- This topic is empty.
June 4, 2008 at 3:21 am #618217
Jt, to be honest anybody but hillary. she has lost all of my respect. she continually has talked down to Obama and his supporters, i honestly do not want her on his ticket.June 4, 2008 at 3:36 am #618218
Feelings and lack of respect aside, the numbers are too close to ignore. I don’t want Obama to lose because Clinton’s supporters feel ignored. It would be petty to vote for McCain, but the possibility does exist. If she would have run a better campaign and not been for the war before she was against the war, the roles could easily have been reversed.
I’m still wondering who could bridge the gap between camps. And I don’t know either. Just talking.June 4, 2008 at 3:39 am #618219
I truly believe he can win without Hillary on the ticket.
I too believe she’d be great in the senate helping pass some much needed legislation and lead some senate investigations as well.
*cough…Bush..cough…Cheney..cough..cough eh hmm*June 4, 2008 at 3:49 am #618220
Trick I am with you. I am 110% confident that Obama can win without Clinton on the ticket. I think that Obama will find another spot for her hat may even be more fit than VP and that she is much needed but the ticket is not the right place. and to be honest I am to turn to say one person has to be on the ticket over the other…at the moment I am leaning towards richardson.June 4, 2008 at 4:36 am #618221
Richardson is a tough choice, because he was part of the Clinton adminsitration and the Clinton clan got very angry with him when he supported Obama. It almost rubs salt in the wounds, for the moderate Clinton supporters.
I much prefer a Clinton surrogate over Clinton, if the Obama campaign chooses that is the best chance to win in November. Rendall, Wesley Clark, someone who can reach out to Hill’s supporters…
Truly I think the party is about to turn against Hill’s. What she did tonight was nothing short of amazing. Chuck Todd compared it to the head coach of the losing team of the Super Bowl being interviewed after the game. The other team had won, the time had run out, they’d taken the Lombardi trophy. They then say, well we are clearly a much better team, and he have shown that in the 3rd quarter. I don’t accept the outcome of the game, and I will let you know what I decide.June 4, 2008 at 3:27 pm #618222
Obamas team is dismissing the idea that they are considering Clinton for the VP spot, but although i am thankful for that news. I am disappointed to hear that they probably will not talk abouta VP until July so it sounds like we will all be on pens and needles until then.June 4, 2008 at 3:48 pm #618223
It is also great to hear that two of Clintons top supporters James Carville and Terry McAuliffe are ready to not only back Obama but open their wallets to him because they understand that it is time to unite.June 4, 2008 at 4:03 pm #618224
VP: I still like Richardson best; Chris Dodd if we can go with another senator and I can live with Jim Webb — because he can make minced meat (or turnip, for the vegans) out of McCain’s military and veterans posturing. And, yes, I can live with Clinton — though I think it would be a big mistake. Right now, I believe Clinton will campaign enthusiastically for Obama, and Bill will stay in the background. (In his office in Harlem???? That should be interesting.)
NO REPUBLICANS — no Hagel!! That’s not where we’ll get our winning edge. A Repub in the cabinet? Sure! But not in any elected position. No *reasonable* Repub should be reelected to the house, senate, governorship, or attorney general (are you listening Washington?) They are not on the side of the angels. Ultimately, they vote the party and that’s bad for Americans(sic).
What we owe Clinton is a huge debt of gratitude for running a lameass old-school campaign and, especially, for stubbornly refusing to apologize for her pro-Iraq-war votes. I firmly believe that if she had apologized (and if she had somehow managed not to out-McCain McCain on the dubious issue of Iran) she would be the nominee. And it makes me sad that the first viable woman candidate came so close and lost by her own hand, with ample assistance from her husband. (Remember, up to 3 months ago, I was firmly planted on a painful fence.)
I personally would like to see her on the Supreme Court *OR* Homeland Security Czar until we manage to disband that ridiculous boondoggle — that probably has done more to make us UNsafe at any cost than anything Bush has done.
When we win in November, the torch will truly be passed — the right wing “centrist” democrats be toothless. The Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) can be the followers.
There’s a lot of time between now and November. We have to register voters *and* make sure they have the proper ID. Then we have to get them to the polls. We have to find ways to nullify Repub efforts to disenfrancise voters. We have to nullify the outrageous notion that Obama represents the overeducated, over-latted elite.
Good grief, is that who they think he was organizing for the past 20 years on the South Side of Chicago?June 4, 2008 at 4:35 pm #618225
Charla- Can you try to sell me on Richardson? I like the guy, but he seems like a tough choice. He was part of the Clinton cabinet, which would be a plus, but he backed Obama publicly and has become a pariah to the Clinton supporters. He seems like the anit-unity candidate right now.
I agree with you- I could accept Clinton. It’s not my first choice, but it isn’t my last choice either. I liked HRC prior to this campaign, and she still shares a number of my beliefs. I don’t think it makes political sense, but I would certainly trust Obama, Axelrod, and Ploufe if they did.June 4, 2008 at 5:08 pm #618226
I don’t want Clinton and am certain herself and her supporters are posturing, sometimes out of racism alone. I’d like to see Clinton out of it completely. I don’t like the way she’s using her voters to drive a wedge into the DP. She’s sold out. I wouldn’t even trust her on the Supreme Court. Not unless she shows some true integrity. What a loss :(
Who is Richardson. I will google but am curious about opinion. Are you talking about the guy form New Mexico? If so, I’m going down there in a few weeks. If it’s still up in the air, I’ll track him down and get a definitive ;)June 4, 2008 at 5:10 pm #618227
Richardson has positives and negatives. He may help Obama with an area of weakness – the Hispanic vote. He likely would not help heal the divide between Obama and the Hillary-or-nothing supporters.
Shoring up the Hispanic vote may help a lot in competing for Florida and the Southwestern states Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, California). No other candidate can help in this area as much as Richardson. Arizona is almost certainly going to McCain. So is Texas. California is almost certain to vote Obama. So Richardson would be there to help with N.M. and Florida.
Then there’s the blue-collar, rust-belt voters. Hillary played strong there are well and a Hillary surrogate, like Rendell, could help deliver them. That would help with Ohio and Pennsylvania in particular. Maybe even Indiana, West Virgina and similar states. These are all states that could go either way.
The die hard Hillary supporters may not come on board unless Hillary herself is the VP nominee, preferring instead to either stay home, vote McCain or vote for an independent/thirdparty ticket. Even a Hillary backer wouldn’t do the trick. The Clinton campaign fostered such a strong animosity towards Obama in her core supporters that they may be a lost cause in this election. And that’s really sad. The two actually have extremely similar views on nearly all issues. But when you’ve run a campaign based on demonizing and belittling your opponent, as Clinton has, it is very difficult to expect those who supported the campaign to suddenly switch gears and support the former opponent.
I like Edwards. He has a nice, populist message that fits well with Obama’s message of change. However, he has little experience at the highest levels of government. As much as I like Obama, his biggest weakness in the general election will be on the “experience” question. Two decades of public service don’t count in many voter’s minds unless it’s at the federal level or in the state executive branch. Adding Edwards to the ticket probably helps with core Democrats (who will vote for Obama anyway) but hurts with swing voters.
The VP choice is all about strategy to win the White House in the general election. I’m not making any predictions at this point. It has to be a tough decision.June 4, 2008 at 5:25 pm #618228
Richardson does look the best…June 4, 2008 at 5:45 pm #618229
I think I’ve made myself clear on where I stand on Obama but did want to jump in a congratulate all the Obama supporters on their hard fought victory.
Now may the best man win in Novembee :)June 4, 2008 at 6:45 pm #618230
Since the hardcore wingnuts of the pundit class are pushing for Hillary as VP, I suspect that President Carter is right about the situation.
Barack Obama should not pick Hillary Clinton as his vice-presidential nominee, former president Jimmy Carter has told the Guardian.
“I think it would be the worst mistake that could be made,” said Carter. “That would just accumulate the negative aspects of both candidates.”
Carter, who formally endorsed the Illinois senator last night, cited opinion polls showing 50% of US voters with a negative view of Clinton.
In terms that might discomfort the Obama camp, he said: “If you take that 50% who just don’t want to vote for Clinton and add it to whatever element there might be who don’t think Obama is white enough or old enough or experienced enough or because he’s got a middle name that sounds Arab, you could have the worst of both worlds.”June 4, 2008 at 6:47 pm #618231
Is it not time for a new Obama thread? I don’t think wordpress is very happy with really long threads.June 4, 2008 at 7:22 pm #618232
I think for the next few weeks, John McCain is the best possible spokesmen for the Obama campaign in wooing Hillary supporters.
He has the complete opposite position of her on everything of substance, and he is a terrible candidate offering a 3rd Bush term…
Iraq, taxes, womens issues, healthcare, veterans benefits- you name any central issue on Hillary’s platform and it more or less is completely in line with Obama, and more or less the polar opposite of McCain’s. I have faith that cooler heads will prevail.July 27, 2008 at 3:05 am #618233
I look forward to reading Fareed Zakaria’s point of view in Newsweek magazine. His thought after Sen. Obama’s recent trip overseas make me even more hopeful for an Obama presidency.
“In the end, the difference between Obama and McCain might come down to something beyond ideologyâ€”temperament. McCain is a pessimist about the world, seeing it as a dark, dangerous place where, without the constant and vigorous application of American force, evil will triumph. Obama sees a world that is in many ways going our way. As nations develop, they become more modern and enmeshed in the international economic and political system. To him, countries like Iran and North Korea are holdouts against the tide of history. America’s job is to push these progressive forces forward, using soft power more than hard, and to try to get the world’s major powers to solve the world’s major problems. Call him an Optimistic Realist, or a Realistic Optimist. But don’t call him naive.”July 27, 2008 at 11:48 pm #618234
WSMom, I’m starting to see a trend here.July 28, 2008 at 2:42 am #618235
I’m so sorry, Trick! I am, literally, laughing my a** off with the article that you linked to.
To suggest that someone is “powerful” because of the ratings results to Access Hollywood is absolutely so ******* hilarious, I cannot stand it.
Dems should be proud! Way to go!July 28, 2008 at 3:19 am #618236
What’s really funny, is that republicans have no argument based on facts or issues, so they lob out an irrelevant tidbit hoping to cause a distraction.
That was a very in depth op-ed that only in passing mentioned Obama had an effect on TV ratings. Perhaps the rest of the article was just way too embarrassing for your party, to warrant comment.July 28, 2008 at 3:30 am #618237
NR…did you read the same article that I did? And that’s all you got out of it? wow….July 28, 2008 at 3:44 am #618238
I’m glad that “snippet” amused you.
Unfortunately there was a bigger message in the article that you failed to read or assimilate from the link.
Dems are proud, proud our candidate can set an agenda and not follow one.
I hope Mr McCain keeps talking on foriegn affairs, he’s giving too much material for Colbert and Stewart to use on a daily basis.July 28, 2008 at 5:01 am #618239
So, all you proud Democrats, which agenda is it, exactly, that you’re following?
Seems to me that Obama has flip flopped quite a bit and has certainly come more center than when this whole campaign started.
In fact, wasn’t there a thread started about that very fact??
And JT – I certainly didn’t “lob” an irrelevant tidbit to induce distraction. I merely found that part of the article amusing. To liken “power” with a bump in ratings for “Access Hollywood” is pretty funny (and lame).July 28, 2008 at 5:36 am #618240
For those who are contextually challenged, the fact that Access Hollywood is lame, was the point. Obama’s influence is becoming so “powerful” he even had the ability to increase the ratings of that show by 20%. Something I imagine is quite difficult considering, as noted, it’s hardly on the top of anyone’s viewing list.
By the way, the reference was in parenthesis, because even the author understood it to be a tidbit.
Care to comment on any of the real points in the article?July 28, 2008 at 5:43 am #618241
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.