Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Who do you think Sen. Barack Obama's running mate should be in November?

To ensure victory in November - Hillary

To be the most helpful in terms of governing - Biden

I picked the names on the list based on who's received the most attention as possible VP candidates.

Bringing Clinton for Obama may turn into turnoil. But I could care less about politics since is all shit to me.

So the She-wolf gets my last vote. I'd go with Bill Richardson....for a wild card I would pick Al Gore.

(Gore could use some attention)

That's all I have to say.

Hillary Clinton or Jim Webb.

Clinton had a good campaign and appeals to working class white folk...even though Obama's the one who's going to change the tax system like Kerry wanted to do.

Jim Webb served under Reagan, who ended the cold war, and he's a senator from a swing state.

Originally posted by BackFire
To ensure victory in November - Hillary

To be the most helpful in terms of governing - Biden Agreed on both accounts....Although I wish Biden was the one listed as President on the ticket.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Bringing Clinton for Obama may turn into turnoil. But I could care less about politics since is all shit to me.

So the She-wolf gets my last vote. I'd go with Bill Richardson....for a wild card I would pick Al Gore.

(Gore could use some attention)

That's all I have to say.

Anyone think that Hillary would undermine Obama? I know it sounds weird but think about it. She wants to get in the White House by any means and I think she might still look at Obama like some inexperienced Negro. But I do agree that his chances of winning would increase if he ran with Hillary as his V.P. and she would still make history as the first female V.P. in U.S. history. Yippie.

Bill Richardson or Hilary Clinton, to ensure the win, Clinton, to have the best person for the Job, Richardson.

Originally posted by Grinning Goku
Anyone think that Hillary would undermine Obama? I know it sounds weird but think about it. She wants to get in the White House by any means and I think she might still look at Obama like some inexperienced Negro. But I do agree that his chances of winning would increase if he ran with Hillary as his V.P. and she would still make history as the first female V.P. in U.S. history. Yippie. I think Hilary Clinton is a really nice person and I don't think she would think of Barack that way.

Shouldn't this be merged with Trans' thread that he made about running mates earlier today?

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Shouldn't this be merged with Trans' thread that he made about running mates earlier today?
We decided to have two separate threads, one for Republicans and one for Democrats. Thanks for the concern though.

Make Hillary VP and then make sure she does nothing of importance during the term (and second term if he gets one.)

While I think, at this moment, she seems like the most logical choice; a very real argument has been forwarded that it will represent little more than a slap in the face to Mr. Obama if the presidential candidate were forced to choose a VP because he or she was frightened of them.

Can we hear from anyone, even one, that considers themself a Cinton supporter that will not vote for Mr. Obama if she is not on the ticket?

According to polls about 14% will not vote for him. And I think another 30% or so said they wouldn't vote at all if she wasn't on the ticket. Meaning that he could lose like 20% of democrats if he doesn't include her.

I didn't ask for polls, I asked for actual members to chime in on the matter.

Oh, okay. I thought it was more a matter of asking if they actually existed.

Well if we take that I'm not sure whether PVS would vote for Clinton even if Obama was on the ticket as VP; then I think there is a likelihood of some of Clinton's supporters not voting or voting McCain.

The best political move would be to have Clinton as his VP, although I don't know how well they'd work together. Considering they have 95% the same policies I don't see why they couldn't though.
Someone like as mentioned Bill Richardson or Joe Biden would offer substance though.

I think they should amend your Constitution and make Madeleine Albright his running mate. She's smart and sexy.

Make John Edwards his running mate.

Sounds good to me.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Make John Edwards his running mate. That would be an interesting scenario that I could possibly see happening. Being only 55 years old, Edwards is more than young enough to go all potential 8 years with Obama then step in and run in 2016.

I don't exactly get what John Edwards would bring to the table though. He was probably helpful with his somewhat hokum charm for the cardboard Kerry, but I really doubt that's necessary for someone as charismatic as Obama.

Originally posted by Devil King
While I think, at this moment, she seems like the most logical choice; a very real argument has been forwarded that it will represent little more than a slap in the face to Mr. Obama if the presidential candidate were forced to choose a VP because he or she was frightened of them.

Can we hear from anyone, even one, that considers themself a Cinton supporter that will not vote for Mr. Obama if she is not on the ticket? I'll vote for the ticket without Clinton on it, sure, but it's a move that makes the best political sense.Originally posted by BackFire
To ensure victory in November - Hillary

To be the most helpful in terms of governing - Biden I personally think that Biden would be a frontrunner for SoS, personally

So no one's with me on Albright? Mmmm Maddy.

It would probably actually be better for Clinton if she stayed in the Senate.

http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/ciu/13/f7/7435b220dca0a6983783a010._AA240_.L.jpg

I've read commentary (credible, I believe), that if Clinton becomes the nominee, she will be the most electorally helpful VP since Lyndon Johnson.

Originally posted by Strangelove
I've read commentary (credible, I believe), that if Clinton becomes the nominee, she will be the most electorally helpful VP since Lyndon Johnson. I heard the same thing on CNN. Considering the electoral vote maps I posted a few days ago which show that she would take a comfortable 320-something electoral votes based on polling data, while he would only squeak by with 270-something with Ohio as a must win , as well as exit polls from Primaries indicating her supporters may not vote Obama, then I've no doubt that the statements are credible.

Though whether it's a good move for her is another story.

Also NB to the general KMC populace while I'm half-joking about Madeleine Albright - I do think it's rather archaic that a nation of immigrants bars people of good credentials, who grew up in the US from the nation's highest office purely because the relatively minute fraction of their life in which they were born was spent in another country.

I've never heard anyone argue counter to that, but I agree with you..

Originally posted by Strangelove
I've read commentary (credible, I believe), that if Clinton becomes the nominee, she will be the most electorally helpful VP since Lyndon Johnson. Another Obama/Kennedy comparison.

Clinton for the win, obviously. Obama has proved he can handle her, so I don't think he'd be worried about her going all Iago on his ass.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Another Obama/Kennedy comparison. Having the same speech writer, does not a JFK make. Aside from rhetorical prowess there's very little of real comparability.

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
Clinton for the win, obviously. Obama has proved he can handle her, so I don't think he'd be worried about her going all Iago on his ass.

At first, I thought you were taking about the parrot from Aladdin...then, I realized that you probably wouldn't say something like that in this discussion and I realized you were talking about the character from Othello.

Its amazing how my "foul little mind works".




I'm waiting to see how long Clinton will carry on with her butthurt. Do we have any news on Obama's running mate selection? (Not potentials...but an actual selection.)

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Having the same speech writer, does not a JFK make. Aside from rhetorical prowess there's very little of real comparability. I think Obama has the diction of a five year old. But I guess I'm the only one on these boards, and just about the country right now, that thinks that.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Having the same speech writer, does not a JFK make. Aside from rhetorical prowess there's very little of real comparability.

lol

not unless you are talking about them as a social phenomena...

(and, JFK was a much less effective leader than his legacy makes him out to be. He did have the Bay of Pigs and increased Vietnam violence)

Originally posted by Darth Macabre
I think Obama has the diction of a five year old. But I guess I'm the only one on these boards, and just about the country right now, that thinks that.

I agree. I don't see what the big deal with him is, if it isn't that he is black.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Having the same speech writer, does not a JFK make. Aside from rhetorical prowess there's very little of real comparability. I don't understand the first sentence.

Kennedy was the first Catholic president, concerned about Human Rights, wanted change, and people are sayting Obama might get shot, and might choose a vice president due to electoral chances like Kennedy did.

I've heard the comparison quite a lot.

Originally posted by inimalist
lol

not unless you are talking about them as a social phenomena...

(and, JFK was a much less effective leader than his legacy makes him out to be. He did have the Bay of Pigs and increased Vietnam violence). And that was with 14 years in Congress and extensive overseas travels and foreign policy experience...

One wonders what kind of gaffes a one-term Senator may make.

I find irony that the outsider from Washington, and "change" candidate who would "reach across" and represents "a new kind of politics" without actually expanding upon what was new about it, will probably end up choosing a Joe Biden, Bill Richardson or a Hillary Clinton, all apparently part of "the establishment" as his VP. And will likely have to surround himself in his Cabinet with other "establishment" figures to make up for shortcomings in policy and governance.

I also find irony that the outsider from Washington, the "change" candidate, who'd bring "a new kind of politics" and would seek bipartisanship was named George W. Bush.

Originally posted by lord xyz
I don't understand the first sentence.

Kennedy was the first Catholic president, concerned about Human Rights, wanted change, and people are sayting Obama might get shot, and might choose a vice president due to electoral chances like Kennedy did.

I've heard the comparison quite a lot. Ted Sorenson is one of Obama's speechwriters. Ted Sorenson was one of Kennedy's speechwriters.

The comparison isn't made because Kennedy "was the first Catholic president, concerned about Human Rights," or because Kennedy was assassinated. The comparison is made because people in the media and Obama's campaign have been trying to waylay talk of inexperience by pointing to Kennedy. As well as trying to gain advantage using relatively unwarranted Kennedy comparisons, that don't go far beyond being a phenomenon.

The thing being Kennedy wasn't as inexperienced as people, both detractors and proponents, like to paint. And upon taken office despite a relative wealth of experience he had some major gaffes such as the aforementioned Bay of Pigs, partially a result of a Vienna Meeting between then Soviet Premier Khrushchev, which Obama for some reason felt was a good thing - citing it as why he would potentially meet without preconditions with US enemies.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Ted Sorenson is one of Obama's speechwriters. Ted Sorenson was one of Kennedy's speechwriters.

The comparison isn't made because Kennedy "was the first Catholic president, concerned about Human Rights," or because Kennedy was assassinated. The comparison is made because people in the media and Obama's campaign have been trying to waylay talk of inexperience by pointing to Kennedy. As well as trying to gain advantage using relatively unwarranted Kennedy comparisons, that don't go far beyond being a phenomenon.

The thing being Kennedy wasn't as inexperienced as people, both detractors and proponents, like to paint. And upon taken office despite a relative wealth of experience he had some major gaffes such as the aforementioned Bay of Pigs. The Bay of Pigds was all the CIA, Kennedy had no role in it. In fact, by not going along with it, Kennedy avoided war with Cuba, and thus, prevented Nuclear war between USA and USSR.

Originally posted by lord xyz
The Bay of Pigds was all the CIA, Kennedy had no role in it. In fact, by not going along with it, Kennedy avoided war with Cuba, and thus, prevented Nuclear war between USA and USSR. What kind of bizarre fairytale candy land do you live in? What does "by not going along with it" even mean? Kennedy authorised it.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
What kind of bizarre fairytale candy land do you live in? What does "by not going along with it" even mean? Kennedy authorised it. He was against it; he fired Alan Dulles, the head of the CIA, after the bay of pigs because of it.

Erratum: "... aforementioned Bay of Pigs leading to the Cuban Missile Crisis, partially"Originally posted by lord xyz
He was against it; he fired Alan Dulles, the head of the CIA, after the bay of pigs because of it. Culpability does not fall entirely on any one party. The plan was formulated under Eisenhower Administration, it was pushed by the CIA, but it was authorized and modified by the Kennedy Administration and ultimately botched by all parties involved. The fact that Kennedy fired CIA chiefs subsequently doesn't magically eliminate all culpability from him. The botched invasion in no way "prevented Nuclear War between the Soviet Union and the US."

Okay, but Kennedy had very strong disliking for the CIA and would've ended it, had he not been shot.

In any case, the Bay Of Pigs had nothing to do with Kennedy, they did it against his orders.

My source is an historian known as John Hankey.

Here's a video about Kennedy and the CIA: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=818267521031292324

http://gmy.news.yahoo.com/v/8159382

Breaks it down nicely without leaning toward one candidate.

You have to click on the Obama link to the right.

Wesley Clark would be a good option if Biden gets the SOS post instead.

I'd like to see John Kerry as VP or SOS, but unfortunately that'll probably never happen.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
http://gmy.news.yahoo.com/v/8159382

Breaks it down nicely without leaning toward one candidate.

You have to click on the Obama link to the right. I liked that, it was comprehensive.

I'd encourage people to play VP Madness! at http://cqpolitics.com. It list all top candidates and allows you to vote for your favorites.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Okay, but Kennedy had very strong disliking for the CIA and would've ended it, had he not been shot.

In any case, the Bay Of Pigs had nothing to do with Kennedy, they did it against his orders.

My source is an historian known as John Hankey.

Here's a video about Kennedy and the CIA: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=818267521031292324 Would have ended what? The CIA? Cuba? Nuclear War? The Soviet Union? The Bay of Pigs Invasion was authorized by Kennedy, modified by the Kennedy Administration from a holdover plan from the previous Admin, the late canceling of a second air raid, considered crucial to the plan, has been attributed to Kennedy by some (it has also been attributed to Secretary of State at the time iirc), overall the botch-up and the consequences culminating in the Cuban Missile Crisis is often seen as indicative of an inexperience-derived foreign policy gaffe.

Your posts are a string of non-sequiturs and your source from what I can find is either a railroad historian or the same person who writes on Rense and thinks George Bush had JFK Jr. assassinated.

Originally posted by lord xyz

In any case, the Bay Of Pigs had nothing to do with Kennedy, they did it against his orders.

Here's a video about Kennedy and the CIA: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=818267521031292324

... Uh huh.

This is why you should check multiple sources before claiming knowledge of a particular subject.

You can find anything on the internet

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Would have ended what? The CIA? Cuba? Nuclear War? The Soviet Union? The Bay of Pigs Invasion was authorized by Kennedy, modified by the Kennedy Administration from a holdover plan from the previous Admin, the late canceling of a second air raid, considered crucial to the plan, has been attributed to Kennedy by some (it has also been attributed to Secretary of State at the time iirc), overall the botch-up and the consequences culminating in the Cuban Missile Crisis is often seen as indicative of an inexperience-derived foreign policy gaffe.

Your posts are a string of non-sequiturs and your source from what I can find is either a railroad historian or the same person who writes on Rense and thinks George Bush had JFK Jr. assassinated. would've ended the CIA.

And yes, George Bush did have JFK Jr. assassinated, or one of his friends did, anyway.

I didn't click the link before. Now that I did, I realize I should have realized a while ago how foolish it was to presume you had anything of substance to offer.

Ha!

He thinks there was a conspiracy to kill Kennedy, he must be stupid!

Great logic.

I don't think David Icke nor Alex Jones nor Jeff Rense nor John Hankey is necessarily stupid, I think they're somewhat smart in that it takes at least some level business acumen to peddle bullshit to fools.

He is however a conspiracy theorist with little credibility, and citing some ridiculous video about Bushes killing Kennedies to support a bizarre notion that Kennedy and his Administration had nothing to do with the Bay of Pigs Fiasco and that his actions during it somehow prevented Nuclear War are a waste of my time.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I don't think David Icke nor Alex Jones nor Jeff Rense nor John Hankey is necessarily stupid, I think they're somewhat smart in that it takes at least some level business acumen to peddle bullshit to fools.

He is however a conspiracy theorist with little credibility, and citing some ridiculous video about Bushes killing Kennedies to support a bizarre notion that Kennedy and his Administration had nothing to do with the Bay of Pigs Fiasco and that his actions during it somehow prevented Nuclear War are a waste of my time. So you admit you're close minded.

It's interesting that you group him with Alex Jones and David Icke, John Hankey is not some nut on the internet. He taught history for 20 years and isn't out to make a profit; his videos are free on google video.

First watch the video, then you can have an opinion on it.

Originally posted by lord xyz
So you admit you're close minded.

It's interesting that you group him with Alex Jones and David Icke, John Hankey is not some nut on the internet. He taught history for 20 years and isn't out to make a profit; his videos are free on google video.

First watch the video, then you can have an opinion on it. Hooray for Deano-lite/ushomewannabe, not being credulous is not the same as being closed-minded.

The start of your video begins with Prison Planet TV, Alex Jones website. It states member's only video, with a subsequent FBI piracy warning ergo it is being shown illegally. Meanwhile I can find absolutely no record of any publications by any John Hankey in JSTOR, nor EBSCOhost, nor CSA Illumina. Except for one about railroads.

None of this validating your ridiculously simplistic and/or inaccurate descriptions of actions during the Bay of Pigs stopping Nuclear War.

For further lulz irony.

"Barack Obama - The Devil's Spawn"
By illustrious pre-eminent historian John Hankey:
http://www.rense.com/general80/spawn.htm

Oh and Prison Planet TV charges $5.95 per month.

And yes, apologies for sidetracking the topic.

On topic, it doesn't really seem like Clinton wants to be VP from what I've been reading, nor that Obama will bow to pressure and choose her.

Originally posted by Darth Macabre
I think Obama has the diction of a five year old. But I guess I'm the only one on these boards, and just about the country right now, that thinks that.

Originally posted by inimalist


I agree. I don't see what the big deal with him is, if it isn't that he is black.

all candidates dumb their speeches down to reach dumb people. they all do it. i just find it obnoxious that all of the sudden this is discovered and all fingers point to obama.

Originally posted by Schecter
all candidates dumb their speeches down to reach dumb people. they all do it. i just find it obnoxious that all of the sudden this is discovered and all fingers point to obama. True. But any experiential allusions to JFK are relatively hollow nonetheless. Which is not to necessarily say he will be a good or bad President.

Anyway, this should probably be in the Democratic Nomination thread, as should have the other aside on Kennedy perhaps.

Originally posted by Schecter
all candidates dumb their speeches down to reach dumb people. they all do it. i just find it obnoxious that all of the sudden this is discovered and all fingers point to obama. Fingers get pointed at Obama because the unwashed masses think he has the tongue and speaking ability of a god.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Another Obama/Kennedy comparison. That's not comparing Obama to Kennedy, you louse. It's comparing Clinton to Johnson.

Originally posted by chithappens
You can find anything on the internet

False. That animatronic hentai horse porn remains an elusive beast....

aweherm

Originally posted by DigiMark007
False. That animatronic hentai horse porn remains an elusive beast....

aweherm 4chan, my dear Digi, 4chan.

Also I just looked at the poll. It seems like Clinton is the overwhelming choice of respondents.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
False. That animatronic hentai horse porn remains an elusive beast....

aweherm

www.animatronichentaihorseporn.com

Come one. This is easy.

Anyone seen this yet?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080528/pl_politico/10672

that article sort of overlooks some key elements of the differences between Clinton and Sebelius/McCaskill/Napolitano. a) Hillary has been a national figure for much longer than any of the three (I'd argue that none of them are even national figures now), and b) a lot of the stimuli that has made Clinton into a "polarizing persona" is based on false premises, sexism, or even outright lies.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Hooray for Deano-lite/ushomewannabe, not being credulous is not the same as being closed-minded.

The start of your video begins with Prison Planet TV, Alex Jones website. It states member's only video, with a subsequent FBI piracy warning ergo it is being shown illegally. Meanwhile I can find absolutely no record of any publications by any John Hankey in JSTOR, nor EBSCOhost, nor CSA Illumina. Except for one about railroads.

None of this validating your ridiculously simplistic and/or inaccurate descriptions of actions during the Bay of Pigs stopping Nuclear War. So what if it's from Alexjones.tv?

It mentions Bay of Pigs a few times in the film.

In fact, there are sections of the video on youtube.

Here are two sections refering to Kennedy, the CIA and the Bay of Pigs

http://youtube.com/watch?v=t9eMukzyvE8
http://youtube.com/watch?v=_ViccBu90vQ

NOT HILLARY (I will do anything to win, I'm a big fat liar, I don't care about anything else but me, I'm what's wrong with Washington, and should never be allowed near the White House again) CLINTON!!!!

Originally posted by Strangelove
that article sort of overlooks some key elements of the differences between Clinton and Sebelius/McCaskill/Napolitano. a) Hillary has been a national figure for much longer than any of the three (I'd argue that none of them are even national figures now), and b) a lot of the stimuli that has made Clinton into a "polarizing persona" is based on false premises, sexism, or even outright lies. Originally posted by jcvaldez
NOT HILLARY (I will do anything to win, I'm a big fat liar, I don't care about anything else but me, I'm what's wrong with Washington, and should never be allowed near the White House again) CLINTON!!!! exactly what I'm talking about.

Obama Edwards ftw:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_06/013862.php

Jim Webb. He's from a swing state, and used to be Republican.

Originally posted by lord xyz
It's interesting that you group him with Alex JonesOriginally posted by xmarksthespot
The start of your video begins with Prison Planet TV, Alex Jones website.Originally posted by lord xyz
So what if it's from Alexjones.tv?Originally posted by lord xyz
isn't out to make a profit; his videos are free on google video.Originally posted by lord xyz
In fact, there are sections of the video on youtube.Originally posted by xmarksthespot
It states member's only video, with a subsequent FBI piracy warning ergo it is being shown illegally. Prison Planet TV charges $5.95 a month There are episodes of Naruto and Grey's Anatomy on youtube to, that doesn't make them free-to-air. Nor does that make them accurate reflections of reality or history.
Originally posted by lord xyz
John Hankey is not some nut on the internet.Originally posted by xmarksthespot
"Barack Obama - The Devil's Spawn"
By illustrious pre-eminent historian John Hankey:
http://www.rense.com/general80/spawn.htm
In conclusion, stop talking out of your ass, and then trying to get people to watch some low-budget unreferenced video that should only be posted in the conspiracy forum, to try and validate a ludicrous claim.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Obama Edwards ftw:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_06/013862.php I'd expect Republican's to run ads of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AE847UXu3Q&locale=en_US&persist_locale=1
With a slogan at the end saying something like: John Edwards may feel pretty, but he's no Vice-President.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
There are episodes of Naruto and Grey's Anatomy on youtube to, that doesn't make them free-to-air. Nor does that make them accurate reflections of reality or history.

In conclusion, stop talking out of your ass, and then trying to get people to watch some low-budget unreferenced video that should only be posted in the conspiracy forum, to try and validate a ludicrous claim. Being on alexjones.tv doesn't make him of the likes of Alex Jones. It could be someone else who happens to be on Alex Jones copying his video and putting it on AlexJones.tv

The man said so himself that he advises people to watch the videos on google, and he advises his watchers to show them to anyone he can.

That video is not unreferenced, it has powerful evidence. Why don't you watch it and stop talking out your ass. Everytime a claim is made, it shows lots of pictures of documents on the video...which is why it's a video.

As for that link, I think we all make mistakes, and it takes a real open minded person to believe something out of this world.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Being on alexjones.tv doesn't make him of the likes of Alex Jones. It could be someone else who happens to be on Alex Jones copying his video and putting it on AlexJones.tv

The man said so himself that he advises people to watch the videos on google, and he advises his watchers to show them to anyone he can.

That video is not unreferenced, it has powerful evidence. Why don't you watch it and stop talking out your ass. Everytime a claim is made, it shows lots of pictures of documents on the video...which is why it's a video.

As for that link, I think we all make mistakes, and it takes a real open minded person to believe something out of this world. Being like Alex Jones generally makes him of the likes of Alex Jones. Ridiculous rants on JFK father and son assassination plots, Obama Manchurian candidacy, American Nazi's, Holocaust and Rwanda, cell phones and cancer and of course that old conspiracy theorist favorite 9/11 on rense.com et al. generally makes him the likes of Alex Jones, Jeff Rense et al.

And if the full extent of your knowledge of the Bay of Pigs Invasion stems from a video of South Park cutouts telling of how Kennedy had no part in the operation, and that it was part of a conspiracy to assassinate him by George H.W. Bush.

Whether it had succeeded of failed, Operation Zapata would not even be remembered as the Bay of Pigs debacle, without the Kennedy Administration's involvement and Kennedy's desire for plausible deniability.

Kennedy holds some part of the responsibility in accounts by Ted Sorenson, Jake Esterline, Arthur Schlesinger Jr, Grayston Lynch, retired Col. Jack Hawking. All people who were actually there in some capacity.




It takes a real credulity in a person to buy into in stupid baseless conspiracies. And I'm afraid I don't have that.

At any rate this thread is being derailed by an initial silly claim of Obama being comparable to JFK in any real form, followed by a further silly claim that JFK had no culpability in the failed invasion of Cuba in 1961 and that his actions during it prevented Nuclear War. If you want to continue trying to get people to watch your illustrious historian, then I suggest you take it to the cesspool of the Conspiracy Forum where I'm sure Deano will seize upon it as further proof of the coming Lizard invasion - because I've no intention of wasting my time.

If you want to continue discussion of potential Democratic VP nominations however then I'm all ears.

I can see you have no intention of seeing it my way, and I agree that we have derailed the topic.

So back to VP discussion.






I think it should be Clinton or Jim Webb. Jim Webb is in a swing state and served under Reagan, he's a good VP for turning democrat leaning republicans, as apposed to Hillary who they consider to be one of the most liberal person in the senate.

I'm sorry, I can't comprehend that first paragraph.

im very happy with the effort clinton put into unifying the party today and hope she continues with the same momentum as she had today. i dont think anyone could have done a better job in crafting a positive and unifying concession speech as she did. she didnt register in the least on the butthurt-o-meter, so great form.

Originally posted by lord xyz
I'm sorry, I can't comprehend that first paragraph.
If Hillary Clinton is too liberal to be palatable, Obama (most liberal voting record in the Senate in 2007 according to National Journal) is too liberal to be palatable - regardless of whether he puts a former Republican on his ticket.

The VP job has traditionally been little more than a pathway to Presidency, and rarely brings electoral advantage. Virginia hasn't voted for a Democrat President for 40 years, and Webb only has a 50-50ish approval rating in the state.

Addendum:
Might as well post this one too.
http://assets.236.com/images/photo2/2452/original/original.jpg

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Lets remember, it is only suspended.

She will be back.

However, for now its all to Barak Obama.



That is not why you suspend your campaign, because you'll be back.

She didn't however formally end her candidacy and does however keep hold of her 1900-odd delegates. Although I've read surmising that this move is more to maintain a strong place in the party and allow for continued fundraising to pay off her Primary debt - which is highly plausible considering how much of her personal wealth she has spent on the campaign.

Lets just wait for his assassination.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
She didn't however formally end her candidacy and does however keep hold of her 1900-odd delegates. Although I've read surmising that this move is more to maintain a strong place in the party and allow for continued fundraising to pay off her Primary debt - which is highly plausible considering how much of her personal wealth she has spent on the campaign.

She can't formally end it, otherwise she would have to pay for her campaign. Everything you say is spot-on.

Another moderate Democrat and potential Vice President (although not on the poll) is Bob Casey.

* supported the Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007
* pro life
*in the swing state of pennsylvania
*only 48, which would make him 56, when it comes to successing Obama is 2016





Or how about Mary Landrieu.

*would appeal to women democrats
*from the republican state of Louisiana
*critic of the Bush adminstration's handling of Katrina (which I think would be very powerful, in criticising McCain, who supports Bush)

Landrieu voted for the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (as did Bayh and Biden) which should technically rule them out. It would be contradictory to the rhetoric of anti-war, "change" blah blah blah.

Bob Casey Jr has only been in the Senate two years.

Just out of interest, is a former Governor, say Mitt Romney, still called Governor Romney?

I don't think so. Or if the title is used it would always be preceded by "former."

On closer inspection Obama's potential pool of running mates is rather shallow if he is to:
a) stay on message as the insurgent anti-establishment "change" and/or "post-partisan" candidate
b) regain any electoral advantage with groups he has not done particularly well with (white women, hispanics) and/or be a strong campaigner
c) gain policy credentials in areas where he is perceived as weak (national security, foreign policy) and/or add governance experience
d) maintain his advantage on issues he can use to attack McCain
e) work well together, or at least be perceived to
f) a combination of two or more of the above
g) and of course be potentially a good President

While she's good for B; A, D and E would effectively eliminate Clinton.
A and E may or may not also rule out Clinton endorsers like Ed Rendell, Wesley Clark and Ted Strickland.
To fulfill A and D effectively eliminates some of the proposed Senators due to their Iraq votes. Biden, Bayh. It would remove an area of attack for Obama in November.
I don't really get what, if any, Edwards would bring.

I think Bill Richardson probably fulfills the most positives without racking up too many of the negatives. He has foreign policy experience, he may appeal to Hispanics, he may help to deliver a leaning Blue swing state, he doesn't have a vote on record for the Iraq War, he has executive experience as a Governor and backed Obama early on despite incurring flak.

Who he picks will probably be indicative of which of these he values more/most.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Just out of interest, is a former Governor, say Mitt Romney, still called Governor Romney? No matter how long you've been out of an office, you hold a right to the title until the end of your life (or until you get a title of higher precedence)

Originally posted by lord xyz
Another moderate Democrat and potential Vice President (although not on the poll) is Bob Casey.

* supported the Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007
* pro life
*in the swing state of pennsylvania
*only 48, which would make him 56, when it comes to successing Obama is 2016 Obama needs a VP that will help dissuade the "inexperience" charge. Casey does not help there.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I don't think so. Or if the title is used it would always be preceded by "former."

On closer inspection Obama's potential pool of running mates is rather shallow if he is to:
a) stay on message as the insurgent anti-establishment "change" and/or "post-partisan" candidate
b) regain any electoral advantage with groups he has not done particularly well with (white women, hispanics) and/or be a strong campaigner
c) gain policy credentials in areas where he is perceived as weak (national security, foreign policy) and/or add governance experience
d) maintain his advantage on issues he can use to attack McCain
e) work well together, or at least be perceived to
f) a combination of two or more of the above
g) and of course be potentially a good President

While she's good for B; A, D and E would effectively eliminate Clinton.
A and E may or may not also rule out Clinton endorsers like Ed Rendell, Wesley Clark and Ted Strickland.
To fulfill A and D effectively eliminates some of the proposed Senators due to their Iraq votes. Biden, Bayh. It would remove an area of attack for Obama in November.
I don't really get what, if any, Edwards would bring.

I think Bill Richardson probably fulfills the most positives without racking up too many of the negatives. He has foreign policy experience, he may appeal to Hispanics, he may help to deliver a leaning Blue swing state, he doesn't have a vote on record for the Iraq War, he has executive experience as a Governor and backed Obama early on despite incurring flak.

Who he picks will probably be indicative of which of these he values more/most. I disagree that E disqualifies Clinton. Despite what their campaigns may have said about each other, I think the Senators themselves remain friendly colleagues. I also believe she embodies C, because she's gained a reputation in the Senate as a bipartisan, consensus building workhorse, which helps with the "governing" aspect.

In my opinion, there is no stronger VP candidate in either electoral math or potential effectiveness than Hillary Rodham Clinton. And as I always caveat, this is not just because I was a Hillary supporter. This is as objective as I get.

Originally posted by Strangelove
this is not just because I was a Hillary supporter.

Are you absolutely certain of that?

Originally posted by Strangelove
I disagree that E disqualifies Clinton. Despite what their campaigns may have said about each other, I think the Senators themselves remain friendly colleagues. I also believe she embodies C, because she's gained a reputation in the Senate as a bipartisan, consensus building workhorse, which helps with the "governing" aspect.

In my opinion, there is no stronger VP candidate in either electoral math or potential effectiveness than Hillary Rodham Clinton. And as I always caveat, this is not just because I was a Hillary supporter. This is as objective as I get. Despite that I think she would have been a stronger Presidential candidate according to electoral math (in the end the popular vote is little more than a tie, he was just the more "efficient" campaigner - I read somewhere a good analogy that he won on points not KO, she won the vote rich large states and most of the swing states that will be essential for November) and would offer electoral advantage (I think in last polling it's something like a 3-5% point bump, which may seem small but traditionally I don't think VP choices really offer that much), she brings with her several strong caveats.

Imo, they really don't particularly like each other - although they may respect each other as colleagues. That in itself wouldn't necessarily make it impossible to work together. But she also brings a huge shadow named Bill Clinton.

Also I don't know if a "workhorse" legislator doesn't necessarily adds executive/governance experience. I don't know if choosing the person who has been characterizing you as weak on national security and foreign policy really bolsters your image on either issue. And at the end of the day - if he does ask Clinton it will always be perceived as having been done out of necessity and pressure than pure choice, which again elicits perception of weakness. And in politics perception is reality.

Originally posted by Strangelove
Obama needs a VP that will help dissuade the "inexperience" charge. Casey does not help there. What's with all this inexperience Bullshit, anyway? I don't know where people get that idea from, is it because he's young, because he's only been in the senate 4 years?

Anyway, Dan Quale was inexperienced, and a moron. So I guess it doesn't really matter that much.

Originally posted by lord xyz
What's with all this inexperience Bullshit, anyway? I don't know where people get that idea from, is it because he's young, because he's only been in the senate 4 years?

Anyway, Dan Quale was inexperienced, and a moron. So I guess it doesn't really matter that much. The "inexperience bullshit" generally stems from the fact that he technically objectively he doesn't have a huge amount of experience.
He is a freshman Senator, a legislator with no experience in executive governance aiming for the highest executive office.
He may have served in the Illinois legislature, but voted present on sensitive issues.
He may Chair the Senate Foreign Relations Sub-Committee on European Affairs but has never been to continental Western Europe.
He may have been schooled in Indonesia and done an OE in Pakistan, but to cite that as providing some unique preternatural insight into the minutiae and nuances of foreign policy is folly.

That is not to say he will be a good or bad President if elected. Particularly if he surrounds himself with a Cabinet of people who do have governance and policy experience. He will no doubt be better than incumbent President Idiot.

But it would be imprudent for an electorate to not pose the question of experience, because at least imo experience is important for someone who aims to lead the richest economy, most powerful military and most influential nation in the world.
Especially at a time where oil is $140 a barrel, Iran may be seeking nuclear capability and the world's economy may be headed towards recession.

Well, you know, Abraham Lincoln was a one term congressman and had to deal with a split party.

It can happen, and he's our best bet over Insain.

Not a particularly current comparison.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Not a particularly current comparison. No, but it does rule out the impossibility.

And yes, he did support Hillary, but no that does not invalidate his credentials as an award winning Presidential historian.

Additionally it probably shouldn't be needed to point out it's not 1860.

Originally posted by lord xyz
No, but it does rule out the impossibility.

Just simply not valid.

It's like you claiming I should be able to write a classic, because Mary Shelley did at the same age. Things change over hundreds of years, radically.

Originally posted by Devil King
Are you absolutely certain of that? as certain as I can be Originally posted by xmarksthespot
And at the end of the day - if he does ask Clinton it will always be perceived as having been done out of necessity and pressure than pure choice, which again elicits perception of weakness. And in politics perception is reality. Which is why if he does end up choosing her, it needs to be a result of a substantive process, like his VP search committee. Just offering it to her would be characterized as weakness, I agree.

Originally posted by Strangelove
as certain as I can be Which is why if he does end up choosing her, it needs to be a result of a substantive process, like his VP search committee. Just offering it to her would be characterized as weakness, I agree. Maybe it's not being an American and/or old enough to remember JFK, but I really don't get why Caroline Kennedy is on that committee...

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Just simply not valid.

It's like you claiming I should be able to write a classic, because Mary Shelley did at the same age. Things change over hundreds of years, radically. Okay then, what about Bill Clinton, he was young like Obama, and he also campaigned for change.

Every campaign is about change. Every election is about change. Otherwise, what woud be the point of having any election? And every campaign needs the voters to think change is an original idea, as amorphous a concept as it is.

Originally posted by Devil King
Every campaign is about change. Every election is about change. Otherwise, what woud be the point of having any election? And every campaign needs the voters to think change is an original idea, as amorphous a concept as it is. Not like Obama and Clinton. Bush wanted to go back to the 80s, McCain wants to continue the Bush policy.

But I do understand what you're trying to say.

Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland has effectively removed himself from consideration, giving a "Sherman statement" on NPR. The Sherman statement comes from General William Tecumsah Sherman in the Civil War who was speculated to run for President in 1884; the statement is "If drafted, I will not run; if nominated, I will not accept; If elected, I will not serve."

Looks like the VP search just got a little easier.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/06/10/obamas-vp-absolutely-not-says-ohio-gov-strickland/

Eww... FOX?

"Terrorist fist jab" lady lost her TV show.

Yeah, it's from Fox, but I couldn't find an article on a more reputable site.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Eww... FOX?

"Terrorist fist jab" lady lost her TV show. Oh come on. that's not fair. A) she probably didn't even write that herself and b) she only said some people say so..which, even though untrue, should be considered quite a lot less offensive.

Meh... she should have realized it was a stupid thing to say. Notwithstanding I'd never heard of "fist pump" either, "terrorist fist jab" was bizarre...
Originally posted by Strangelove
Yeah, it's from Fox, but I couldn't find an article on a more reputable site. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/10/top-obama-vp-candidate-takes-himself-out-of-the-running/

Congrats.

C'mon, you know you want Ann Cooties. doped

I guess this rules out Sen. Chris Dodd as VP: http://www.portfolio.com/news-markets/top-5/2008/06/12/Countrywide-Loan-Scandal

I don't think Dodd was ever in the running. At best he would have gotten Sec. of the Treasury

Just no Clinton, and I'll be fine.

The case for Obama to pick Hillary Clinton:

Why Obama should pick Hillary Clinton as veep

And the case against:

Why Obama should NOT pick Hillary Clinton as veep

I don't think he should pick Hillary, although not a truly fair comparison, Edwards didn't help Kerry.

I have no idea how a one-term Senator managed to become a serious contender for the Presidential nomination in 2004. Then bringing little or nothing to the ticket manage to lose that election as the VP nominee in the middle of what was becoming an increasingly unpopular war by more votes and more states than Gore/Lieberman. Then still manage to be think himself a worthwhile candidate for President again in 2008, and convince a sizable number of the public to think so too.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I have no idea how a one-term Senator managed to become a serious contender for the Presidential nomination in 2004. Then bringing little or nothing to the ticket manage to lose that election as the VP nominee in the middle of what was becoming an increasingly unpopular war by more votes and more states than Gore/Lieberman. Then still manage to be think himself a worthwhile candidate for President again in 2008, and convince a sizable number of the public to think so too. I saw parts of the VP debate in 04, was pitiful. If you can't win an argument with Dick Cheney, you shouldn't be alive.

Originally posted by Bardock42
she only said some people say so..which, even though untrue, should be considered quite a lot less offensive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I have no idea how a one-term Senator managed to become a serious contender for the Presidential nomination in 2004. Then bringing little or nothing to the ticket manage to lose that election as the VP nominee in the middle of what was becoming an increasingly unpopular war by more votes and more states than Gore/Lieberman. Then still manage to be think himself a worthwhile candidate for President again in 2008, and convince a sizable number of the public to think so too. let's face it, the Democrats ran a piss-poor campaign in '04.

True. But frankly the candidates chosen weren't all that appealing to a broader audience. John Kerry simply joined the ranks of McGovern, Mondale and Dukakis as inherently unelectable candidates the Democratic Party somehow winds up choosing, in your country which is still decidedly more centre-right. This year the Party has again chosen someone who has been ranked "Most Liberal" in the Senate, and regardless of whether this is really the case, it will be used against him in an election where the word "liberal" is anathema to most of the populace.

Time will tell if Obama also joins those ranks - he is far better at painting himself as a centrist - but it is rather alarming that with an incumbent Republican President with the worst approval ratings ever I believe, and also with a record percentage thinking the country is on the wrong track, that Obama vs McCain is still a virtual dead heat.

Originally posted by Strangelove
let's face it, the Democrats ran a piss-poor campaign in '04. '88 was piss poor aswell.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
True. But frankly the candidates chosen weren't all that appealing to a broader audience. John Kerry simply joined the ranks of McGovern, Mondale and Dukakis as inherently unelectable candidates the Democratic Party somehow winds up choosing, in your country which is still decidedly more centre-right. This year the Party has again chosen someone who has been ranked "Most Liberal" in the Senate, and regardless of whether this is really the case, it will be used against him in an election where the word "liberal" is anathema to most of the populace.

Time will tell if Obama also joins those ranks - he is far better at painting himself as a centrist - but it is rather alarming that with an incumbent Republican President with the worst approval ratings ever I believe, and also with a record percentage thinking the country is on the wrong track, that Obama vs McCain is still a virtual dead heat. Unelectable? In what way?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word

Yeah, sadly I am not all knowing...

Originally posted by lord xyz
'88 was piss poor aswell.

Unelectable? In what way? In that the Democratic Party has a penchant for nominating people who, while they may have support of the more activist party base, have limited broad appeal in a country where the majority of the electorate is center-right.

The only two Presidential candidates the Democrats have been able to get into office in the last 3 decades have been candidates that have been able to project a centrist image. When the candidate was perceived as "liberal" or "too liberal" the candidate lost, generally by large margins. Kerry didn't do badly compared to the others, but he did so in the political environment of a polarizing incumbent Republican, the Iraq war and a deteriorating economic mood.

Obama is ideologically of a similar mold to the Democratic losers, however he has the advantage of a similar but intensified political environment that Kerry had, and it seems he may have the ability to project a centrist facade to the broader electorate. Without Bush's disapproval ratings, wrong track ratings, a tanking economy and the Iraq War, I don't think it's a stretch to say Obama would be unelectable, and despite all those factors that should allow an opposition candidate to coast to victory he is still within reach of McCain.

I would also point out that Obama is fundamentally changing the electorate, adding to voter rolls hundred of thousands of young people, the previously politically apathetic, and previously unregistered African-Americans. I read an article that reported that there are estimates that over 600,000 eligible African Americans are unregistered.

I would tentatively agree that the American electorate is center-right. But that will likely not be the case after this election.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
In that the Democratic Party has a penchant for nominating people who, while they may have support of the more activist party base, have limited broad appeal in a country where the majority of the electorate is center-right.

The only two Presidential candidates the Democrats have been able to get into office in the last 3 decades have been candidates that have been able to project a centrist image. When the candidate was perceived as "liberal" or "too liberal" the candidate lost, generally by large margins. Kerry didn't do badly compared to the others, but he did so in the political environment of a polarizing incumbent Republican, the Iraq war and a deteriorating economic mood.

Obama is ideologically of a similar mold to the Democratic losers, however he has the advantage of a similar but intensified political environment that Kerry had, and it seems he may have the ability to project a centrist facade to the broader electorate. Without Bush's disapproval ratings, wrong track ratings, a tanking economy and the Iraq War, I don't think it's a stretch to say Obama would be unelectable, and despite all those factors that should allow an opposition candidate to coast to victory he is still within reach of McCain. Yeah I see what you mean. I still think he'll win, but not so much now.

Originally posted by Strangelove
I would also point out that Obama is fundamentally changing the electorate, adding to voter rolls hundred of thousands of young people, the previously politically apathetic, and previously unregistered African-Americans. I read an article that reported that there are estimates that over 600,000 eligible African Americans are unregistered.

I would tentatively agree that the American electorate is center-right. But that will likely not be the case after this election. It will still be an electorate where being on the wrong side of "god, guns and gays" will largely result in electoral defeat. And I'd wager that many of the politically apathetic are still politically apathetic; and are drawn rather to the personality than the policies.

The youth vote is notoriously unreliable, while the senior vote is as sure as the sun rise.

I'll agree with you on the apathetic people; but if their votes help Obama win, I'll take 'em.

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b25/Mrsexy/2489025566_5cdede0737_o.jpg

I think that the VP doesn't matter, as long he's constantly in favour of the second ammendment and hates atleast one minority, he'll win for sure.

The Case For Hillary Clinton

The case against will be posted on the same blog Friday.

Also, the case For and Against Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius.

The Case Against Hillary

I think Evan Bayh or someone from WV woud be good candidates.

Not a candidate, but Ben Chandler (KY) would make a good VP election-wise.

A relatively unknown one-term congressman from a ruby red state, that offers no particularly sterling credentials on any major policy issues is a good VP candidate election-wise?

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
A relatively unknown one-term congressman from a ruby red state, that offers no particularly sterling credentials on any major policy issues is a good VP candidate election-wise? A moderate democrat from a red state would make the ticket seem less liberal.

And he's a 2 term congressman.

For some reason, Nancy Pelosi has been pushing Rep. Chet Edwards (D-TX) lately srug

Bring the list of "no's" to 3, now:

Gov. Ted Strickland (OH)
Fmr. Gov. and Senate candidate Mark Warner (VA)

and now Sen. Jim Webb (VA) has taken himself out of consideration...

And with Wes Clark now highly unlikely (if not an impossible pick), the pool is shrinking....

Bayh and Clinton seem the only other smarter choices.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Bayh and Clinton seem the only other smarter choices.

Why Bayh? (I'm not unknowing for justifications, I'm just interested in your justifications for the sake of discussion.)

Originally posted by dadudemon
Why Bayh? (I'm not unknowing for justifications, I'm just interested in your justifications for the sake of discussion.) Bayh is a moderate democrat and is very popular in the probably swing state of Indianna.

Looking at his Wkipedia article, he has good policies and voting record. I would prefer him to Hillary.

The Case For Virginia Governor Tim Kaine.

I thought Tim was out?

Yes, I know, unnecessary question mark.

As far as I know he's still in the veepstakes.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/O/OBAMA?SITE=CONGRA&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvtIPMhp-TA&NR=1

best idea for obama is to get colin powel as v.p wich he is a (republican) and not only will obama have a great running mate but powel can make sure democrats and republicans can work together

The Case For Indiana Senator Evan Bayh.

As a Hoosier, I'm excited about this possibility.

I think it's going to be Biden.

Gravel would be great, but he's never going to be accepted by the majority of the country.

Or indeed not by most Democrats. He's f**cking crazy. His demeanor screams cranky "get-off-my-yard" old man.

Originally posted by Strangelove
Or indeed not by most Democrats. He's f**cking crazy. His demeanor screams cranky "get-off-my-yard" old man.

Sadly his policies scream "I am so much better than any of you other Democrat idiots".

I, for one, stopped to look to the two big parties (Repucrats and Dempublicans, I think they are called) for intelligent and good policies.

Though, at the moment Democrats seem to want to do a little less harm than Republicans.

I believe the best branch of US politics are the Massachusettes liberals.

Anti-war, anti-stupid crime laws, pro human (gay) rights, and are against shit presidents like Nixon and the Bushes.