Rule of Thumb: If adaher expresses “concern”–he’s feeling threatened.
I really don’t want to know about Perez’s stinky taint.
It’s the (D) after his name. As usual.
This discussion has been tainted. Thanks, everybody.
At least you know stuff was brought up. Thank you for keeping up.
No, none of it is disqualifying, but it is good for some votes here and there, plus riling up the GOP base.
Does that mean the opposite is true, that any VP potentials I like are actually bad?
I’m aware you posted links to some stuff that you claim is horrible, horrible, horrible. But it’s not.
The (D) after his name is good for some votes here and there, plus riling up the GOP base. The brown skin covering his meat and bones is good for riling up the GOP base too, as is the name “Perez,” his position in the Obama cabinet and his association with Hillary and Bill Clinton. The GOP base rile up pretty easy these days.
All Democrats are not created equal and we do not treat all Democrats the same. If Clinton picks Warren, we’ll hit her on ideology. If she picks Castro, we’ll hit him on experience. If she picks Perez, we’ll hit him on shadiness and putting partisanship ahead of unbiased implementation of the law.
If she picks Kaine, we got nuthin’.
Note that Joe Biden was an excellent pick in that Republicans didn’t even try to go after him. John Edwards didn’t draw much fire in 2004 either, and neither did Joe Lieberman. Democrats have been playing it safe on VP picks for quite some time. Picking someone like Perez would be a big departure from that strategy. And we would take full advantage of it.
But that’s the nothing burger.
Gonna be a lot of Ricky Ricardo impersonations on your Facebook feed, right?
If so, our democracy is doomed. Won’t last much longer if we reward cabinet officials with promotions for applying the law in a partisan manner.
Basically, that’s what we’ve been accusing the Obama administration of for seven years now. Have we moved on from denial and now decided that executive agencies being partisan is now a good thing?
Have we established that it exists? 
Bullshit accusations. Nothing on Perez and nothing on Obama.
Maybe we’ll get to have that debate if she’s foolish enough to pick Perez. E
Or maybe you could offer something specific, instead of the same stream of impassioned but insubstantive insinuation that you use on Clinton.
with all her baggage I don’t it will made a lot of difference who she pick ! She is only 3 points ahead of Trump now . I wish she had never ran in the first place !
Clinton is the second most unpopular nominee in history and the only people who consider her honest and trustworthy are her dedicated supporters at this point.
So I think the burden of proof just might be on you to defend her, rather than whistling past the graveyard.
Yeah, thanks for taking it easy on that flaming liberal Lieberman.
We didn’t really *need *any more of your trademark steady stream of groundless insinuation, but you’re having a *lot *of trouble getting the hint. :rolleyes:
Most polls have the lead around 10 or higher. Do please remember that Obama almost never led Romney by more than 3 (and even those were skewed in Obama’s favor, according to adaher). The electoral vote was a romp even so.
You would have preferred whom exactly?