View Full Version : Obama is the Democratic nominee for president
funk63
06-03-2008, 09:40 PM
apparently he just clinched it
im high right now and I just realized how fox news is like really anti-obama. its like really subtle but foreel wtf.
jennyb
06-03-2008, 09:53 PM
:D(y)
*cheesy cheerleader type jump*
he hasn't..."actually" won yet though, has he? he's just really really likely to win, right? i refuse to get excited until it's a sure thing, i don't want this to be one of those "dewey defeats truman" things
roosta
06-04-2008, 04:34 AM
Fanfare for Hillary (http://www.sadtrombone.com/)
yeahwho
06-04-2008, 07:45 AM
What a great day, I mean it really, this is a great day.
abcdefz
06-04-2008, 08:56 AM
I have begged him not to select Clinton as a running mate.
I have begged him not to select Clinton as a running mate.
i hope he doesn't too. not because i think she would be a bad VP (i have no opinion either way on that) but just because the selection of the vice president is an important strategic choice for a campaign. to say "you have to pick clinton, you have to be co-presidents!" kind of handicaps him and our chances of beating the republicans, doesn't it? i hope she doesn't whine her way into the position
abcdefz
06-04-2008, 09:52 AM
Plus, if she's second in line, she'll surely order a hit on him.
Echewta
06-04-2008, 11:45 AM
Edwards is great VP material. To understanding to be President. Plenty to be VP.
alien autopsy
06-04-2008, 07:06 PM
loved his comments over at AIPAC. NPR was running his soundbytes over and over all day long....something or other about doing whatever is necessary so that iran is NO LONGER a threat to the US and also something about promising to protect the freedom and security of israel.
RobMoney$
06-04-2008, 07:28 PM
i hope he doesn't too. not because i think she would be a bad VP (i have no opinion either way on that) but just because the selection of the vice president is an important strategic choice for a campaign. to say "you have to pick clinton, you have to be co-presidents!" kind of handicaps him and our chances of beating the republicans, doesn't it? i hope she doesn't whine her way into the position
I disagree. people don't vote for VP.
Remember Dan Quayle?
Obama should tap Clinton for VP. Not because of the votes she can bring to him, or because she's the best person for the job (because she's not, that would be Gore).
He should let her on the ticket because if she isn't the VP you'll have 45% of the party constantly saying "We told you so, We should have went with Clinton" anytime Obama fucks up.
I disagree. people don't vote for VP.
Remember Dan Quayle?
Obama should tap Clinton for VP. Not because of the votes she can bring to him, or because she's the best person for the job (because she's not, that would be Gore).
He should let her on the ticket because if she isn't the VP you'll have 45% of the party constantly saying "We told you so, We should have went with Clinton" anytime Obama fucks up.
my understanding from the political science classes i took in college (i majored in it and this is one of the few things i actually remember from them because poli sci is a useless major unless you're going to law school which i am, not coincidentally, but anyway, i was saying) is that it's a common thing for a president to select a vice president that will appeal to the people that the president doesn't appeal to. if the president is a former general from alabama, a good vice president would be a lawyer from new york. if the president is a successful oil baron from massachusetts, a good vice president is a failure of a human being from indiana, etc (cough)
though i suppose applying that formula to this case, who on earth could you pick OTHER than hillary? if this primary split the party as bad as i'm afraid it did, and hillary supporters will vote for mccain rather than obama, then maybe the smartest thing to do actually is to have her as VP just so you don't lose all those votes. i mean it's still not necessarily the most efficient thing to do (again, i don't have an opinion either way at this point about that), but if the alternative is losing up to half of the votes of the democratic party, well...
QueenAdrock
06-05-2008, 12:26 PM
Hillary wouldn't bring anything to the ticket except for the disenfranchised Democrats-for-Hillary vote, who I think will eventually come around and vote Obama, for the most part.
A diverse ticket will bring around the swing vote, like Bob said. Poor choosing in the past may have not helped prior tickets, but in no way will Hillary bring the crucial swing vote that's needed from Independents and moderate Republicans. Republicans hate her, pure and simple. I don't see any way she can convince them to vote Democrat this year, if she were VP.
I honestly think what is needed is someone like Jim Webb (VA), who is both Southern and has a son fighting in Iraq. Or perhaps Gen. Wesley Clark. No, Obama may not have experience fighting wars and therefore his idea of ending the Iraq War is not from a military standpoint; however, if he has someone right at his side saying "I did fight in a war, I'm a decorated vet, and Obama is absolutely correct," it's harder to argue that kind of logic. Picking a running mate that has what you lack is the best choice.
Plus, I won't be forgetting her angry "Shame on you Barack Obama" speech anytime soon, I wonder who else still remembers that too. Not to mention her other "Barack is inexperienced" speeches. It would be awfully odd to have such a person who seems to think you're inadequate be on the same ticket as you are....
yeahwho
06-05-2008, 01:22 PM
Hillary wouldn't bring anything to the ticket except for the disenfranchised Democrats-for-Hillary vote, who I think will eventually come around and vote Obama, for the most part.
A diverse ticket will bring around the swing vote, like Bob said. Poor choosing in the past may have not helped prior tickets, but in no way will Hillary bring the crucial swing vote that's needed from Independents and moderate Republicans. Republicans hate her, pure and simple. I don't see any way she can convince them to vote Democrat this year, if she were VP.
I honestly think what is needed is someone like Jim Webb (VA), who is both Southern and has a son fighting in Iraq. Or perhaps Gen. Wesley Clark. No, Obama may not have experience fighting wars and therefore his idea of ending the Iraq War is not from a military standpoint; however, if he has someone right at his side saying "I did fight in a war, I'm a decorated vet, and Obama is absolutely correct," it's harder to argue that kind of logic. Picking a running mate that has what you lack is the best choice.
Plus, I won't be forgetting her angry "Shame on you Barack Obama" speech anytime soon, I wonder who else still remembers that too. Not to mention her other "Barack is inexperienced" speeches. It would be awfully odd to have such a person who seems to think you're inadequate be on the same ticket as you are....
Exactly, the whole dream ticket scenario doesn't actually sound all that dreamy, either way if Hillary were to be topping Barack it's more nightmarish than dreamy. Speculation (http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/06/kristol_its_not_going_to_be_ob.asp) doesn't even put her in the top 10 candidates for this job.
I'm not even really too sure where Hillary Clinton fits into an Obama presidency. Perhaps a special committee to form up universal healthcare.
abcdefz
06-05-2008, 01:27 PM
Ambassador to the Republic of Kiribati.
She shouldn't be able to do much damage with that.
yeahwho
06-05-2008, 01:57 PM
yet I could envision what a dream ticket would look like ...... *squints envisions (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/06/05/angryhillaryobama.jpg)* ....
King PSYZ
06-05-2008, 02:07 PM
jesus, she looks like she has already put the hit out him in that picture
abcdefz
06-05-2008, 03:16 PM
Something I don't understand is calling him the first black candidate.
Wouldn't "first mixed-race" candidate be accurate?
funk63
06-05-2008, 03:20 PM
one drop rule dude.. nah jk. ya that annoys me too, he was raised by his white mother and grandparents anyway.
jennyb
06-05-2008, 03:49 PM
...Or perhaps Gen. Wesley Clark. ...
(y)
RobMoney$
06-05-2008, 05:48 PM
Plus, I won't be forgetting her angry "Shame on you Barack Obama" speech anytime soon, I wonder who else still remembers that too. Not to mention her other "Barack is inexperienced" speeches. It would be awfully odd to have such a person who seems to think you're inadequate be on the same ticket as you are....
Really?
Do these two words mean anything to you: "VOODOO ECONOMICS"
That's what Republican presidential candidate George Herbert Walker Bush called Reganomics when both he and Regan were running for the Republican Nomination. Regan later put Bush on the ticket with him after he defeated him and the Democrats played the soundbite ad nauseam. Regan also couldn't stand Bush personally.
RobMoney$
06-05-2008, 05:54 PM
Something I don't understand is calling him the first black candidate.
Wouldn't "first mixed-race" candidate be accurate?
I'll be impressed when people refer to him as "first candidate from Hawaii"
and leave his race out of it all together.
yeahwho
06-05-2008, 06:04 PM
I'll be impressed when people refer to him as "first candidate from Hawaii"
and leave his race out of it all together.
Right On. He should start his campaign for prez that way and get this as his theme song RIGHT NOW (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79v97DcIU98)!
RobMoney$
06-05-2008, 06:37 PM
Yeah, because you would never make an issue of his race, would you?
she would lose any sort of conciliatory prize, such as VP or appointments in the Obama White House :D!!!
I really liked how you bolded and underlined the word White in that post.
I'll say it again, his race is clearly working pro-actively for him.
I'm going to be really annoyed if he ever tries to use the race card when he's faced with an adverse situation.
QueenAdrock
06-06-2008, 12:17 AM
Really?
Do these two words mean anything to you: "VOODOO ECONOMICS"
That's what Republican presidential candidate George Herbert Walker Bush called Reganomics when both he and Regan were running for the Republican Nomination. Regan later put Bush on the ticket with him after he defeated him and the Democrats played the soundbite ad nauseam. Regan also couldn't stand Bush personally.
Yeah, I know. There's always going to be sniping between the candidates (Kerry and Edwards got into their arguments in '04, too), but given all of the factors, I just don't see it working. Reagan was the governor of California who strategically chose a Texas Congressman as his running mate (who was also a UN ambassador) because it brought diversity to the ticket and they could win, so it was worth it despite the trash-talking that had happened on the campaign trail. There is no real reason to pick Hillary, given all the factors involved - the bitter rivalry between Obama and Hillary, plus the fact that they're both senators from the north, neither have fought in any wars, etc. Just the whole picture of everything that's happened and the way things stand now, I don't see it being a 'dream ticket' of any sort. They're like oil and water, in my mind.
vBulletin® v3.6.7, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.