Originally posted by Devil KingNot like Obama and Clinton. Bush wanted to go back to the 80s, McCain wants to continue the Bush policy.
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.
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/
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 Strangelovehttp://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/10/top-obama-vp-candidate-takes-himself-out-of-the-running/
Yeah, it's from Fox, but I couldn't find an article on a more reputable site.
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
The case for Obama to pick Hillary Clinton:
Why Obama should pick Hillary Clinton as veep
And the case against:
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 xmarksthespotI 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.
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 Bardock42
she only said some people say so..which, even though untrue, should be considered quite a lot less offensive.
Originally posted by xmarksthespotlet's face it, the Democrats ran a piss-poor campaign in '04.
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.
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'88 was piss poor aswell.
let's face it, the Democrats ran a piss-poor campaign in '04.
Originally posted by xmarksthespotUnelectable? In what way?
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 Symmetric Chaos
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word
Yeah, sadly I am not all knowing...
Originally posted by lord xyzIn 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.
'88 was piss poor aswell.Unelectable? In what way?
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.