Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Clinton/Obama ticket? (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Clinton/Obama ticket?
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm curious as to what people think about the possibility that Clinton and Obama will form an alliance after the primaries.

I've heard this idea expressed more than once here and elsewhere.

What do our ornery political pundits think?

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LoverOfJoy
Member
Member # 157

 - posted      Profile for LoverOfJoy   Email LoverOfJoy   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I have no idea where they differ in their opinions. I think where they overlap they will try their best to give each other props. They both want to be seen as staying positive and don't want to alienate the others' fan base.
Posts: 3639 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TaoJeannes
Member
Member # 1490

 - posted      Profile for TaoJeannes   Email TaoJeannes       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I've said for a while that Hillary would ride Obama into the presidency. I also suspect that this is exactly what Hillary is trying to set up. However, they're both such big icons at this point that I am starting to wonder if both of them can fit on the same ticket together.

You know what would be interesting? Hillary/Gore. But that would be such a shot to Gore's dignity it would never happen.

Posts: 279 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LoverOfJoy
Member
Member # 157

 - posted      Profile for LoverOfJoy   Email LoverOfJoy   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
However, they're both such big icons at this point that I am starting to wonder if both of them can fit on the same ticket together.
I agree. I have been wondering the same thing. I tend to think that even if they agreed on everything they'd never be on the same ticket.
Posts: 3639 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Clinton/Obama. I don't know. A black man and a white woman...
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DougieOh
New Member
Member # 3911

 - posted      Profile for DougieOh   Email DougieOh       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Obama is nothing but a stalking horse. He is a set-up man from the Daley machine in Chicago (great friends to the Clintons)- a convenient target to draw fire and take all the air time from those who would otherwise want to critique Hillary. Then, at the convention - miracle of miracles - the Clinton / Obama ticket is born. What a paragon of virtue! The first woman President (what are ya, sexist?) and the first black Veep (what are ya, racist?). Slam dunk time.
Posts: 1 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think Clinton would be unwilling to share political power with someone who could realisticly threaten her ability to run for a second term. Imagine Obama running for the democratic nomination as a sitting Vice President against Hillary.

If Hillary was doing poorly, having Obama on her ticket would assure her of a one-term status should her first term have some blunders.

I am hoping Obama gets the nomination, since its become a front loaded process now only those with 70 million plus when the primaries start will have a chance. Between Obama and Clinton, the Democrat contribution pie is almost entirely their property. I have a hard time believing Clinton is anything other than someone who wants political power for self advantage. Obama wants political power for self advantage as well, but I think he may be also seeking such power for people without any political power other than a ballot.

Watched him on CNN on Sunday. Some of his speech wasn't boiler plate. Some of it honestly sounded like he not only understands what leadership is but also understands that no political office seeker should promise milk and honey. I think he is promising a realistic future. Something Clinton seems unable to do.

And right now I don't like any of the republican candidates.

If they dont improve I'll cross party lines and vote for Obama in the primary, and if the Republicans nominate some Mondale/Gore type figurehead I would vote for Obama even though he is clueless about foreign policy. He at least understands the domestic issues from a realistic perspective. His telegenic properties do not impress me, nor even his skill with a teleprompter. But he seems to have an ability to state the issue, and the solution he would try. You dont have to solve every problem, but you at least have to be able to come up with a proposal and try to implement it.

He strikes me as someone who could lead in that manner. Kinda like JFK in this one respect.

Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The one thing that Hillary does best is push people to either side. RS, what "self advantage" are you thinking of?

Obama is still a babe in toyland. If he retains a measurable portion of his "realness" through the convention, I think he becomes the candidate of "hope", and we desperately need one.

But, if I take a wider view, my top choices are Mario Cuomo, Hillary, and Wesley Clark. I saw a bit of Mario debating Newt last week at Cooper Union. The analyst afterward was asked "who won" and he said, well, Newt got a lot more laughs, but Mario said a lot of things that made you think. Imagine back in 1992 when he actually wanted to be President, and we got Bill instead. It would be a different world now, because he's the genuine article.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshuaD
Member
Member # 1420

 - posted      Profile for JoshuaD   Email JoshuaD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I think Clinton would be unwilling to share political power with someone who could realisticly threaten her ability to run for a second term. Imagine Obama running for the democratic nomination as a sitting Vice President against Hillary.

I think Hilary will take anything that helps her get the big seat. She thinks ahead, but she won't weaken her chances at the presidency for the spectre of a threat.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rallan
Member
Member # 1936

 - posted      Profile for Rallan   Email Rallan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's way too early to speculate on who's gonna end up playing sidekick to who on the Democrat ticket. There's months and months for other viable candidates to step up to the plate and have a swing at the primaries, and while Obama and Clinton are pretty clear frontrunners at the moment there's no guaruntee that they won't crash and burn later on or that a dark horse will manage to come up from behind like Howard Dean almost did. Trying to pick the final pair for the Democrats at this early stage is almost as hard as trying to think of who's remotely qualified to run for the Republicans at all [Smile]
Posts: 2570 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Clark is running for the bottom slot on a Hilary Ticket, to bring "military experience" she lacks.

I say again : Obama would have to be extremely slow of mind to accept the bottom of that ticket. He's a young man, and he saw what being a Clinton VP did for Gore.

Edited to Add:

If Hillary takes the White House, Obama can start his own Party and win in four years [Big Grin]

[ March 06, 2007, 06:12 PM: Message edited by: Jesse ]

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Obama would have to be extremely slow of mind to accept the bottom of that ticket. He's a young man, and he saw what being a Clinton VP did for Gore.
I think that this is a good point, but I think that it's very debatable.

First and foremost--Gore almost won the presidency. It was the arguably one of the closest elections ever. In fact, many people still insist that Gore did win.

For this argument to be valid, you would have to be arguing that the vice-presidency is not a good platform from which to launch a presidential campaign. Such an argument would be entirely mistaken. In the 20th century, more than a third of the presidents were former VPs:

Theodore Roosevelt
Calvin Coolidge
Harry Truman
Richard Nixon
Lyndon Baines Johnson
George Bush

Six out of seventeen.

Having been VP is arguably the best indicator of being a future president, with the sole exception of having served a term as President.

Besides this, Obama will still be a fairly young man in nine years. One of the most consistent criticisms leveled at him is his lack of experience in national government. Four or eight years in the White House would do everything to counter such a criticism.

(This is all assuming, of course, that Clinton wins the party nod and offers him the VP--I'm just working to demonstrate why it wouldn't be "slow of mind" to accept).

[ March 06, 2007, 08:46 PM: Message edited by: seekingprometheus ]

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Roosevelt, Johnson, Truman, and Coolidge all went on to be President due to the Presidents Death.

That's not likely with Hillary.

So, we have Nixon and GHWB.

If he doesn't serve as VP, he has the chance to run for Governor of Illinois in 20011, when Blagojevich terms out. Come the 2016 elections, he's got an Executive track record to run on that's going to mean a lot more than time as VP to a very polarizing President.

The only reason that Obama has any shot at all at the White House is that he's seen as offering something other than "Washington Insider Politics". He climbs in bed with Clinton, and he loses that.

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The case made by seekingpromotheus could be even stronger. Fact is, a lot of Presidents have come very close to dying in office, even if they survived.

As an example, looking at the life of John Nance Garner today, I noted he almost became President something like three weeks after FDR took office. An assassin shot at FDR, and killed the mayor of Chicago beside him. Reagan was nearly killed in office also. Becoming President by getting elected is a very hard thing to do, so someone who turns down a VP offer from a candidate likely to win probably reduces the chance he himself will ever get the job.

Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The only reason that Obama has any shot at all at the White House is that he's seen as offering something other than "Washington Insider Politics". He climbs in bed with Clinton, and he loses that.
Good point.

But I would quibble with your wording "The only reason." There are many reasons Obama has a shot at the White House. I would say that the most powerful reason is his personal charisma. The reason you have given is cogent and relevant for the time being, but it is certainly not "the only reason."

I really do appreciate the point that you make, but I wonder if it is necessarily true. Essentially, the point you raise is about his credibility. Does accepting a VP offer from Clinton necessarily undermine his credibility? And even if it does undermine it in some ways, are there not also pluses to his credibility should he accept?

Right now he runs as a reformer--as a new face with new and radical ideas, primarily because his politics are not yet very well known. Assuming that he does not get the dem. nom. this time, he's got four or eight years in which he has to remain in the spotlight of public consciousness if he is even to have a chance to make another bid. Isn't it likely that the cachet he currently has with the public will evolve?

The real question remains: does accepting such an offer diminish or increase his chances of taking the top office.

There are two ways of examining this: in general and in specific.

Generally: Go to the stats. Statistically, there is simply no better indicator that one will attain the presidential office than being VP (at least, none that I'm aware of).

Specifically: A lot of points can be made here. Your point is a good one. Another good point is that Obama shines in the spotlight. Give him a microphone and an audience, and even people who fervently disagree with him end up impressed. The vice presidency is a bigger microphone than he has as a senator.

Furthermore, as already mentioned--it does a fantastic job of overcoming the basic criticism he gets now of lack of experience. VP simply looks better on a resume than senator.

Another point is the precedent. There has never been an african american VP. Accepting the hypothetical offer guarantees a special paragraph in the history books. This segues into another question--what does a failed bid do to the chances of an african american? Is an african american as likely to get a second chance? Or does a failed bid inevitably raise sentiments of "He's not the one" and "I knew American wasn't ready"? (Harsh question, but definitely a question he'd have to ask himself in our hypothetical situation).

Arguably, Obama is in the position he is because of how meteoric his rise appears. He looks so unstoppable. If he fails to rise in '08, doesn't the loss of momentum cripple his chances? Accepting VP--if the ticket wins--salvages his win streak (or at least the appearance of a win streak). This could be a huge deal in this particular case.

Jesse, I do think your point is sound, but I think that a lot more goes into such a decision. If he fails to get the nomination this time, there are simply tremendous odds against him ever finding himself in such a position ever again. That all changes if he accepts the bottom half of a winning ticket.

[ March 07, 2007, 06:30 PM: Message edited by: seekingprometheus ]

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
We can't take for granted that Hilary will win the General.

By taking the bottom half of the ticket, he creates the possibility that he might be on a losing team.

I'd love to know how often those who lose while running for VP ever make it into the White House on their own...I can't think of any.

If Hilary wins without him, and gets us involved in another "stupid war", Obama will still be there. If the economy goes football shaped, if she can't get Americans insured, if the evidence for Global Warming continues to mount and she does nothing or too little....

From the outside, he's the guy who had better ideas, who cared more, who Democrats foolishly didn't Nominate.

I don't think it will cripple his chances, I think people will blame everything that goes wrong in a Hillary Term on "Party Machine Politics" and will give that Machine - not Hilary herself - credit for defeating Obama.

Losing the Nomination would tend to build his credibility, unless he takes the VP spot.

Four years of Hilary will, in my book, be the limit of the Peoples willingness to be ruled by Aristocrats.

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LoverOfJoy
Member
Member # 157

 - posted      Profile for LoverOfJoy   Email LoverOfJoy   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think Jesse and Seekingprometheus both raise valid points.

Losing the primaries would really take the wind out of Obama's sails to a great degree, I believe. But you really can't discount how polarizing Hillary is.

I think if Obama knew that Hillary had a REALLY good chance of winning the presidency, it might be a smart choice to accept the VP position and spin it as a win. If Hillary were able to change people's opinion of her enough that she became a shoe-in then she wouldn't be quite the liability that Jesse sees her as now.

But to be the VP candidate on a losing ticket would probably permanently ruin his chances for the presidency. I think John Edwards and Joseph Lieberman won't be taken seriously by a large portion of the electorate now. How many U.S. presidents were former vp candidate losers? As far as I know, zero.

But losing the primaries alone is quite a blow, I'd imagine. How many presidents lost the primaries before going on to later winning the primaries AND the white house?

Posts: 3639 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LoverOfJoy
Member
Member # 157

 - posted      Profile for LoverOfJoy   Email LoverOfJoy   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ah Jesse, you beat me to it. I got distracted by my kids while trying to post.
Posts: 3639 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Reagan that I can think of off hand.

That is, who lost a Primary and did not take a VP slot.

[ March 07, 2007, 06:53 PM: Message edited by: Jesse ]

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LoverOfJoy
Member
Member # 157

 - posted      Profile for LoverOfJoy   Email LoverOfJoy   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ah, and a quick search on wikipedia showed that FDR was the VP candidate alongside James M. Cox who lost against Warren Harding in 1920. I guess it could go either way.
Posts: 3639 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, two bounced back in a century?

Not great odds.

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LoverOfJoy
Member
Member # 157

 - posted      Profile for LoverOfJoy   Email LoverOfJoy   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
One from each scenario. So his odds aren't great either way if he loses the primaries. He could try the VP route but if Hillary fails he'd have to do what only FDR pulled off. He could just try again next election but he'd have to do what only Reagan pulled off. But from all the hype, he sounds like he might be the next Reagan or FDR. And he may not lose the primaries. And if he were to go with Hillary, she may not lose.

I could see it go a number of ways.

Posts: 3639 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm honestly betting Hilary has a much larger skelton collection, and that some contender other than Obama will open that closet door.

Well, I hope so anyway.

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'd obviously agree that it isn't optimal for Obama--but I think that, if we accept the hypothetical that Clinton wins the nod and offers the bottom of the ticket to him (a dubious proposition perhaps), it's a very difficult decision--not a clear and obvious choice.

I don't understand the reasons behind this comment: "Losing the Nomination would tend to build his credibility, unless he takes the VP spot."

I'm curious if you honestly think that his chances of maintaining such widespread support for the next four or eight years are that good if he loses this primary. It seems to me that if he loses the primary, he's likely to end up in the nowhere land of so many other one-time hopefuls. I also think that you're looking at the statistics incorrectly--you should be comparing all VPs who have become president to all senators who have lost a primary and then become president. Those are the real objective criteria. And based on history, the probability of a VP becoming president is *hugely* greater than the probability of a senator who has lost a primary. It's not even close.

I'm also curious as to how you see the race issue playing into this. I know the question is a distasteful one, but again: Do you think an african american is as likely to get a second chance in our society? I think that--right or not--pragmatically there is a great chance that if he loses the primary the two sentiments I mentioned earlier are likely to take purchase across a wide swath of his current supporters.

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If he loses without being perceived to have compromised, it's his supporters who failed him, not he who failed. As long as he doesn't wind up with a McCain style "sell-out" label, he's still good.

I really think Wes Clark is running for VP, and that Hillary is going to tap him to prop herself up in the Military and Security arena, where she is percieved as weak. Clark is old, so I doubt he's going to run in eight years.

If Obama loses the nomination to Hilary, who has ten times his campaign fund and really has the Party Machine behind her, but does not take a VP spot, he's stood up for what he believes and refused to comprimise. Hence, it builds his credibility.

If he gets stomped in the primaries Kucenich style, you would probably be right. Dustbin of history. I just don't see many scenerios in which that could happen.

I think *this* african american is likely to get another chance, because he's going to have at least a decent showing and he's not likely to make comments about "himmytown".

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If he loses without being perceived to have compromised, it's his supporters who failed him, not he who failed.
Hmmm. Regardless of whether or not this is logically sound, I doubt that this is going to be the public perception.
Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LoverOfJoy
Member
Member # 157

 - posted      Profile for LoverOfJoy   Email LoverOfJoy   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I really think Wes Clark is running for VP, and that Hillary is going to tap him to prop herself up in the Military and Security arena, where she is percieved as weak. Clark is old, so I doubt he's going to run in eight years.
I'm curious why you think he's running for VP. Why would he want to? Especially if he's not hoping to move up to president.

If you don't want to derail this thread any further, you could explain in the Influential VP thread I created earlier.

Posts: 3639 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
He's a Clinton camp follower.
Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ATW
Member
Member # 1690

 - posted      Profile for ATW   Email ATW   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ms Clinton has a terrible temper and isn't known for being forgiving. We've already seen hints in the campaign that she's been willing to make some personal shots at Obama. And there are constant stories swirling that Clinton is having investigators sift through Obama's past looking for dirt.

If Obama makes the race close enough that he would ordinarily be a slam dunk choice as VP, I'd expect that Hillary would hate his guts to the point that she wouldn't offer the job. And that Obama would be smeared enough by Hillary to not accept if it were offered.

Posts: 575 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
lambchopsofgod
Member
Member # 3960

 - posted      Profile for lambchopsofgod   Email lambchopsofgod       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
GORE / Obama's the winner
Posts: 23 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The Veep selection is usually based on demographics, and usually contrasts with the candidate at the top of the ticket. Not sure if Hillary can get all the way to the nomination (too many bodies strewn along the way), but she would have to pick a westerner or southerner for VP. Unless Obama drops out soon, he will be too "big" for the office. If not him, I think Richardson is the best choice. Warner also would be a good choice.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Let's pause just a minute and imagine that Obama just charges right through and gets the nomination.

Who would he pick as VP?

[ March 11, 2007, 06:16 PM: Message edited by: kenmeer livermaile ]

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hobsen
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
McCain [Smile]
Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
MCain makes sense.

Both parties are in limbo. It would be funny if they had a love child that spawned a new line.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
More Likely, Richardson.
Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh, McCain ain't 'lectable, period. But what he represents to his party fits in nicely with what Obama represents.

If it weren't for Bush, Powell might be running against Obama... with Condi as his VP. That little wannabe Texan turd-muffin has ****ed up SO much for so many. It's just amazing.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Warner, richardson, possibly even a non-politician like wesley clark.

Powell as VP?

I really doubt obama would select mccain as running mate. as much as people like to talk about him as centrist, he's further from the center then kerry was 3 years ago.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Houston, I think we have a candidate:

HOUSTON (AP) — Ron Paul (news, bio, voting record), a nine-term Texas congressman who describes himself as a lifelong libertarian, announced his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination Monday.

Appearing on C-SPAN's "Washington Journal," Paul said he was at first reluctant to run, but that "a lot of people want to hear my message and I'm willing to deliver it."

Paul, who formed an exploratory committee in January, said he has raised more than $500,000 in the past month "with very little effort."

"So far, the amount of money raised isn't competitive with those establishment candidates who will raise $100 million, but with the Internet and the amount of money and enthusiasm, I think we can become very competitive," he said.

Paul, who also ran for the White House as a Libertarian Party candidate in 1988, recently spent three days campaigning in New Hampshire. He is planning campaign trips to Arizona and Iowa, and said he expects to be included in any GOP debates.

An obstetrician-gynecologist from just south of Houston, Paul is ideologically far afield from the Republican mainstream. He has acknowledged that he has been largely shunned by the national party.

Among other differences with his party's base, Paul has criticized
President Bush for acting unconstitutionally in sending U.S. troops to Iraq and has said he would support an investigation into whether Bush "deliberately misrepresented" his reasons for doing so.

"I'm very confident the Republican party has gone in the wrong direction," Paul said in his C-SPAN appearance. "We used to be the party of small government. Now we're the party of big government."

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
link

"I think the intention was for us to put bases there (Iraq), to stay there, operate militarily from there. And I think that’s what we’re going to do, Democrat, Republican, Independent, I can’t imagine anybody but Ron Paul, if you elect Ron Paul as president, those bases will be closed down. Otherwise…

JOSH SCHEER: Or Dennis Kucinich.

KAREN KWIATKOWSKI: Or Kucinich, there you go, Kucinich would do it too. So these are the guys we are able to elect, but chances are, I hate to say, the machine is not behind these men. So yeah, we got a problem. Now is there anything optimistic? Yeah. I’m a God fearing Christian. God has the power. How He might express that, I don’t know."

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1