disagree (none / 0)

There has never been a cult of personality in the Democratic party in my lifetime that approaches the Obama phenomena - Clinton included.  I agree with the above poster.  Clinton supporters liked Hillary and believed she was a very good and deserving candidate but many of them were also voting against Obama.


by lombard on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:38:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I know plenty (none / 0)

of Clinton supporters, most support Obama, other don't, nobody is moved to change their mind if she's on the ticket...nobody


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 02:03:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The way I look at it (2.00 / 5)

If we lose in November because Democrats didn't vote for Obama then we deserve to lose.  


Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius
by Blue Neponset on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:44:48 AM EST

Re: The way I look at it (none / 0)

Your comment just about makes me physically sick, and the sad part is, I agree with you 100%.


On Nov 4th, Barack Obama officially ends the Southern Strategy....
by WashStateBlue on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:53:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The way I look at it (none / 0)

It makes me sick too.  After eight years of Bush we may lose in November because Democrats won't vote for Obama.  Two weeks ago I laughed at everyone who made that exact point.  I never, ever thought the Clinton dead enders would be so disloyal that they would vote for McCain or stay home.  I underestimated their selfishness.  


Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius
by Blue Neponset on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 12:03:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I said it (none / 0)

months ago, but what I do know, I'm only a concern troll


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 12:08:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Congratulations (none / 0)

You have an insight into the  cult like minds of die hard Clinton supporter that I don't posses.  

I got pretty pissed at Clinton during the primaries and I vowed not to vote for her, but after a day I realized how stupid that was.  It boggles my mind that people old enough to vote would hold a grudge for five months.    


Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius
by Blue Neponset on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 12:12:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes I lived with them (none / 0)

I lived in a district where she won 70% of the vote, in a electoral district where she won 85%. I'm convinced I'm the only person who voted in my booth for Obama.

PUMA ran rampant in Southwest Queens long before anyone else recognized it.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:11:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The way I look at it (2.00 / 2)


Obama could lose, but it's not because of, I don't know... racist democrats.

It's because Obama has a thin resume.

Just take Obama's resume, hide his name and read it, then you tell me if you would make that resume president.

What Obama Had and doesn't have any more is Novelty.

the end.


by TaiChiMaster on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 12:18:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It is a loyalty thing (none / 0)

I don't expect you to understand.


Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius
by Blue Neponset on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 12:29:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The way I look at it (none / 0)

The thin resume argument is fairly weak to my mind.  This, I think, was Bill Clinton's actual point in his much-maligned interview where he was asked whether Obama had the experience to be President.  His argument was that there is no experience that outright qualifies someone for President.  
Lincoln had very little experience and he was one of the best Presidents.  Bush had a pretty decent resume for executive experience and he's been the worst.

by bottl4 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 01:19:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The way I look at it (none / 0)


If the resume argument is thin, just how thin is the Lincoln argument, subatomic?
by TaiChiMaster on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 01:51:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

A thin argument (none / 0)

requires a thin counterargument.

But it's true, Lincoln had a "thinner" resume.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:12:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The way I look at it (none / 0)

"I never, ever thought the Clinton dead enders would be so disloyal that they would vote for McCain or stay home."

The dead-enders probably voted for Reagan and the Bushes too.

Obama will win without them.


by Glaurung on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 01:12:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes, I did vote for Reagan (none / 0)

But not Bush - neither of them.

But I will enjoy seeing the smug expressions of his supporters' faces turn to tears in November if Obama does lose.


by lombard on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:46:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes, I did vote for Reagan (none / 0)

No surprise there. Many of Hillary's "supporters" regurgitate GOP talking points like true believers.

I will enjoy imagining the twisted face of bitterness you now wear sag like the folds of McWattle's neck when Obama wins.


by Glaurung on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:13:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I agree, too (none / 0)

If 18 million plus knuckleheads can't figure out that you don't run a green first term senator with no discernible accomplishments against a man with forty years of service to our country, then we deserve to lose as a party.


by lombard on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:41:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You do Obama a favor by lowering expectations. (none / 0)

But if a handful of bitter knuckleheads can't figure out that Obama has led McBush all the way since securing the nomination, and will campaign the tired old man's ass into the ground this fall, they deserve to sit on the outside and watch with envy as the rest of Hillary's former supporters whoop it up with the rest of us come november.


by Glaurung on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:19:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary as VP or Obama probably loses (2.00 / 1)

what's all this "...or Obama probably loses" business. It's in your title but you don't make any case for that premise in the body of the post. was it just to be provocative cuz all it does is get people pissed.


by Todd Beeton on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 12:00:24 PM EST

Re: Hillary as VP or Obama probably loses (2.00 / 1)

I'm a Clinton supporter. I don't think that a VP choice turns and unqualified candidate into a qualified Commander-in-Chief. Sorry.


by hwc on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 12:01:19 PM EST

Re: Hillary as VP or Obama probably loses (none / 0)

Which Constitutional qualification does Barack Obama lack again?


Join the Matthew 25 Network and help Democrats win the next generation of evangelicals.
by mistersite on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 12:07:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary as VP or Obama probably loses (none / 0)

I'd like to know how being a professional first lady for 20 years qualifies anyone to be president.


by Glaurung on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 01:09:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Laura Bush 2012! (none / 0)


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:13:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Laura Bush 2012! (none / 0)

As a 14 year F-L she's 2/3 as qualified as Hillary in that regard.


by Glaurung on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:56:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary as VP or Obama probably loses (2.00 / 2)

Obama has only himself to blame if he loses.  You can't blame the Clintons for that one.


by karajan72 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 12:38:33 PM EST