This one is the best, it says it all:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9DBdokG2D0
(though the message was a little late.)
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
What do you think of the possibility of the two of them running on the same ticket?
Given money and popularity...high.
If Clinton wins the nomination....I think its likely, at least at this point, that Obama will get a VP nod. I think he'd accept, though his style and her style might clash, which makes me think that he would be shafted until the next cycle.
However, if Obama wins the nomination...i think its less likely that Hillary would accept the VP, so another candidate might step in. (Richardson?)
It of course early to be speculating, we won't have a good idea until after the first primaries. But I'm still pulling for an Obama-Clinton ticket.
And right wingnuts aren't funny. Politics used to be cleaner. Unfortunately, I think this shift in the Republican party uses smear campaigns all too often and all too effectively.
Originally posted by sithsaber408Moronic, although technically true.
This one is the best, it says it all:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9DBdokG2D0
(though the message was a little late.)
Originally posted by AllianceI do not think Obama can in good conscience win the nomination. Although his 'vision' as you say is dazzling, that's all he has. And as Alliance mentioned, 44% of the country still doesn't know much about Obama. And if more people find out, maybe they too will agree that he is not well-equipped to run this nation.
Given money and popularity...high.If Clinton wins the nomination....I think its likely, at least at this point, that Obama will get a VP nod. I think he'd accept, though his style and her style might clash, which makes me think that he would be shafted until the next cycle.
However, if Obama wins the nomination...i think its less likely that Hillary would accept the VP, so another candidate might step in. (Richardson?)
It of course early to be speculating, we won't have a good idea until after the first primaries. But I'm still pulling for an Obama-Clinton ticket.
And right wingnuts aren't funny. Politics used to be cleaner. Unfortunately, I think this shift in the Republican party uses smear campaigns all too often and all too effectively.
I'm reminded of Bill Clinton's Presidency. As Governor of Arkansas, he had the executive and economic experience to run for President, but he didn't have any foreign policy experience. So he tapped Al Gore, a Congressional representative and then Senator, who had fought in the Vietnam War. Clinton leaned on Gore for foreign policy advice. But he still had the economic experience (it's what he ran on). And in time, he was experienced in national and foreign affiars.
Apply that formula to Obama. He is a former State Senator, law professor, and current Senator. Nothing that gives him executive or economic experience. He also has no foreign policy experience. Were he to win the nomination, and tap someone experienced for VP, (Clinton, Richardson, Bayh), he'd be leaning on them for everything except speech-writing and anything else involving his charisma or 'vision.'
No, we need someone experienced for the Presidency and someone like Obama for VP. He can still profess his charisma and vision (great on the campaign trail), and serve as the second most powerful person in the nation. And then Obama gains critical experience to run in 2012 or 2016 while he's still (relatively) young. It's win-win, honestly.
^^^That would be the ideal situation for the Democratic party.
(think I said that about a month ago.) 😛
The larger question is though:
With Clinton as the front-runner, will Americans go for it?
(I've made it plain I don't much care for the Republican choices this go-around, so I'm not bashing. Just a real question.)
Originally posted by sithsaber408Hillary's image was hurt was hurt during the Bill Clinton years, mostly because of right-wing propaganda (Whitewater, health care), but also because of some things that she had said or done (potentially offensive remarks to stay-at-home moms, "how could she stay with Bill after his infidelity?"😉. She also had the reputation of being cold and business-like (not untrue)
^^^That would be the ideal situation for the Democratic party.(think I said that about a month ago.) 😛
The larger question is though:
With Clinton as the front-runner, will Americans go for it?
(I've made it plain I don't much care for the Republican choices this go-around, so I'm not bashing. Just a real question.)
However, after being twice elected to the Senate in New York, she has gained a new, better image (in New York at least). She has significant backing by independents and Republicans in both elections because of her strategy. She has said that people are impressed if you go to their city and simply ask for their vote (and this was a in largely Republican upstate New York). This is similar to Howard Dean's "50-State Strategy." She has also been much friendlier and open in the past few years.
If she can remake her tarnished image in the eyes of the American people, she can at least win over a sizable amount of independents (I don't think Republicans will ever again vote for a Clinton)
Originally posted by Darth JelloEdwards is a pussy. Regardless about how the majority of Democrats feel, he is wrong to 'apologize' for his vote for the authorization of military action in Iraq. Why? Because if he says he made a mistake, then he's opening himself up for other 'mistakes.' I'm reminded of Reagan-Mondale in 1984, when Mondale said "Mr. Reagan will raise taxes, so will I. He won't say it. I just did." He only won one state, his own.
out of all of them so far, edwards is the only onewho doesn't smell like shit to me
Hillary Clinton is right to say that the 'mistake' should be focused on Bush and his Administration. Since it was their faulty intelligence that led to the "Yes" vote in the first place, this is a good position. Obama has the advantage of being consistently against the Iraq War.
My high school theatre teacher once said "Don't be sorry, just don't do it again." Edwards could take a leaf out of that book.
Originally posted by Strangelove
Edwards is a pussy. Regardless about how the majority of Democrats feel, he is wrong to 'apologize' for his vote for the authorization of military action in Iraq. Why? Because if he says he made a mistake, then he's opening himself up for other 'mistakes.' I'm reminded of Reagan-Mondale in 1984, when Mondale said "Mr. Reagan will raise taxes, so will I. He won't say it. I just did." He only won one state, his own.Hillary Clinton is right to say that the 'mistake' should be focused on Bush and his Administration. Since it was their faulty intelligence that led to the "Yes" vote in the first place, this is a good position. Obama has the advantage of being consistently against the Iraq War.
My high school theatre teacher once said "Don't be sorry, just don't do it again." Edwards could take a leaf out of that book.
I have to say your opinion in this discussion stinks, poop smells better🙂
Your high school teacher needs more lessons in life I guess.
Originally posted by SoleranWell, she was using it in the context of making mistakes on stage, but I apply it to my life as well.
I have to say your opinion in this discussion stinks, poop smells better🙂Your high school teacher needs more lessons in life I guess.
And just because you disagree doesn't mean it's an invalid argument