[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
Whose odds? Where can I get a bet down against Al Gore?
I don’t think it’ll be Edwards or Hillary. I’m positive that Al Gore has better things to do with his life than run for veep, given that he decided awhile back that he had better things to do than run for President.
[/QUOTE]
You can’t bet against people, only for them. I agree; there is no way Gore is the choice. The odds come from sportsbook.com, but the offshore web sites usually have pretty much the same odds. Now is the time to wager to get good odds. I picked Obama and McCain at like 10-1 each a long time ago, so I’m set regardless of who wins in November. I didn’t bet enough to retire on though.
Webb was on NPR and basically said he’d turn it down. He feels he can do more good where he is now, especially since he’s gonna be the senior from his state soon.
[QUOTE=Captain Lance Murdoch]
You can’t bet against people, only for them. …
[/QUOTE]
What? No market in short sales? That’s an inefficiency right there.
I was Gore/Obama at the beginning, but I’d put the money I sent to the recruit-Gore folks down on a Gore for VP short position. Pure gravy.
Seriously though, I’ve come around to Sebelius now. She wraps up the folks who are concerned about having a woman on the ticket. She was always perfect for it, but at first, I thought it would be too blatant a play, but now I’m thinking subtlety on this matter is a wasted effort. Call me a jaded pig.
[QUOTE=I Love Me, Vol. I]
I’m not so sure. The rapidly increasing Hispanic population in the U.S. breaks down somewhat curiously and unpredictably between the Left and Right (as well as points between, of course). Seems to me this could be a somewhat volatile voting bloc (at least in the center) come the general election.
[/QUOTE]
To me that’s one of the weirdest things about American politics, how every prediction and campaign move seems to be about pigeonholes…
Not that we don’t have them elsewhere, too; in the last Spanish election there were too many parties whose posters whittled down to “where I live, we vote XYZ!” But sometimes hearing you guys it’s as if people’s ideas are expected to be 100% defined by the color of their skin, their religion and what’s between their legs Just an observation from the peanut gallery.
[QUOTE=Phlosphr]
Everyone knows I am as diehard Obama as the next poster {COUGH}Shayna{COUGH} - but I wonder about a Richardson Veep slot being … well … too Brown. :smack: I hate even writing that as I feel great about that ticket, but as we have seen a large majority of Americans feel differently.
I think Sebelius would be a great pick, but I also like Webb…
[/QUOTE]
These were my thoughts as well.
Gov. Tim Kaine of my great state is a national co-chair, was an early supporter, is a former Catholic missionary, and has connections to a political network here in VA (he’s married to former Republican Governorn Linwood Hollton’s daughter). If not VP, I certainly believe he’ll be in an Obama administration.
TNR has a piece pushing Ken Salazar (Senator from Colorado):
And here’s an interesting piece showcasing why Webb might be a really bad choice if the priority is to try to win over alienated females/Hillary supporters. Really worth considering. And it’s just one of a growing skepticism on how much Webb will actually help the ticket.
[QUOTE=Shayna]
On the other hand, we really need a majority of Clinton’s “womyn” supporters who’re angry that Obama “stole” the nomination from the first woman who was supposed to become president (in their opinion). Women like that bitch Geraldine Ferraro, who’s now saying that she might not even vote for him because she thinks he ran a “sexist” campaign. :rolleyes: She’s giving women “permission” to use that as an excuse not to vote for him, regardless of the facts. Having a woman on the ticket with him utterly demolishes the contention that he’s in any way “sexist”.
And given that there are some outstanding women with excellent credentials, especially my first choice, Kathleen Sebelius, I see no reason not to continue with the “groundbreaking” theme on his ticket. I really don’t see it as being foolishly aggressive at all. In fact, I think it would indeed be strategic and practical (in addition to being good for the country).
[/QUOTE]
Last night on "Hannity and Colmes, “that bitch” said when asked if she would vote for Obama in November was she would have to think about it. That’s the same response Michelle Obama gave when she was asked if she would vote for Hillary Clinton.
And continuing to berate HRC and her supporters is not a way to build party unity.
[QUOTE=kevja]
Last night on "Hannity and Colmes, “that bitch” said when asked if she would vote for Obama in November was she would have to think about it. That’s the same response Michelle Obama gave when she was asked if she would vote for Hillary Clinton.
And continuing to berate HRC and her supporters is not a way to build party unity.
[/QUOTE]
Ferraro also accused Obama of having run a sexist campaign (I don’t get that whatsoever) and – hysterically – of being the one to blame for Hillary’s RFK flap (this after Barack went out of his way to try let her off the hook).
Why is it that Hillary feels perfectly justified in jumping with two feet onto any and every Obama verbal gaffe, innuendo, casual association or trumped up accusation possible (sometimes doing the trumping herself), even, I might add, playing on and encouraging racial animus, yet also wants to play the victim for her own mistakes (which include actual wholesale fabrications and genuinely offensive remarks, not just awkward phrasings here and there) and accuse her opponent of playing dirty even when he tries to defend her?
I never had anything against Hillary and even now, in spite of everything, would probably still vote for her over McCain, but she has absolutely no room to speak about party unity, that’s for sure.
Just an observation from the peanut gallery.