Democratic Vice President?

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.

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!!!!

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 Jones

Originally 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
[He] 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

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

Originally posted by King Kandy
Obama Edwards ftw:

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

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.

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.

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.

Anatomy of a Failure: The Decision to Land at the Bay of Pigs
Lucien S. Vandenbroucke
Source: Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 99, No. 3, (Autumn, 1984), pp. 471-491

"The key player, of course, remained the president. He had reserved the right to call off the venture up to twenty-four hours before the actual landing, and he alone reached the final decision to proceed. Kennedy's decision reflected both his goals and values. But perhaps the single most important reason behind his decision was the desire to avoid domestic criticism on the issue of communism."

Anatomy of a Failure: The Decision to Land at the Bay of Pigs
Lucien S. Vandenbroucke
Source: Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 99, No. 3, (Autumn, 1984), pp. 471-491

"Along with Kennedy's values, the new president's style also affected his decision. The hallmarks of the new administration were ad hoc, informal decision processes and impatience with matters of organization. This contributed to the mediocrity of the advice the president received on the Cuban invasion. Unconcern for organization meant that Kennedy paid scant attention to structuring the debate. He made no particular effort to absent himself from meetings to en- courage uninhibited discussion. As noted, he also failed to make clear to his advisers that it was safe to be outspoken. All this increased the timidity of their criticism. Nor did the president pause to think that by agreeing to the CIA's exclusion of so many knowledgeable players from the debate, he was allowing the agency to become both advocate and chief judge of the project's feasibility. Finally, there is cause to suspect that the president's impatience with organiza- tional details kept him from studying the project as carefully as was warranted. After all, a glance at a map would have told him that by changing the landing site from Trinidad to the Bay of Pigs, the guerrilla option had become all but infeasible."

An Untold Tale of Secret Foreign Policy
Don Bohning
ReVista: Harvard Review of Latin America, Spring 2005

"Kennedy succeeded Eisenhower in January 1961, raising uncertainties about the future of the project, but Kennedy eventually gave his approval. However, in mid-March, he ordered the exile brigade’s landing site changed from Trinidad to a “less noisy” locale, in the hopes of keeping U.S. government’s fingerprints off the action. The isolated Bay of Pigs, 80 miles west of Trinidad, was the new choice, providing the criteria Kennedy demanded to maintain “plausible deniability” of U.S. involvement. Still, on Sunday, April 16, 1961, the eve of the invasion and under pressure from Secretary of State Dean Rusk, Kennedy ordered the last minute cancellation of already approved D-Day air strikes intended to take out the remnants of Cuba’s ragtag air force.

Esterline and Hawkins made it clear in interviews that they believe the belated change in landing site and cancellation of the D-Day air strikes doomed the invasion."

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.

Anyone who thinks Hillary Clinton is too liberal is unlikely to vote for the Senator, rated most liberal in the Senate in 2007, purely because he put Jim Webb on the ticket for what John Adams, the first US Vice-President, described as "the most insignificant office the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived.”

What Webb does do though is waylay fears by "Reagan Democrats" of inexperience on national security/foreign policy. It doesn't however completely deal with Obama's problem with white particularly women voters which a Sebellius might. Nor Hispanics that a Richardson might.

Edit: Also I don't get why Caroline Kennedy is on the VP selection committee.

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.

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.

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.