Originally posted by Devil KingI'll vote for the ticket without Clinton on it, sure, but it's a move that makes the best political sense.
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?
Originally posted by BackFireI personally think that Biden would be a frontrunner for SoS, personally
To ensure victory in November - HillaryTo be the most helpful in terms of governing - Biden
Originally posted by StrangeloveI 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.
I've read commentary (credible, I believe), that if Clinton becomes the nominee, she will be the most electorally helpful VP since Lyndon Johnson.
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.
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 xmarksthespotI 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.
Having the same speech writer, does not a JFK make. Aside from rhetorical prowess there's very little of real comparability.
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 xmarksthespotI don't understand the first sentence.
Having the same speech writer, does not a JFK make. Aside from rhetorical prowess there's very little of real comparability.
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 inimalistAnd that was with 14 years in Congress and extensive overseas travels and foreign policy experience...
lolnot 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).
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 xyzTed Sorenson is one of Obama's speechwriters. Ted Sorenson was one of Kennedy's speechwriters.
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.
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 xmarksthespotThe 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.
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.
Originally posted by lord xyzWhat kind of bizarre fairytale candy land do you live in? What does "by not going along with it" even mean? Kennedy authorised it.
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.
Erratum: "... aforementioned Bay of Pigs leading to the Cuban Missile Crisis, partially"
Originally posted by lord xyzCulpability 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."
He was against it; he fired Alan Dulles, the head of the CIA, after the bay of pigs because of it.
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