babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » international news and politics   » Obama-Clinton - Dream ticket?

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Obama-Clinton - Dream ticket?
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 03 June 2008 02:38 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Just watching American news tonight (I figured I'd get more primary news there). They're saying that Clinton is conceding, her staff have been told they won't be needed after tonight, and that she's interested in second spot on the presidential ticket.

I think that would be smart from a unity standpoint for the party. But they're talking about Bill Clinton being a liability (which is pretty sexist, but what are you going to do, that's a political reality, I suppose).

Okay - go!


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Lord Palmerston
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4901

posted 03 June 2008 02:47 PM      Profile for Lord Palmerston     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The presidential candidate and the running mate have never had to like each other personally...i.e. Kennedy and Johnson in 1960.
From: Toronto | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 03 June 2008 02:49 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
How do you know they don't like each other?
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 03 June 2008 02:51 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm sure there must be SOME hard feelings after such a campaign.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 03 June 2008 02:51 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Wouldn't you love to be VP and live here?

[ 03 June 2008: Message edited by: Boom Boom ]


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 03 June 2008 02:55 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Your picture link didn't work.

Daily kos members aren't having any of it. They're wondering why we're hearing about Clinton on "Obama's night". What did they expect? It's a closely contested nomination and obviously if he wins, they're going to cover how Clinton and her supporters take the loss.

They're so blinded by hate that they're getting unreasonable.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 03 June 2008 03:00 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
Your picture link didn't work.


Should be okay now. I've seen 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue while standing behind the gates, and have photos somewhere. The VP residence looks cozier. I suspect the Clintons would love to live there for the next eight years, it's a gorgeous place, and it keeps Bill far, far away from 1600 Pennsylvania, so that should satisfy everyone.


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 03 June 2008 03:03 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
I'm sure there must be SOME hard feelings after such a campaign.

The evidence is otherwise. Barack and Michelle both resigned from their church of 20 years' standing. The trigger? A visiting preacher mocking Rodham! If you ask me, this is surely the basis of a joint ticket. It's a marriage made in heaven.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michael Hardner
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2595

posted 03 June 2008 03:08 PM      Profile for Michael Hardner   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Why is this a dream ticket ?

Is there any indication that they would ignore the corporations who have backed them to the tune of tens of millions of dollars ?

I don't see any reason to be hopeful here. The US system is hopelessly and needlessly skewed towards rich candidates.

They're doing themselves a disservice, because a truly left-wing candidate is going to come out of nowhere, running independently.

They will be scared then.


From: Toronto | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 03 June 2008 03:18 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Okay, I know that many of us don't like either Obama or Clinton and think they're both corporate shills. I agree with you on that. But I'm just looking at this from a strategic standpoint for the Democratic Party, think of them what you will. Would it be a smart move?

I think it probably would be.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Lord Palmerston
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4901

posted 03 June 2008 03:21 PM      Profile for Lord Palmerston     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
There's also Nader/Gonzalez and the Greens I think are running Cynthia McKinney
From: Toronto | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463

posted 03 June 2008 03:21 PM      Profile for martin dufresne   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
My bets are on a Haliburton-Boeing ticket... it doesn't even require a vote!

[ 03 June 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]


From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 03 June 2008 03:47 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
LOL!!
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 03 June 2008 04:08 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:

But they're talking about Bill Clinton being a liability (which is pretty sexist

Not sexist at all. The man's a walking time bomb!

In the case of Hillary Clinton, any benefits from "party unity" and having a woman on the ticket is far outweighed by the unnecessary baggage and drama that she, and her husband, would bring.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Nanuq
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8229

posted 03 June 2008 04:21 PM      Profile for Nanuq   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm thinking that Obama-Clinton is only a dream ticket for the Republicans.
From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Jingles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3322

posted 03 June 2008 04:25 PM      Profile for Jingles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
With Hillary as VP, I think Obama would have to sleep with one eye open. How safe could he be with Lady Macbeth one heartbeat away from the Presidency?

[ 03 June 2008: Message edited by: Jingles ]


From: At the Delta of the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sombrero Jack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6290

posted 03 June 2008 04:31 PM      Profile for Sombrero Jack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The one real negative I can see from adding Clinton to the ticket is that any animosity that she's raised among certain Democratic circles in this primary battle pales in comparison to the ingrained enmity that the Republican base has for Bill & Hillary. Right now two of McCain's biggest problems are rallying the fundamentalist Republican base based on his past image as a moderate and raising money for the general election fight. With HRC on the ticket, I think both of those tasks get much easier for McCain.
From: PEI | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 03 June 2008 04:32 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
That's kind of silly, Jingles. I mean, it's a funny joke and all, but I don't think anyone actually believes that she'd have Obama killed in order to become the President if she were the VP.

I don't have my finger firmly enough on the pulse of the Democratic Party activists to know whether it would be a smart move or not to have Clinton on the ticket. But I think most voters aren't Democratic Party activists, and I think it would be smart to have the two of them together. Lots of people really liked at least one of them, and I'm sure many like both.

The few haters on both sides who viscerally hate one or the other are, I think, in the vast minority. They should look past their hate and think strategically.

[ 03 June 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sombrero Jack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6290

posted 03 June 2008 04:51 PM      Profile for Sombrero Jack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Thinking strategically, is there anything that's accomplished by having Clinton on the ticket that isn't equally obtainable just by deploying her to stump for Obama from here to November in certain states - basically the three biggest midwestern electoral prizes (MI, OH, PA), a few other Appalachian areas (WV, AR, MO) and Florida? That's basically where she'll be campaigning if she's slated as his VP, and those are really the only states that she could swing to Obama, several of which he could win on his own I think.

I'm of the opinion that Democrats and Independents are going to rally to Obama in any event, and that this election is going to be a blowout by recent standards. I think Clinton (Bill too) is such a polarizing figure, and so emblematic of the traditional Washington establishment that Obama's campaign of change has sought to counter (whether or not Babblers buy into that message is moot), that in the big picture it hurts Obama more than helps him to have her as his running mate. I say give her the choice of cabinet spots or even make her next in line for a Supreme Court nomination rather than put her on the ticket.


From: PEI | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 03 June 2008 04:59 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
That's kind of silly, Jingles. I mean, it's a funny joke and all, but I don't think anyone actually believes that she'd have Obama killed in order to become the President if she were the VP.

It's been decades since I read the play, but I thought Lady Macbeth pushed her husband to do the dirty deed and become king.

So for Jingles' analogy to work, Hillary would have to get Bill to snuff Barrack, but he can't constitutionally become president again (or can he??). How does Monika fit into all this?


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Jerry West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1545

posted 03 June 2008 05:20 PM      Profile for Jerry West   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
There is some discussion about picking James Webb as Obama's running mate. He would appeal to the PA, WVA, etc. crowd that Hillary appealed to, was once in the Reagan administration, and has excellent military credentials to counter John McCain's. There has also been some mention of a cabinet post or Supreme Court appointment for Hillary.

Personally I think Hillary on the SC and Bill made Ambassador to some far flung outpost of the empire would be fine.


From: Gold River, BC | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 03 June 2008 05:25 PM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Strategically speaking the ideal would be another VP who broadedned the appeal of the ticket [Edwards or Richardson come to mind as doing the most to complement Obama's appeal], and Clinton campaigns vigorously for Obama [bulwark to the potential he will continue to be weak with white voters]. Plus the unifying Dems appeal to motivate the volunteers. Etc.

And don't think that is a secondary role for Clinton. She can bargain to completely solidify her role in the party, with more power than a VP has. [A parallel to Cheney's power is unique and only possible when the Pesident is a lightweight intellect like Dubya.]

My guess would be that she will only be VP if she tells Obama her heart is set on that. She won't have to spell out that if he refuses she won't campaign for him.

If she goes into the administartion she'll be trussed. Her power will end at exactly the terms she bargained for.

If instead she cuts a deal, she will have a maintained independent power base, a field that is hers to work, and a free hand.

I think the latter makes a lot more sense. And I don't care how much Bill muses out loud about her being VP. They use Bill to float things. I can't fathom the purpose in floating stuff that they have no intention of doing [threats of what they can do?], and I'm not eliminating the possibility they mean it about her being VP... but the fact Bill says it means nothing except that the Clintons want the idea floating... for whatever purpose(s) it serves.

Forget about the things people say- "well, how is she going to go to the back rows of the Senate?" Not going to happen. Hillary Clinton has already earned a big time independent power base- and she has all the cards to negotiate concrete augmentations to that.


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sombrero Jack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6290

posted 03 June 2008 05:35 PM      Profile for Sombrero Jack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Another spot that would be perfect for Clinton if she wanted it - majority leader in the Senate. Harry Reid is getting on in years and the Senatorial election calendars both this year and in 2010 point to big Democratic gains. If ever the Democrats get to a fillibuster proof 60 seats (possible) while holding onto a majority of House seats (likely) and with Obama in the White House, then the Senate majority leader would be the most powerful legislator in a generation.
From: PEI | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 03 June 2008 06:45 PM      Profile for Scott Piatkowski   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I was looking at the results in Montana and SD and noticed something that I thought was pretty amazing: McCain finished third in Montana, behind Romney and Paul and barely ahead of Huckabee. It seems to me that the Democratic Party is not the only one having a hard time getting behind their presumed nominee, but I haven't seen one media story that talks about that as an issue.

In related news, from The Onion, Obama, Clinton, McCain Join Forces To Form Nightmare Ticket.


From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sombrero Jack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6290

posted 03 June 2008 06:54 PM      Profile for Sombrero Jack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Check the date on those Montana Republican caucuses Scott: CNN results page

But yes, McCain has been struggling to pull above 75% in almost all the latest primaries despite having no active opposing candidates (no offence to the Ron Paul Kool-Aid drinkers).


From: PEI | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 03 June 2008 06:58 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I listened to all three speeches tonight - McCain,
Clinton, and Obama.

McCain was pathetic. Clinton was angling for influence and didn't concede to Obama. Obama's speech was worthy of a Martin Luther King - probably the best speech of the primary season. He was gracious to Clinton, saying he is a better politican because of her. He also said he wants Clinton to push for universal health care in his
administration.

Because Clinton didn't concede and was instead angling for influence in the party, she's probably ruled herself out of the VP ticket. But it's clear that Obama realizes he needs her help to win the next election.


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 03 June 2008 07:13 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Boom Boom:
Obama's speech was worthy of a Martin Luther King ...

Well, John Pilger sees him more as Bobby Kennedy:

quote:
Bobby Kennedy's campaign is the model for Barack Obama's current bid to be the Democratic nominee for the White House. Both offer a false hope that they can bring peace and racial harmony to all Americans, writes John Pilger.

As their contest for the White House draws closer, watch how, regardless of the inevitable personal smears, Obama and McCain draw nearer to each other. They already concur on America's divine right to control all before it. "We lead the world in battling immediate evils and promoting the ultimate good," said Obama. "We must lead by building a 21st-century military . . . to advance the security of all people [emphasis added]." McCain agrees. Obama says in pursuing "terrorists" he would attack Pakistan. McCain wouldn't quarrel.

Both candidates have paid ritual obeisance to the regime in Tel Aviv, unquestioning support for which defines all presidential ambition. In opposing a UN Security Council resolution implying criticism of Israel's starvation of the people of Gaza, Obama was ahead of both McCain and Hillary Clinton. In January, pressured by the Israel lobby, he massaged a statement that "nobody has suffered more than the Palestinian people" to now read: "Nobody has suffered more than the Palestinian people from the failure of the Palestinian leadership to recognise Israel [emphasis added]." Such is his concern for the victims of the longest, illegal military occupation of modern times. Like all the candidates, Obama has furthered Israeli/Bush fictions about Iran, whose regime, he says absurdly, "is a threat to all of us".

On the war in Iraq, Obama the dove and McCain the hawk are almost united. McCain now says he wants US troops to leave in five years (instead of "100 years", his earlier option). Obama has now "reserved the right" to change his pledge to get troops out next year. "I will listen to our commanders on the ground," he now says, echoing Bush. His adviser on Iraq, Colin Kahl, says the US should maintain up to 80,000 troops in Iraq until 2010. Like McCain, Obama has voted repeatedly in the Senate to support Bush's demands for funding of the occupation of Iraq; and he has called for more troops to be sent to Afghanistan. His senior advisers embrace McCain's proposal for an aggressive "league of democracies", led by the United States, to circumvent the United Nations.

Amusingly, both have denounced their "preachers" for speaking out. Whereas McCain's man of God praised Hitler, in the fashion of lunatic white holy-rollers, Obama's man, Jeremiah Wright, spoke an embarrassing truth. He said that the attacks of 11 September 2001 had taken place as a consequence of the violence of US power across the world. The media demanded that Obama disown Wright and swear an oath of loyalty to the Bush lie that "terrorists attacked America because they hate our freedoms". So he did. The conflict in the Middle East, said Obama, was rooted not "primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel", but in "the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam". Journalists applauded. Islamophobia is a liberal speciality.


There's lots more at the link.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 03 June 2008 07:16 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
unionist, did you even listen to Obama's speech tonight? Who gives a shit what any pundit thinks his speech might sound like? Far better to actually listen to the speech, isn't it?
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 03 June 2008 07:21 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Boom Boom:
unionist, did you even listen to Obama's speech tonight?

No. Tell me one thing of substance that he said.

quote:
Who gives a shit what any pundit thinks his speech might sound like? Far better to actually listen to the speech, isn't it?

No. It's his positions and actions that matter. Like leaving his church. Or his statements about Israel and Cuba and Iran and Pakistan and racism in the U.S. and the U.S. as a world power... And the emptiness of his rhetoric. His demagogy.

Martin Luther King Jr. stood for peace. He stood for justice. Barack Obama stands for office.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 03 June 2008 07:22 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Boom Boom:
unionist, did you even listen to Obama's speech tonight? Who gives a shit what any pundit thinks his speech might sound like? Far better to actually listen to the speech, isn't it?

I don't think this is the first time he's mentioned blitzkrieg on a nuclear armed country. Obama has some whitey in him. He's a killer.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 03 June 2008 07:27 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Whatever. Obama will be the next president, and a huge improvement on the turd presently occupying that office.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 03 June 2008 07:31 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Boom Boom:
Whatever.

Good answer. And good luck with your faith in this demagogue. Evidence is better than faith.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Jerry West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1545

posted 03 June 2008 07:35 PM      Profile for Jerry West   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:

Obama has some whitey in him. He's a killer.

Like Idi Amin? Robert Mugabe? or Jean-Bedel Bokassa?

White = killer?


From: Gold River, BC | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 03 June 2008 07:43 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jerry West:

Like Idi Amin? Robert Mugabe? or Jean-Bedel Bokassa?

White = killer?


With the exception of Mugabe, who are two of several dozen corrupt and vicious tyrants propped up by money and military aid from powerful, mainly white-dominated imperialist countries during the cold war? Sorry, it was a feeble attempt at self-deprecating white humor? Or something ...

[ 03 June 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
saskganesh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4203

posted 03 June 2008 08:05 PM      Profile for saskganesh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Hardner:

They're doing themselves a disservice, because a truly left-wing candidate is going to come out of nowhere, running independently.

They will be scared then.


a left wing candidate coming "out of nowhere" to scare the democratic establishment is not going to happen this election.


From: regina | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Malcolm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5168

posted 03 June 2008 09:13 PM      Profile for Malcolm   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Some observations.

1) Hillary doesn't really add much to the ticket in terms of picking up swing voters - apart from maybe Reagan Democrats. She and Obama are both north east liberals. There is more benefit to reaching out elsewhere. Webb or Edwards would be more valuable in the south - particularly if McCain chooses a non-southerner like the Governor of Minnesota who's been mentioned, or Romney.

2) The reaching out to Clinton supporters can be done as effectively by an appropriate Clinton surrogate - someone like Wesley Clark, for example, who is also a southern Democrat from Arkansas. Clark was the Clinton surrogate candidate in 04.

3) Another possible Clinton surrogates is Governor Rendell of Pennsylvania.

4) Governor Sebelius of Kansas - a woman governor of a red state - while an Obama supporter also eases the sexism charge from Clinton supporters.

5) Richardson - a sun state governor and a Latino - would have been an ideal Clinton surrogate - had he not screwed it up by endorsing Obama. An act Ragin' Cajun James Carville compared to Judas Iscariot.

6) I thought McCain's remarks about Clinton were very effective - both complimentary of her and calculated to exploit the current Democratic divisions.

7) My veep predictions:

Dems - Obama - Clark
Repubs - McCain - Jindal


From: Regina, SK | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 03 June 2008 11:25 PM      Profile for Scott Piatkowski   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sombrero Jack:
Check the date on those Montana Republican caucuses Scott: CNN results page.

Er, what makes you think that I hadn't noticed the date?


From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 03 June 2008 11:33 PM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Contradicting part of what I said above:

quote:
Mrs. Clinton used her final hours of the long primary season to make clear that she would be open to being Mr. Obama’s running mate. If there was ever any hope in Democratic circles that she would let Mr. Obama off the hook with an evasion or a flat declaration of no interest, Mrs. Clinton dashed it on Tuesday.

NY Times article that requires registration

So apparently they have both indicated she's at least open to being the VP.

I still don't see that's all she would take. She has to at least see a lot of logic in keeping her own power base, and using the strong hand she has right now to concretely accentuate that.

If Obama is Pres she can be THE force to be reckoned with, right after him. She wont get that as his VP.


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
jester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11798

posted 04 June 2008 12:56 AM      Profile for jester        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Dream ticket? More like Nightmare on Elm Street.

Billary's narcisstic speech last night was a churlish attempt to both steal Obama's moment and to sow the seeds for his loss of the election to McCain.

With the Clintons,its always about them. Supposedly,the Clintons are pseudo-angling for the VP ticket so they can turn it down and strenghten their hand.

What a recipe for disaster for Obama - VP Hillary sowing dissent, upstaging and positioning herself to replace him and her aging satyr lurking about the back hallways, creeping out the female staffers. Give the Clintons an inch and they'll steal the ruler. They will never stop and they will never go away. Billary will not patiently wait till 2016 - they will have another go in 2012 when President McCain is in his dotage.


From: Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 04 June 2008 02:43 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:

Dems - Obama - Clark
Repubs - McCain - Jindal



Anything's possible. I think Obama will end up picking Joe Biden. Chair of the foreign relations committee, former chair of the judiciary committee. Experienced. Can handle the media and be both a guard dog and an attack dog for Obama.

As for McCain, I think it will come down to Tim Pawlenty or Rob Portman.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 04 June 2008 03:39 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
WRT Clinton, Obama is between a rock and a hard place. To win the election, he needs her supporters (18 million?). However, her performance last night, in not conceding after it was clear that Obama won the necessary number of delegates, and emphasizing her own strength (18 million voted for her, after all) showed that she's thinking only of herself, not the Democratic party, and certainly not interested in accepting the fact that Obama won the Democratic primary. Obama has two enemies to watch out for, now: McCain, and Clinton.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michael Hardner
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2595

posted 04 June 2008 03:51 AM      Profile for Michael Hardner   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
a left wing candidate coming "out of nowhere" to scare the democratic establishment is not going to happen this election.

sask,

Yes, I should have clarified that I meant in 2012 or 2016. And I should have added that I really HOPE it's not a right-wing candidate.

The popularity of the fringe candidate Ron Paul is something to be worried about in the future, IMO.


From: Toronto | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 04 June 2008 04:11 AM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 

[ 04 June 2008: Message edited by: KenS ]


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
abnormal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1245

posted 04 June 2008 04:40 AM      Profile for abnormal   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
If Obama/Clinton is a dream ticket it's the Republicans' dream, not the Democrats.

Hillary epitomises politics as usual and Obama is running on a platform of change. It'll be hard to argue that there is change while the Clintons remain in the picture. (And I use the plural intentionally.)

In addition, that ticket will bring out the "anyone but Hillary" crowd as well as the "we can't have a coloured President" crowd. If anything it would shift the odds in McCain's favour.

Given that Hillary has said, in so many words, that only McCain and herself are qualified to be President. I fully expect McCain's campaign to focus on that. Don't forget that both Hillary and Obama have spent months telling the world why the other doesn't deserve to be President. The "dream team" provides the Republicans with the perfect opportunity to use both their comments against them.

Finally, Hillary's refusal to concede reinforces comments I've read all over the blogosphere, both left and right - this is about her. Not about the US. Not about the Democratic party. But her. The lady that deserves to be President.


From: far, far away | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 04 June 2008 05:42 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by abnormal:
Hillary epitomises politics as usual and Obama is running on a platform of change.

Well, let's be honest. It's not a "platform" of change. "Platform" suggests substance.

Let's call it "a slogan of change". Or maybe "a soundbite of change". Or perhaps, "an illusion of change".

Which, I agree, is better than Clinton's "no change at all". But only marginally so.

[ 04 June 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stargazer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6061

posted 04 June 2008 05:52 AM      Profile for Stargazer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Worse news yet is that Obama and McCain are almost neck in neck.

Does anyone really believe Americans will elect either Obama or Clinton?


I'm not sure my estimation of the American public can sink any lower with a McCain in the white house.


From: Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist. | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
scooter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5548

posted 04 June 2008 05:55 AM      Profile for scooter     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The United States does not need another family dynasty in the White House. Thank goodness George Bush Jr. made such a mess that American will never vote another Bush into power. The Clinton's should take the hint.
From: High River | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 04 June 2008 07:12 AM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Worse news yet is that Obama and McCain are almost neck in neck.

Does anyone really believe Americans will elect either Obama or Clinton?

Thats still the odds on bet by some margin.

We sould absolutely expect that after months of the pettiness and mud-slinging the Dems are going to be at the low point of public opinion.

That indicates nothing about the mid and long term. The Republicans have nothing to build from. Nor has the campaign [with predictable effects] begun of tagging McCain with Bush. That will be a piece of cake once it starts in earnest.


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
scooter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5548

posted 04 June 2008 07:17 AM      Profile for scooter     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The dems are at a low point in party unity. Unfortunately its partisan and identity politics at its worst.
From: High River | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
jester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11798

posted 04 June 2008 09:03 AM      Profile for jester        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Hillary has some good policy priorities but the method she has campaigned by suggests those priorities take a poor second place to her own sense of entitlement.

quote:
Her dreams of the White House denied, her once powerful campaign reduced to lobbying for a vice-presidential nomination on her opponent's ticket, Hillary Clinton may never lay legitimate claim to membership in a political dynasty. But Ms. Clinton, along with her husband and the loyal circle of advisers around her, succumbed to the form of hubris that has felled many a dynasty past: an overarching sense of entitlement to the trappings of power.


G+M

From: Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Pogo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2999

posted 04 June 2008 09:06 AM      Profile for Pogo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
How is voting done at conventions. If memory serves me correctly it is by roll call. Is there any opportunity for Clinton to steal Obama delegates at the convention?
From: Richmond BC | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 04 June 2008 09:20 AM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jester:
Billary's .....

I think I prefer Hillbilly.

[ 04 June 2008: Message edited by: HeywoodFloyd ]


From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Jerry West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1545

posted 04 June 2008 09:25 AM      Profile for Jerry West   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:

Worse news yet is that Obama and McCain are almost neck in neck.

When the dust settles between Clinton and Obama the public will once again get to focus on how much they dislike George Bush and Company and McCain gets to choose which part of his constituency to abandon.

And, when it comes to televised debates McCain will play Nixon to Obama's Kennedy, the difference being that Nixon had better rhetorical skills than McCain, and from what I have seen, Obama's are better than Kennedy's.

When I was watching the speeches yesterday, Obama made me think of FDR, and McCain of Dopey in Snow White.

[ 04 June 2008: Message edited by: Jerry West ]


From: Gold River, BC | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 04 June 2008 09:28 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jerry West:
When I was watching the speeches yesterday, Obama made me think of FDR, and McCain of Dopey in Snow White.

That's priceless! And totally accurate!


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 04 June 2008 09:31 AM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Obama needs his own person as his running mate. He would have to have his head examined to have Bill and Hillary constantly looking over his shoulder (and, behind the scenes, advancing their own agendas). It would be an absolute circus.

Regardless of who his Veep is, the key to the degree of BHO’s policy leeway once in office is going to be whether or not he also has a supermajority in the Senate. If he doesn’t have a supermajority (at least 60 Dems—versus 40 Repubs), then he will be quite limited because of the Senate filibuster rules.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 04 June 2008 09:38 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I agree with Jimmy Carter

quote:
Barack Obama should not pick Hillary Clinton as his vice-presidential nominee, former president Jimmy Carter has told the Guardian.

"I think it would be the worst mistake that could be made," said Carter. "That would just accumulate the negative aspects of both candidates."

Carter, who formally endorsed the Illinois senator last night, cited opinion polls showing 50% of US voters with a negative view of Clinton.

In terms that might discomfort the Obama camp, he said: "If you take that 50% who just don't want to vote for Clinton and add it to whatever element there might be who don't think Obama is white enough or old enough or experienced enough or because he's got a middle name that sounds Arab, you could have the worst of both worlds."



From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 04 June 2008 10:10 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pogo:
How is voting done at conventions. If memory serves me correctly it is by roll call. Is there any opportunity for Clinton to steal Obama delegates at the convention?

Extremely unlikely.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Pogo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2999

posted 04 June 2008 12:00 PM      Profile for Pogo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well a few months ago I asked whether the Florida and Michigan delegates were likely to be seated and was told not a chance.

A few days ago I read or heard someone say that Clinton was going to take advantage of the chaos of the national convention.

In Canadian traditions delegates are free agents. The control on them is via their loyalties, but in the end it is a secret ballot. The famous occasion being the Flora syndrome where many pledged supporters voted for another candidate.

Is the vote going to be via secret ballot, roll call, or some other system?


From: Richmond BC | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 04 June 2008 12:41 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
In the US, they do a roll call of the states and the pledged delegates are forced to vote in accordance with how the primaries or caucuses in their states went.

Similarly, delegates at the Liberal leadership convention that picked Dion were obliged on the first ballot to vote in accordance with how the party members in their ridings voted in sept. '06


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
thorin_bane
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6194

posted 04 June 2008 04:19 PM      Profile for thorin_bane     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
If Obama wants change he would get Dennis Kuchinich(sp) Or Bernie Sanders but there is no way that he would get an independant, or DK. I really enjoy when Bernie was on the Thom Hartmann Show. He has a lot of insight as to how congress really works. He mentioned how sometimes a 3 paragraph loophole is inserted in a 500 page document, now do you throw the 499 babies out with the bathwater, or hold your nose and vote want is mostly best for citizens.
From: Looking at the despair of Detroit from across the river! | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 04 June 2008 04:22 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Good heavens. I tuned into CNN's Lou Dobbs a few minutes ago, and he's running an online poll asking if Hillary Clinton should run for President as an Independent! /
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 04 June 2008 04:39 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Good lord. Dobbs is a loon!
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 04 June 2008 06:22 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Or trying to tear the Democrats completely apart.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mercy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13853

posted 04 June 2008 08:18 PM      Profile for Mercy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
There's a number of reasons why Obama wouldn't want to campaign with Clinton:

- She spent most of the last year slamming him (for being soft) and his policies (like his anemic health plan).

- She's married to a guy who gets media wherever he goes and has lost his political judgement.

- He spent the last year criticizing her for being a whithered-up symbol of insider politics.

Reasons why he might:

- He has limited appeal amongst the swing voters he needs to win the election and she seems to have some.

- She and Bill might undermine him from the sidelines if she doesn't have a stake in winning.


From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 05 June 2008 06:57 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:

She and Bill might undermine him from the sidelines if she doesn't have a stake in winning.

The problem with the Clintons is that they might try to undermine him even if she is on the ticket. The old Lyndon Johnson line that it's better to have a rival in the tent pissing out, then outside the tent pissing in, doesn't apply here. The Clintons and their toadies would be in the tent pissing all over the place.

If for no other reason, Obama is not going pick Hillary because of Bill's financial machinations the last few years. Such as the donors to his library and the favors he's done for some big money buddies. I'd put the odds of Hillary being on the ticket somewhere up there with the odds of someone being struck by lightening.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 05 June 2008 07:44 AM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think Jimmy Carter had the best summary of the "dream ticket" I heard:

quote:
a joint ticket "would just accumulate the negative aspects of both candidates."


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684

posted 05 June 2008 08:01 AM      Profile for 500_Apples   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Hillary Clinton is likely interested in being Vice-President based on what happened to John F. Kennedy in 1963.

Additionally, Hillary has a core constituency among hard-working whites; these are her voters and he'll need them in November.

[ 05 June 2008: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]


From: Montreal, Quebec | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684

posted 05 June 2008 08:22 AM      Profile for 500_Apples   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
In all seriousness, I think it will be in Obama's best interest to pick someone who is qualified for the job. The VP should be someone experienced, someone who makes a geographical contribution to the ticket, and someone loyal. Clinton does not meet any of these criteria. If I were Obama I'd go for Virginia Senator Jim Webb or Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius.

The best interests of America and indeed the world would be for both Clintons to go into retirement. She may end up on the supreme court or as a senate majority leader. The first black president having a white supremacist vice-president would be bitter irony and it is better that history do without.

[ 05 June 2008: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]


From: Montreal, Quebec | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
ceti
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7851

posted 05 June 2008 11:02 AM      Profile for ceti     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Here's Howard Zinn's antidote to this election madness.

quote:
And sad to say, the Presidential contest has mesmerized liberals and radicals alike. We are all vulnerable.

Is it possible to get together with friends these days and avoid the subject of the Presidential elections?

The very people who should know better, having criticized the hold of the media on the national mind, find themselves transfixed by the press, glued to the television set, as the candidates preen and smile and bring forth a shower of clichés with a solemnity appropriate for epic poetry.

Even in the so-called left periodicals, we must admit there is an exorbitant amount of attention given to minutely examining the major candidates. An occasional bone is thrown to the minor candidates, though everyone knows our marvelous democratic political system won’t allow them in.


And these two aren't even Canadians.

The biggest thing I fear with Obama is that in his personhood, he will utterly destroy the progressive movement, even more so than Clinton did throughout the 1990s when the centre-left was paralyzed and on the defensive throughout the decade. Obama will also take the progressive consciousness of Black America with him, a consciousness that has always been a palliative for the worst excesses of American imperialism. He will do so, by moving hard to the Right, even as he speaks of hope and change. He will drain even those words of meaning.

There is a risk of him doing this, given his record. With Clinton, what we say would've been what we got -- just the continuation of the Republican-Democrat duopoly. Obama promises something different, but may deliver the opposite.


From: various musings before the revolution | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 05 June 2008 06:42 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
CNN is reporting Clinton will officially end her campaign Saturday and endorse Obama. Tonight, Obama is meeting with Hillary at an undisclosed location in Washington. Obama said in an interview today he will take two weeks or so to decide on a VP selection, and also said Hillary would be on anyone's short list for VP.

[ 06 June 2008: Message edited by: Boom Boom ]


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 07 June 2008 03:52 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I guess these folks won't be pushing for an Obama-Clinton ticket:

http://democrats-against-obama.org/

Man. They're slogan is, "NObama EVER!" That's kind of extreme, considering that Obama and Clinton are pretty much the same when it comes to policy. I haven't noticed any overt racism yet on the site but I haven't read it carefully either, just glanced at it. (Edited to add: okay, now that I AM reading it carefully, there's racism all through it - "The dark forces in the Democratic Party have converged on Hillary Clinton" and "They played the race card continually, then blamed the Clintons" and "Oprah plans to go door to door for her homeboy," suggesting that if she knocks on your door that you "read her the riot act for siding with a lying, racist pig". Also, there's a picture of Obama in traditional clothing that includes some sort of turban, I think, with the caption, "If we don't band together and stop this man, this could be your next President.")

Got the link from the comments after a NYT article.

[ 07 June 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Skinny Dipper
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11459

posted 07 June 2008 04:39 AM      Profile for Skinny Dipper   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'll agree with Jimmy Carter. An Obama-Clinton dream ticket will highlight their negatives. Obama doesn't need someone who has the exact same viewpoints as he. He just needs to pick someone whom he has confidence and is an Obama team player. I can't picture Clinton being that person for VP nominee.
From: Ontarian for STV in BC | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 07 June 2008 05:01 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Clinton will announce she's backing Obama at 11am - two hours from now. The VP announcement could be two weeks away.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 07 June 2008 05:04 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Where did you hear the two weeks away part?

I do think it's best that Obama make the choice sooner rather than later, so as to tamp down the Clinton for VP speculation.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 07 June 2008 05:09 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Two days ago Obama gave an interview with CNN's Cindy Crowe, in which he tried to dampen down any VP speculation, saying it is in the hand of a VP committee he appointed for the task, and they will report to him in approximately two weeks. He said Clinton would be on anyones short list for VP.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
abnormal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1245

posted 07 June 2008 05:43 AM      Profile for abnormal   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Hillary's position on Obama:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZsYWiywdCA&feature=related#


From: far, far away | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 07 June 2008 01:44 PM      Profile for Scott Piatkowski   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
There are a number of talented women that would make excellent running mates.

The name that gets mentioned often is that of Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, who delivered the Democrats' response to the SOTU Address and then endorsed Obama the next day.

There are also Democratic women running Washington (Christine Gregoire), Arizona (Janet Napolitano) and Michigan (Jennifer Granholm). Granholm is not eligible because she was born in Canada. Napolitano and Sebelius both reach their term limit in 2010, so they are less likely to show reluctance to give up their current positions for a shot at the Vice-Presidency than Gregoire, who is in her first term.

I'll confess that I don't follow state level politics that closely, so I don't have a sense of which of the three who are eligible would be considered progressive (or, at least, progressive by American standards). As well, VP candidates are typically expected to carry their state, so Napolitano is an unlikely choice (if we assume that McCain already has Arizona in the bag).

At a national level, there is Nancy Pelosi, but she has far more power as House Speaker than she would as VP, and she's not likely to want to wait eight years to run for President (she would have done so this time if she had aspirations).

In the Senate, I'm a fan of Barbara Boxer and I like Claire McAskill.

What I'm saying is that Obama doesn't have to name Clinton as his running mate if he wants to nominate a woman.


From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 07 June 2008 04:27 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
What Hillary Won

By GAIL COLLINS
Published: June 7, 2008

excerpt:

Her campaign was messy, and it made some fatal tactical errors. But nobody who sent her a donation could accuse her of not giving them their money’s worth.

For all her vaunting ambition, she was never a candidate who ran for president just because it’s the presidency. She thought about winning in terms of the things she could accomplish, and she never forgot the women’s issues she had championed all her life — repair of the social safety net, children’s rights, support for working mothers.

It’s not the same as winning the White House. But it’s a lot.


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 07 June 2008 04:52 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Actually, I've come around to thinking that he should probably offer her the next position open on the Supreme Court instead of VP as well. I think she'd be fabulous there.

[ 07 June 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
scott
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 637

posted 07 June 2008 04:56 PM      Profile for scott   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
... he should probably offer her the next position open on the Supreme Court

The problem with this idea is that she has no experience as a judge. I would think that this would be a prerequisite.


From: Kootenays BC | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 07 June 2008 05:02 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
That's okay. From what I understand, judges have clerks that do most of the work anyhow.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
MCunningBC
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14903

posted 07 June 2008 05:24 PM      Profile for MCunningBC        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Scott Piatkowski:
There are also Democratic women running Washington (Christine Gregoire), Arizona (Janet Napolitano) and Michigan (Jennifer Granholm). Granholm is not eligible because she was born in Canada. Napolitano and Sebelius both reach their term limit in 2010, so they are less likely to show reluctance to give up their current positions for a shot at the Vice-Presidency than Gregoire, who is in her first term.


In addition to Christine Gregoire, Washington State also offers two Democratic Senators, Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray. Murray could well add a strong working class or populist element to the ticket.


From: BC | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca