I’m starting to get a feel for why the Dem’s haven’t been in the WH much in the last 30 years…
-XT
Voting for or againts a candidate based on their je ne sais quoi rather than their policy positions? That’s what put Bush in office. I’d like to think we’re not stupid enough to do that again.
Eh, Democracy’s supposed to be sloppy…
That’s what put almost every president and every other politician in office. Character is the most important issue for most people, and which is not necessarily wrong- because who would deliberately vote for a liar?
As long as we’re going with fantasy hypotheticals, what if these are the two choices?
Obama / Cheney (Dem)
or
McCain / Hillary (Rep)?
From what I recall McCain and Hillary actually DO get along fairly well…so, it’s not totally impossible (a snowball COULD exist in hell for a little while…in theory).
I’d say Obama/Chaney isn’t even as likely as <posters name removed to protect the innocent> posting something other than a drive by link…
The only thing more unlikely would be Obama/Bush II…
-XT
I firmly believe that the only way the Dems have a chance at the presidency is if there is a Clinton/Obama ticket.
But, I doubt it’ll happen. Clinton’s testosterone will keep her battling so she won’t drop out. Obama’s ahead, so why would he drop out?
And, the point is, they’re not that many differences between them–so they’ll have to create differences, real or imagined. Good ol’ American mud-slinging dirty politics will ensue (something the Clintons excel at). Too many bridges will be burned, and that will preclude fence-mending later ( 
).
It’ll get real interesting if the Florida/Michigan thing bubbles to the top, too. Oh, the howls that’d generate.
Meanwhile, McCain and his running mate will have their speeches written for them–by the Democrats.
I believe their propensity for corruption, lies and deceit runs just as deep… Mugabe has the “advantage” that the checks and balances in Zimbabwe are not there to hold him back, but given the opportunity, the Clintons will stop at nothing to win this.
I do not believe he will pick Clinton - more likely Kathleen Sebelius, but if he were to pick Clinton, then no. I would not vote for any ticket including Clinton. I would be concerned that the Clintons would find a way to impeach or otherwise remove Obama so she could claim top post.
It never ceases to amaze me how supposedly intelligent people (and I consider most of the regular members of this board intelligent, else they wouldn’t find Uncle Cecil’s columns that interesting) will willingly adopt complete nonsense as truth, never to be questioned. Scary.
I’m no fan of either Billary. But to assert that they are corrupt on that level is simply absurd. It detracts from whatever other valid points get made, since it shows a level of illogical thinking, based upon unreasoning fears.
If it happens that Hillary Clinton is nominated, all of you who are spouting such absurdities had best, if you want something other than four more years of exactly the same thing we’ve seen from President Bush’s administration, stop behaving like children who didn’t get what they wanted and work to support your party’s nominee for the office of President.
All you people who keep spouting this are consistently forgetting that much of Obama’s support, including on these boards, DOES NOT COME FROM DEMOCRATS, and therefore they have NO LOYALTY to “the party” and no reason to support it.
And while I’m a registered Democrat, it was only because I had to switch my registration from Independent in order to vote in the Democratic primary one year (or so I was led to believe at the time, given that now Independents can vote in the Dem primaries here). I am NOT loyal to a PARTY. I’m only loyal to my conscience. And my conscience will not allow me to cast a vote for Hillary Clinton. Period. So if she gets the nomination, I sit this one out.
You don’t have to agree with that sentiment, but you don’t get to denigrate me and call me a child for it, either.
I think Shayna gets the gist of my question – would Obama as veep be enough to overcome the reluctance to install HRC as prez. I slightly prefer Clinton to McCain anyway, so it’s an easy answer for me, but I’d be heartened by the idea that as a vice president Obama would become a better known and better trusted candidate and easily win his next presidential bid.
Which does not mean I’ve given up on him now, just that I worry about the Dems being caught up in a long, ugly battle and wondering what the best case scenario is right now.
I would not be more inclined to vote for Clinton if Obama was the VP for the following pragmatic reasons:
(A) Obama would be simply filling the role of Constitutionally Mandated Bench-Warmer. He would have no practical role in a Clinton & Clinton White House.
(B) Obama would be more effective in the Senate than as VP.
© I’ve heard rumors and suggestions that Obama would possibly try for the Illinois governor’s seat in 2010 to shore up his executive experience for a future presidental run. I’d frankly rather he do this than take a VP slot. I understand that if Clinton won, she’d have the incumbant slot for 2012 and her VP would be the likely candidate for 2016 but I doubt she’d win in 2008 anyway. Given that I’m willing to vote for him to lead the USA, it should be a given that I’d trust him to run Illinois.
As for Clinton, I’m not willing to vote for her simply because I’m not willing to validate her campaign tactics with my vote. I’ll admit that I can get away with this choice pretty easily since Illinois is almost certain to vote blue with or without me. But in this instance she’ll have to do it without me because I’m not having her take my vote as a sign that she has my approval.
The only reason Clinton is talking about a joint ticket is because it’s good strategy for her to put the knives away for a little bit lest she be seen as even shriller.
The only reason she’d ever choose Obama as VP is if she feels that the Democratic base would be too fractured by shore Obama supporters. That has to be weighed against the facts that Obama doesn’t really fill out any of Clinton’s weaknesses in geography idealogy or experience, and that as the more charismatic of the two he’d overshadow her.
I won’t vote for Hillary on any combination of tickets.
Once I would have rather voted for the Maverick, but he isn’t that man now.
So, if Obama loses the nom, I’ll just have to write him in…Or maybe Gore/Obama, since I’d be dreaming by then anyway.
Not like I’m a Dem anyway.
True, she only has *twice *as much National experience than Obama. :rolleyes:
My suggestion is Clinton/Obama, then Obama/Clinton, rinse, repeat. And, they have to agree in public to this.
**
DSYoungEsq** is right. The Dems have to get behind either. Otherwise, EIGHT MORE YEARS of the WAR. The economy can’t take it, America will be bankrupt. We simply can’t afford to let McCain in.
Forum rules prevent me from expressing what I think of this notion. I forgot my New Years resolution to refrain from GD “debates” where the most absurd theories have to be given polite and respectful treatment.
I echo this sentiment. The amount of truly absurd bile coming out from certain supporters of Obama is really quite frightening. Especially when it’s almost never backed up by any – any – kind of real rationale.
I feel like a lot of people are willing to vote for Obama based on the same premise that got GW Bush elected. Oh, he’s a nice guy. He’s a real person. He represents change. Etc., etc…
Personally, I feel like Hillary would quite willingly take a VP spot. People who think a VP spot is somehow not influential are obviously forgetting what everyone thinks of Cheney’s use of the office. Don’t forget the position in the congress that accompanies it, either.
And I mean, c’mon, who couldn’t see Hillary as a grumpy Democratic version of Cheney in the VP seat? 
CNN Article about it:
" Clinton and Obama both say they will be their party’s nominee, and while that’s not possible, it is possible they could both appear on the Democratic ticket.
Clinton Wednesday said she would consider being part of what some Democrats call a “dream ticket” that would include both candidates.
“That may be where this is headed,” the New York senator said on the “CBS Early Show.” “But of course we have to decide who is on the top of ticket. I think the people of Ohio very clearly said that it should be me.”
NEVER!
Well, I can’t speak for others, but I think it matters on how HRC gets nominated if she does. The tactics she’s used already have put a bad taste in the mouths of some. I’m pretty much disgusted with her and* I expect politicians to be sleazy scumballs. * HRC isn’t the worst politician, but she sure isn’t much better than what I expect of one. If the choices are just more of the same crap (and really, is hillary going to change anything? Probably not. She’s too polarizing and has too much baggage IMO) its hard to feel like its worth it to vote for her.
Honestly, I can’t say what I’d do if she wins the nomination, but if the election were held today I can tell you I probably would vote for McCain. Its just more of the same and McCain at least seems to have a little more integrity to me. Thats just my opinion though.
Her 35 years of experience counts every moment from the time she left Yale. Obama has held more elected positions and more time in office overall.
Her time being first lady should not count for much. My dad flew 747s… and I spent 20 years living in the same house… guess I am a qualified 747 pilot now. :rolleyes: