I’m not sure when Obama said that the purpose of his *primary campaign * would be to “unite”. It would be a silly thing to unite overmuch during a contested primary.
I think he has talked about forming “broad coalitions” of independents and republicans, small states and large states, etc, and I think that his campaign at least been adequate in this regard. In any event, in his speeches and talking points on unity he’s talking about how he will govern, not how he will campaign. I realize that this is parsing but I think it’s relevant.
I agree that Obama taking Clinton as his VP might be the best band-aid way to “unite” the party following a divisive campaign. Do I think it will happen? No- but that’s just my opinion, as it is my opinion that Clinton would never accept the second fiddle spot anyway. But to be fair, nobody knows, and it’s just silly to offer a competing candidate your VP spot before the campaign is decided, whether you’re ahead or behind.
Let 'em rip, I say. I know it wasn’t asked but Clinton is by far and away my second choice, and I think that if Obama makes it though to the general it will be like walking on the moon compared to walking in Hillary’s jupiter-gravity. She is a contender and a fighter- if nothing else she is shaping Obama up for an opponent who will not be nearly as tenacious.
I’m in a similar boat - I most likely will not be voting for any of them, but if I did, my choice would be Obama, McCain, and Clinton, in that order.
I don’t like Obama’s policies for the most part. But he gives the impression of being a decent person, someone who really wants to serve the American people and make things better - not just win a battle for his side and force his policies onto everyone. He’s the candidate most outside “politics as usual” as we’ve had in my adult life, and as politics as usual is part of what’s damaging this country, he would win my support.
Clinton, on the other hand, represents the absolute worst in politics as usual. She’s on the same coin as bush, just the other side. Her politics being similar to Obama’s, I don’t like them either. But she has no redeeming qualities whatsoever like he does. I might vote for Obama - probably not, but I’ve considered it - but I would never ever vote for Clinton. In fact, despite arguing against voting for the lesser of two evils on this board before, she might actually motivate me to vote against her, hence McCain being my second preference. Her campaign has been so disgusting that I think she might be the sort of person who could try to rival Bush as the worst president in US history.
It’s sad that your political view can’t conceive of supporting a candidate as an individual, and not as a person who happens to have a [D] or [R] next to their name.
You’ve never heard anyone say that before? My experience is that they are people who are not overly ideological, and even where they disagree with one of the two candidates, they trust McCain and Obama’s integrity more than they trust Clinton’s.
People say they want to hear about the issues. But the reality is that a lot of voters simply choose candidates based on their images. If you asked them which candidate’s tax policy or health care policy or trade policy or national defense policy is closest to their own, they’d have to admit they don’t actually know anything about these issues. That’s why we end up hearing about vague things like vision, trust, inspiration, experience, hope, or change. Candidates get marketed like soap and voters pick the one whose slogans they like best.
I’ve said on this board before that I thought Clinton was a poor choice. Obama* wasn’t my first choice either but when Edwards dropped out I picked him over Clinton because I didn’t want four years of listening to the republican hate machine smearing the Clinton’s and blocking legislation in a petty attempt at revenge politics. While I’m not one of those that would vote McCain over Clinton, I am one who’d need significant down ballot issues to get me off my ass and into the booth. Not because I hate Clinton but because she already has a constituency of haters that I don’t think she can overcome and her campaign has done nothing to suggest otherwise.
*I’ve also said the same thing about Obama, also on this board; in that case I didn’t believe his campaign could overcome skin color. I’ve been pleasantly surprised.
You jumped right to the response without taking time to understand what was said. Again. The problem isn’t that he did not accept the “offer” (past tense, remember), but laughed off the idea of *ever * having Clinton as *his * running mate. Get it now?
The companion question was about how his most-vocal *supporters * would feel. And? Head explosions, or what?
As we’ve already gone over, it’s a rule of campaigning no active candidate can afford to ever openly discuss not winning. Why do you not simply consider that she’s a candidate?
You still are not actually reading what has been posted. There are *other * ways to unite the party, and the nation, sure - but we haven’t seen *any * of them from him, have we?
I have communicated my views quite clearly, and am quite tired of your clear refusal to be communicated with. Hold up your end.
***Say what??? * ** Really? That is just the opposite of what you’ve virtually screamed in your last hundred or so posts here. Not that it’s an unwelcome development, of course, but what’s changed your mind? And does Shayna know about this? Or RTFirefly?
And that’s why the deal, either way it went, would have to be made in private, not in public. Stuffy, are you really willing to let the Republicans decide not only the national agenda but the identity of Democratic candidates? That’s what your view amounts to. And, for that matter, do you have reason to believe that their oppositionism is simply focused on the Clintons, or on Democrats? To think that their behavior would be different in an Obama administration is a pretty audacious hope. Pushing the trogs far more deeply into the minority in Congress is a much likelier solution, regardless of the name of the President.
I would define “uniting” as “not dividing”. It isn’t what he’s done, it’s what he hasn’t done. Can you name one hopeful of either party in history who, during the primary campaign, stated that the presumptive nominee of the other party was qualified to be commander in chief but his opponent in the same party was not? We’ve had some pretty testy primaries in history- Ford/Reagan, Humphrey/McCarthy, Reagan/Bush, Kennedy/Carter, yet I cannot imagine any of them having so little party loyalty as to state that the other party’s candidate was better than the in-party rival.
Etc. If your view really is that he’s just no worse than most candidates, not actually something transcendently superior, then we’re getting somewhere.
Looks like you’ve been reading blog versions of the claim you repeat here. Here it is
But that still doesn’t answer my question. Not to mention all he “laughed off” was the idea of being Hillary’s running mate. I got it the first time I read it. Thanks for the concern though. Now if you could get around to actually answering my question that I’ve posed to you twice.
Ask them. I’m not going to guess.
You missed the point. I was suggesting why Obama hadn’t asked Hillary to be his running mate in response to your contention that Obama failing to ask Hillary proved he wasn’t a uniter.
You’re of course referring to Obama not forcing Michigan and Florida to hold revotes to get the delegates to count, which if I remember right you said earlier could wait until the candidate was decided. Other than that, no you haven’t posted anything suggesting how Obama could unite the party other than to be vice president under second place Hillary.
I’m asking you questions and requesting you to clarify. How is that not communicating? You seem to be working very hard to take offense when none is intended. All you need to do is answer the questions that I ask and clarify where I am mistaken.
Once again you assume much. I simply said it was possible for her to win. I didn’t say it was likely or that I thought she should win or that she should win. I simply said that she could win.
So how do you know that he hasn’t made it? Why claim that he hasn’t or wouldn’t when you in all likelyhood wouldn’t know if he had made such overtures?
If Obama doesn’t think Clinton is a good candidate for VP, why should he include her?
What if he finds her tactics reprehensible? What if he realizes that she’s the very essence of old-school partisan politics, and that putting her on the ticket will discredit him as being different from politics as usual? What if he simply doesn’t think she would make a good VP?
Then he has to pick her, and her specifically, as his VP, otherwise he’s proving that he’s not actually for unity?
He actually has to pick a running mate who is the epitome of everything he claims to be different than in order to have a legitimate claim on being different?
Your assertion that not picking Clinton indicates hypocrisy on his part is absurd.
No I think we should be doing that; I believe the primary is about us democrats trying to pick the best candidate to run in the general election. Besides there are republicans are trying to pick the democratic candidate, their choice is Hillary Clinton. For just the reasons I’ve mentioned:
I’m not foolish enough to believe that everything will be flowers and puppies if Obama gets elected. However I am happy with the fact that he seems to be drawing more than the base of the Democratic party. That gives me at least cause for optimism. To your second point, there has been many an article that suggest Obama would help many domocrats down ballot, while a Clinton campagn will energize the republicans more than McCain. Here’s one for starters
As Elvis pointed out, Clinton didn’t say what you claim. She said that McCain had more experience in office than Obama. That’s an objective fact. Obama has called McCain a war hero and that doesn’t mean he’s endorsing him.
Do you think it was just a coincidence that the Democrats happen to keep nominating candidates that the conservatives then attack? That if Paul Tsongas had been nominated in 1992 instead of Bill Clinton that the conservatives would have said he seemed like an acceptable choice and they’d maintain a wait-and-see attitude?
Face facts, if Obama gets nominated, he’s going to become the focus of the same hate smears that Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, and Kerry all were. And it’ll be far worse. Because the anti-Obama hate campaign will be sure to throw plenty of racism out there. Whoever’s the current equivalent of Atwater and Rove is out there right now buying white robes and crosses to rally the base.
Dude. Seriously. You don’t see the flaw in the logic of, “He’s not prepared to be President, but he’d make a great Vice.” How is that *not *something that’s funny and should be laughed off?
I’m an Obama supporter, but I think it’d be ridiculous even for Hillary to quit at this stage.
I can actually understand why she’s getting progressively more pissed at the notion: she’s behind, he’s a formidable opponent and this is absolutely assured of being no cakewalk, but she’s far from out of the running. Even more ridiculous than the “Stand down Hill! Take one for the team!” calls are the ones criticizing her (and Obama) for what has been some amazingly moderate mudslinging because “McCain can use it against us!”. To paraphrase Adams’ line from 1776 “It’s a revolution damn it! We have to offend somebody!”, “It’s a presidential campaign, damn it! You’ve got to downgrade your opponents sometimes!” (because if they’re all that then why should they vote for you)?
Anyway, that’s my opinion on Hillary- she’d be a fool not to at least stay in until after Pennsylvania and North Carolina. Magnify that sentiment about 6 times for Obama, who so long as he isn’t caught biting the jugular out of a puppy sometime between now and summer is a near walk-in for the nomination. Currently he’s 47 and the “freshness” of his non-career-politician background and his youthful vigor are much of his appeal, especially considering that the president who’s elected this year has to clean up one of the biggest frigging carbunkle of messes in the history of the republic. (Age isn’t usually an issue with me in choosing an elected official or any other kind of “expert”, but McCain’s 72 years and heart condition and torture and other health concerns are as major a factor as his platform [a lot of which I agree with], for I just don’t think he’ll have the stamina to do the job even if he picks the Olsen Twins as running mate [between them they’re old enough]).
By 2016 (by which time NOBODY can predict what will have happened in the U.S. and the world, though I’m pretty sure MS Word 2014 will have started a war) Barack will be 55 and a career politician. Discounting the 2000 election debacle with Gore/popular vote/et al, Bush is the only VP in the last century to become president by election. The other 5 VPs to become president since 1900 (Teddy Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, Truman, Johnson and Ford) all did so upon the death or resignation of their predecessor (though some were elected to the office while they were the incumbent president), so a 2016 win would be far from certain for Barack Obama.
I couldn’t find the exact quote, but she said roughly this: “I’ve crossed the commander in chief threshold. Senator McCain has crossed the commander in chief threshold. You’ll have to ask Senator Obama about his experience.”
Then Bubba got into the act with something along the lines of:
“Wouldn’t it be great if it came down to Hillary and McCain, two people that really love this country?”
These go far beyond anything I have ever heard any other candidate say about a primary rival. I just don’t see how you can blame Obama for not being giddy with excitement about sharing a ticket with Hillary.
I still don’t see any evidence of said threshold, but her line about him having his candidacy built on a speech he gave in 2002 is getting old. Besides, wasn’t the speech she’s referring to actually in 2004?
“Delivered on Wednesday, October 2, 2002 by Barack Obama, Illinois State Senator, at the first high-profile Chicago anti-Iraq war rally (organized by Chicagoans Against War in Iraq) at noon in Federal Plaza in Chicago, Illinois; at the same day and hour that President Bush and Congress announced their agreement on the joint resolution authorizing the Iraq War, but over a week before it was passed by either body of Congress.”
I’m not quoting snippets of the speech because you really need to read the whole thing to see how thoroughly he mailed it.