MyDD :: Obama /Clinton 08 Dream Team

by Philoguy on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 10:39:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't know that Clinton brings everything one would want. She is not from a contested state and does not bring foreign policy experience which Obama sorely needs. That said, I would grin and bear it were he to choose her.

Re: Obama /Clinton 08 Dream Team (none / 0)

You are right on both points. Having said this I think she is popular enough to win many states that could be close. Foreign policy well Both Obama and Clinton are lacking but Obama can surround himself with plenty of "wise men"
Thanks for the comment.

by Politicalslave on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 10:44:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

by LakersFan on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 12:42:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What about Arkansas?

by Politicalslave on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 06:54:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes of course. Thanks for reminding me. I was only thinking of New York.

Re: Obama /Clinton 08 Dream Team (2.00 / 4)

Who else can bring in the votes like Senator Clinton? Who else can bring more people together than Senator Clinton?

by Politicalslave on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 09:05:48 PM EST

We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.

The thing is -- she both attracts and dissuades voters -- in about equal numbers.

by politicsmatters on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 09:40:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama /Clinton 08 Dream Team (2.00 / 2)

Where do you get any sort of data to back up that assertion? I hear it made time and time again, but no one provides a source.

by LakersFan on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 09:43:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obamacans and Independants (2.00 / 1)

They don't (or at least didn't) like HRC. I think she's so redefined herself in this last primary that it'd be fine, but I will say this much: I grew up in a conservative town, and I know a dozen people currently voting for Obama who we'll lose if Clinton is on the ticket, no doubt.

I think that there's only anecdotal evidence to make the argument with, but I think its made its way into general political "wisdom" because enough people, based on their own individual relationships like the ones I mentioned have asserted it.

Nonetheless, lots of people have a changed opinion on HRC after this last primary. I think she could continue to reinforce the new image (populist woman of the people) and really hit a home run with some of the very voters she would have alienated just a year ago with the old one partially co-opted from the Right's caricature of her (brilliant, cut-throat Washington Insider).

Personally I'd love to see her get the nod.

M. It's like W, but flipflopped.

by warmwaterpenguin on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 10:49:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

well I would bet money (none / 0)

there are at least a dozen people who wouldnt vote for Obama but if Hillary is on the ticket, will.

by sepulvedaj3 on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 11:27:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: well I would bet money (2.00 / 2)

Exactly. And they all post on MyDD.

by LakersFan on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 12:00:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

By your own descriptor, your town (2.00 / 1)

is filled with conservatives.

Why the heck should I care about whether or not conservatives will vote for anyone, will be a part of a liberal movement????? Seriously, it sounds to me like so called "independents" from a conservative lean want to take over the democratic party and move it even more to the right.

If conservatives love Obama and hate Hilly, I find THAT scary for all of us.

by Jjc2008 on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 09:57:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

personally I would love her to be on the SCOTUS (2.00 / 1)

VP has no real power, much as Darth is trying to carve one out (unconstitutionally, but that is just "quaint" anyway)

by zerosumgame on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 10:54:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Cheney didn't get that memo. n/t (none / 0)

by bobswern on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 11:06:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I definitely agree (none / 0)

This is one thing that really bothers me about Hillary in that role. Whatever happens, she's probably going to continue to be a very big voice in the area of getting stuff done, and I don't WANT the VP to wield as much power as it had under Cheney. Which is why I like Edwards. He could help shape things, serve as a voice of balance and conscience, but would not be vital to playing out the agenda.

That said, if McCain is going to pick Romney, I like Hillary better in that role.

If you're being chased by an angry bull and then you notice you're also being chased by a swarm of bees, it doesn't really change things. Just keep on running.

by vcalzone on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 11:16:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: personally I would love her to be (none / 0)

She'd be fantastic as SCOTUS.

by Philoguy on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 10:41:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: personally I would love her to be (2.00 / 1)

This is what I mean there are many people who would "love her to be VP". By choosing Clinton you have millions of supporters who are really excited and willing to work hard to elect a Democrat. We need as much momentum as possible and Clinton would give us that.

by Politicalslave on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 10:51:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama /Clinton 08 Dream Team (2.00 / 3)

I think the best position we can all have is that we will support whomever Barack Obama selects as his VP. He has earned the right to make that selection.

Definition of a republican moderate---someone who want's only 50 years in Iraq.

by pollbuster on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 09:09:55 PM EST

Re: Obama /Clinton 08 Dream Team (2.00 / 2)

I agree and he will choose or as I believe has already chosen who he thinks is best. I trust his judgment but from my point of view I can't see anyone that can guarantee a win for us like Senator Clinton. We need a landslide to make changes.

by Politicalslave on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 09:15:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

If you're being chased by an angry bull and then you notice you're also being chased by a swarm of bees, it doesn't really change things. Just keep on running.

As time has gone by, I have to think this may well be the case. Funny, there was a time in which this was considered to be nuts, but I don't think that's true anymore. They were just so bloodied by the end of that battle that it seemed they were both too weak to run on the same ticket. They've gotten stronger, though. I think one key thing it would take, though, would be Bill Clinton saying that he would be completely out of the picture and letting Hillary rule herself. Last thing we need is any of Bill's skeletons to get in the way.

All this being said, I still might be happier with Edwards. But we'll see how this overseas visit goes. If McCain doesn't pull another Geraldo and get him killed, that is.

by vcalzone on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 09:17:36 PM EST

If you're being chased by an angry bull and then you notice you're also being chased by a swarm of bees, it doesn't really change things. Just keep on running.

Quick food for thought. If Obama DID decide that he wanted Hillary on board as VP awhile back, Solis Doyle may have been an inspiring choice. She always did good work for Hillary as chief of staff, but the conventional wisdom was that it was a slap in the face. If we see Clinton in there, it may have just been a very clever ruse.

by vcalzone on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 09:19:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by Politicalslave on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 09:34:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes I agree. So let's imagine for a moment that he chose Clinton a "long time ago" They would wnat to keep it quiet for many reasons. Choose the right moment for Senator Clinton to walk on stage and you will have a media frenzy. Timing is everything and Obama knows about timing and drama.

If you're being chased by an angry bull and then you notice you're also being chased by a swarm of bees, it doesn't really change things. Just keep on running.

They should get Vince McMahon to help. Nobody in the world has maximized dramatic entrances more than professional wrestling. They could make the house lights "go out" and then have her appear on stage with pillars of flames like Kane.

by vcalzone on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 09:51:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

hahahhaha (2.00 / 1)

thats the best thing i've read on this blog

by sepulvedaj3 on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 11:32:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by Politicalslave on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 12:16:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

That is so funny. I agree!

At the very least, Ric Flair's music... (2.00 / 1)

...Could start playing.

by andrewalker08 on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 09:33:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: At the very least, Ric Flair's music... (none / 0)

At the very least! Ha ha

by Politicalslave on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 10:09:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

by LakersFan on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 12:14:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Solis already said she could easily work with Clinton again.

Here's a link to my recent diary on that topic: Does Patty Solis Doyle know something we don't?

by Politicalslave on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 12:24:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I just read your diary Thanks for posting it. I hadn't heard any of that.

by LakersFan on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 12:30:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

And then there was yesterday's story about how Bill Clinton is eager to campaign with Obama (diaried here: http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/7/17/1619 32/630).

It all makes me think something's afoot.

by Politicalslave on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 12:35:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

When do you think Obama will anounce his choice?

by LakersFan on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 12:40:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I haven't given it any thought. I haven't seen any indications he's planning on announcing before the convention, have you?

by Politicalslave on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 12:47:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

No indications at all. I'm sure they will build things up as much as possible until Diaries like this are a dime a dozen. Ha ha

by TCQuad on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 12:53:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Kerry: July 6
Gore: August 7
Clinton: July 10

So, probably soon, but they may wait for showmanship purposes. I'd personally love to see McCain have his VP leaked/announced... and then have all the media coverage focused on Clinton.

by Politicalslave on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 12:59:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes wouldn't that be great. Thanks for posting the history.

If you're being chased by an angry bull and then you notice you're also being chased by a swarm of bees, it doesn't really change things. Just keep on running.

Unless... McCain does the smart thing and announces this week.

by vcalzone on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 03:41:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

by Politicalslave on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 04:38:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

It's true McCain might try something while Obama is away to grab some of the spotlight. He should drop out now that would get some news. Ha ha

Quite a mental error (2.00 / 1)

for a guy who claims to have a lot of experience. McCain is lucky he said it on Firday afternoon.

McCain also has an opportunity while Obama is away; the timing of this trip is what concerns me the most as I'd rather have Obama go overseas during the Olympics, rather than a time when Americans are overwhelmingly focused on domestic concerns.

Someone has got to hold down the fort for Obama while he's away for quite some time (over a week?). Perhaps it will be Hillary.

by Blazers Edge on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 09:20:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

If you're being chased by an angry bull and then you notice you're also being chased by a swarm of bees, it doesn't really change things. Just keep on running.

We'll see. McCain will look pretty stupid fighting against an absent opponent, particularly if he keeps up the nasty tenor we've seen the last couple of weeks. Meanwhile, Obama has tons of press with him. It won't be very hard for him to make news, so if he has productive talks, he should see a decent boost. Meanwhile, he has to have something pretty major planned for his speech in Berlin. Why else make a point to give one in front of an international audience?

by vcalzone on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 09:24:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm not sure if Americans (2.00 / 1)

will necessarily to buy into the idea that it would be an advantage for us internationally if our president were revered by Europeans, etc. I think the best thing that Obama can do on this trip is to come off as someone who would be a great ambassador for how great we are as a country. If he can pull that off, the trip will be a success.

The Republicans, starting with Rudy and Romney last week, were already preparing for Obama-mania in Europe by mocking him as running for the president of Europe. We'll see how it plays out next week though my concern about the optics of McCain talking about domestic issues facing Americans while Obama is abroad remains.

I would have liked the trip to come at a later time, perhaps after the VP was selected so that someone could hold down the fort for Obama while he's gone.

by Blazers Edge on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 09:28:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

If you're being chased by an angry bull and then you notice you're also being chased by a swarm of bees, it doesn't really change things. Just keep on running.

They don't even need him there to put up a good A-game. They need to put together a series of ads that have been a long time coming, "The McCain/McCain Debates". Heard about another reversal just today on a federal emissions limit. And as usual, his turnaround time was about a month.

by vcalzone on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 09:33:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

If you're being chased by an angry bull and then you notice you're also being chased by a swarm of bees, it doesn't really change things. Just keep on running.

Perhaps they could get somebody like Alec Baldwin to pretend to be the debate moderator.

by vcalzone on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 09:33:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

If you're being chased by an angry bull and then you notice you're also being chased by a swarm of bees, it doesn't really change things. Just keep on running.

As for Europe, I don't think it's as big a deal as the GOP would like it to be. You're right, he needs to focus on trying to win them over on behalf of America, and I think that's what he plans to do. I mean, why else try to speak at the Brandenburg Gate if not to talk about American diplomacy and the need for international cooperation?

by vcalzone on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 09:37:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.

At the same time, Obama needs strong surrogates back home.

by politicsmatters on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 09:41:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by Politicalslave on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 01:05:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

It will be interesting to see how things go at home while Obama is away. Expectations are very high for his trip abroad. I'm sure he will live up to the hype though.

by Politicalslave on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 09:39:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

McCains track record shows that he is his own worst enemy. He doesn't seem to know what he stands for. He is used to everyone agreeing with him. So he isn't used to follow up questions or criticism.

If you're being chased by an angry bull and then you notice you're also being chased by a swarm of bees, it doesn't really change things. Just keep on running.

Yeah, people keep saying, "Oh, McCain's getting better, McCain's getting better.." BULL. If he hasn't gotten better before now, he's not going to. If Obama's campaign can actually force the media's hand into doing their job by continuing to highlight McCain's flaws and misconceptions, this election is not even close. They want to push the flip-flop meme, and it is really awful, because McCain has done far more severe turns in far more public venues.

by vcalzone on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 09:45:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by Politicalslave on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 01:09:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

That's a good point after all this time we shouldn't expect much improvement. I was actually thinking he would get better but now thanks to you and McCain I realize this is his "best"

Edwards did a lousy job as VP candidate last time (none / 0)

I hope he's not on the ticket. Would love him in the cabinet tho

by activatedbybush on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 09:37:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards (none / 0)

Agree. He's a great advocate, only an average candidate.

by TCQuad on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 01:02:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Fricking Bayh (2.00 / 1)

seems to be getting his tryout this weekend on one of the Sunday shows against Lieberman. This guy is such a useless dem; his blandness seems to be his entire appeal.

He's also giving interviews about the personal similarities he shares with Obama.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanma rtin/0708/Bayh_notes_he_has_much_in_comm on_with_Obama.html#comments

I suppose he'd possibly help you capture those eleven electoral college votes in Indiana (putting Lugar in his commercials is probably helping Obama out as well) but Plouffe already said that Obama would not make the choice dependent on whether the VP candidate could turn a specific state blue.

by Blazers Edge on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 09:18:15 PM EST

Re: Fricking Bayh (none / 0)

Bayh better not get the nomination. Shit, Obama better not go further right than he is right now, and he DAMN well better not pick a DLC stooge. I'll be pissed.

If you're being chased by an angry bull and then you notice you're also being chased by a swarm of bees, it doesn't really change things. Just keep on running.

by vcalzone on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 09:21:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fricking Bayh (2.00 / 1)

So Obama has the right to choose who he wants, so long as it's a person you want.

Definition of a republican moderate---someone who want's only 50 years in Iraq.

by pollbuster on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 09:35:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I think he/she is just (none / 0)

saying that Bayh would be a bad choice, not that Obama would lose his/her vote on the basis of choosing Bayh. Only Nunn and Hagel seem to inspire that sense of "dealbreaker" in some of the bloggers here.

by Blazers Edge on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 09:44:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fricking Bayh (none / 0)

Trust me, I don't expect to have any influence over Obama whatsoever. I have absolutely no control over who Obama chooses. It's just that I, personally, would just be very disappointed and don't think that Bayh would bring anything at all to the ticket. If the charge against Obama is that he's pandering to the center, a choice like Bayh would just cement that. His votes against every single one of the FISA amendments pissed me off, too. I was annoyed when Obama voted for cloture, though I can understand since the bill was absolutely going to pass. But those amendments? Those could have gotten through and would have been gamechangers.

If you're being chased by an angry bull and then you notice you're also being chased by a swarm of bees, it doesn't really change things. Just keep on running.

by vcalzone on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 09:58:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fricking Bayh (none / 0)

just a small correction. Obama did not vote for cloture. He wasn't there for the vote. Neither was Hillary or McCain.

"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson

by MS01 Indie on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 10:07:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hillary (2.00 / 1)

would serve all of us better if she remained in the senate.

We need liberals in Congress and she will become a bigger voice in the future.

by Coldblue on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 09:35:10 PM EST

Do you believe that because you (none / 0)

genuinely believe that we need her there, or because you don't like her and don't want her on the ticket?

I'm not sure having her on the ticket is good for either of them.

by activatedbybush on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 09:38:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Genuinely believe (2.00 / 1)

that Hillary is needed. Any substitute for her seat weakens the cause.

by Coldblue on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 09:59:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

RFK JR (2.00 / 1)

Is pushing for her senate seat when she leaves, i think that would be a strong voice, if not for the name itself.

by sepulvedaj3 on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 11:37:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I think that the NY seat would be fine either way (none / 0)

Clinton is as much a symbol as a Senator. Yes she is very good on the nuances of policy and has shown she can play well in the Senate club but much of her differentiated value comes from the fact that she leads a movement within the party.

by activatedbybush on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 09:06:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

agreed (none / 0)

by sepulvedaj3 on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 11:33:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary (2.00 / 2)

The buzz in New York is that if a vacancy in the senate occurs Gov. Patterson will choose Bobby Kennedy Jr. I think he would be a great liberal voice in the senate.

Definition of a republican moderate---someone who want's only 50 years in Iraq.

by pollbuster on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 09:39:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary (2.00 / 3)

Wow I hadn't heard that about Kennedy. This all seems to make some sort of sense at least to my little mind.

by Politicalslave on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 10:07:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary (none / 0)

thats been in the works for a while, and i think one of the reasons he endorsed her. If she won the nomination, he'd be right at the top of the list.

Either way, he is at the top of the list.

by sepulvedaj3 on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 11:38:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Congresswoman (2.00 / 1)

Lowey will be able to take her seat. She's to Hillary's left anyway and Patterson could put her there for four years. It is my understanding that she was going to run in 2000 before Hillary decided to run.

Hillary could probably get Obama to turn over to her most of the domestic agenda if she really pushed him during negotiations; Obama strikes as someone who wants to play the "hero" and foreign policy is where the sexy stuff can be found. His desire to go at it with McCain on Iraq and Afghanistan this week, when it trails the economy overwhelmingly as an issue in people's minds, indicates his mind will be on foreign policy primarily.

by Blazers Edge on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 09:42:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Congresswoman (2.00 / 1)

His desire to go at it with McCain on Iraq and Afghanistan this week, when it trails the economy overwhelmingly as an issue in people's minds, indicates his mind will be on foreign policy primarily.

I don't see it that way. I see it as attacking McCain on his strength. Obama rates higher with voters on all domestic policies already. Where McCain beats him is on the war on terror and on foreign policy. If Obama ignores those issues in favor of domestic issues then he is ceding that portion of the debate to McCain.

"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson

by MS01 Indie on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 10:10:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Congresswoman (2.00 / 1)

Yes I agree if Obama can improve his image in regards to National security than McCain is toast.
Senator Obama will return home looking much stronger and the world will have hope that the "bush legacy" will be cleaned up.

by Politicalslave on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 10:19:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Congresswoman (none / 0)

I might add to this that Americans may see Senator Obama as someone who can influence change
unlike anyone we have ever seen.

by Politicalslave on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 10:22:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Congresswoman (2.00 / 1)

I mentioned 'soft power' in another thread. I have a feeling that the American public will be very impressed with the reception Obama receives overseas. I don't expect that to be a major factor in voting, but it will probably be an influence for some people.

No one really likes to be hated, except for the odd person here or there. One of the biggest knocks on Bush is how he has ruined this country's reputation. There may be a lot of people who would rather have the US be feared rather than be loved and admired, but there are far more people who would rather have the US be the rightfully admired leader of this world. Obama's trip can give people hope that we can get back to that position.

"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson

by MS01 Indie on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 01:01:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Congresswoman (none / 0)

I couldn't agree more. Soft power is where Obama can really strengthen us. I wish you would write a diary on soft power. I saw your comment in the other diary.

by Politicalslave on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 06:45:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by Reaper0Bot0 on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 09:38:59 PM EST

As I've often said:

I would accept it. I am not eager to see it happen, however. I want to see extensive polling on how many voters she attracts versus how many she drives away. Neither group is small and I want to see the breakdown.

If she's a net positive then tatoo Obama/Clinton on my forehead. Just show me the data first.

Re: Obama /Clinton 08 Dream Team (none / 0)

I don't have numbers and Thank you for your honest
opinion. I'm sure though that some people would be turned off by Clinton but they may not vote for Obama either. I'm certain we would win in a landslide with Clinton.

by Politicalslave on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 09:49:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by Reaper0Bot0 on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 10:41:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Every single Obamacan I know says they will vote for Obama unless Hillary is on the ticket. I need to know how big that is.

by Politicalslave on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 10:49:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

If I understand your point. I don't think there are a lot of Democrats and Independents that won't vote for Obama whomever he picks. I just think Senator Clinton offers so much.

stop with this Obamacan crap. (2.00 / 1)

Obama needs to secure the base before he goes after swing voters. If you have no base, and the swing voters "swing," you lose. That is why he must pick Hillary.

by Lakrosse on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 11:25:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by Reaper0Bot0 on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 01:31:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Only an idiot ignores the downside and focuses solely on the upside.

I've been clear here. We need to quantify this. If she brings in more than she ushers out, then I'm all for it.

I'm asking for data. I'm not being a dick, nor am I being unreasonable. If you're correct then all is well.

What the hell is the problem exactly? The base is coming along nicely. We ain't home yet, but we're getting there.

Re: stop with this Obamacan crap. (2.00 / 1)

So, attracting Republicans are more important to you than core Democrats? Let the Dashcle-ization begin. Anyone who's been to this site more than once knows your anti-Hillary bias. To disguise it in the form of being attractive to "Obama-cans" is disingenuous. "Every Obamican"? please... let's win this with democrats, not republicans. Cast aside us core Democrats at your own peril...

by alamedadem on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 02:45:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Deap breath (none / 0)

We actually need the middle. Who wins the middle wins the election. Obama has the core democrats, McCain has the core Republicans.
HRC has a lot of strengths, what people are asking is does her strengths outweigh her negatives. Obviously you feel so, and that's copacetic. But don't jump down people's throats for looking for more than just your word.

by notedgeways on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 03:37:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

If you're being chased by an angry bull and then you notice you're also being chased by a swarm of bees, it doesn't really change things. Just keep on running.

Let's be clear. Hillary is not the only path to getting what you call "core" democrats on board. Obama brings in a great many of them on his own, and if there's more independents he can get than the remaining core democrats, he'd be better off going with someone else. Someone also progressive, someone who Clinton supporters like, someone that would not carry Hillary's extensive personal baggage. A Wesley Clark, for example.

by vcalzone on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 03:39:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: stop with this Obamacan crap. (2.00 / 2)

Obama cannot win if he only brings in a "great many" of core Democrats. He needs to win virtually all Dems. Clinton received 18 million votes from core Dem voters in the primaries. She represents the core of the Democratic party and can deliver votes that Obama will not get without her on the ticket.

by LakersFan on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 04:26:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

votes are votes (none / 0)

It's a simple empirical question. Does Hillary bring more Dem votes than she would cost in Indy/GOP votes? Nobody knows. Until there's some polling on this there's no real basis for an argument either way.

by JJE on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 11:47:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

by LakersFan on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 12:34:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I understand that. Similarly, without empirical evidence, there's no baisis for so much "concern" that she might cost votes.

Regardless, it's absurd for anyone to claim that Clinton does not appeal to core Democrats. A Democratic candidate's strategy should be to shore up the entire Democratic base before going for the Indys and others. Obama is the Democratic party's nominee.

by Reaper0Bot0 on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 12:45:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

There is anecdotal evidence though. And we do have polling data on her negatives across the electorate. That data may overstate her negatives, though.

All I want is data. I'm shocked that anybody would take issue with me for wanting a poll or two done first. Seriously, that's nuts.

Re: votes are votes (2.00 / 1)

I take issue with you being making claims based on "anecdotal evidence" (i.e. "the Obamacans you know") without empirical evidence.

You're applying a serious double standard here and the fact that you're pretending it's all about objectivity and empirical evidence is bordering on humorous.

by LakersFan on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 01:05:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by Reaper0Bot0 on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 01:13:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Every time I bring it up I say I want polling and I have at least once distinguished my anecdotes from meaningful data.

I'm not pretending anything. Stop being a jackass and take me at my word.

I want this polled so there's no room for debate. I don't have an agenda here, other than finding out what works best.

Seriously, you're really pissing me off here. I don't have it in for Clinton. I'd prefer somebody else but I'd accept her, if it makes the most sense to pick her.

by LakersFan on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 01:15:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Your "concern" has been noted.

by Reaper0Bot0 on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 01:22:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Cute. You're a raging asshole, you know.

I'm advocating we do what's best for the party by doing a simple poll and I'm the concern troll?

Would you prefer we have Obama pick Hillary based on the feelings of you folks without doing any meaningful research on the topic? Inconsistencies with Obama's message be damned?

I'm being reasonable here, buddy. You ain't.

by LakersFan on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 01:29:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Your "concern" is just as legitimate as the "concern" expressed by many lifelong Democrats about Obama. They're either both legitimate concerns, or not. You choose. I don't care either way, I just don't like double-standards.

And congratulations on resorting to name-calling and profanity.

by Reaper0Bot0 on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 06:04:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No, this isn't a fair parallel.

Those folks expressed their concern as the primaries raged on and some seemed to insist we should break our own rules to give them the winner they wanted.

VP's don't get elected in the same way P's do.

Morever, I take issue with the implied equating of legitimate concerns with "concern trolls." That term has a meaning that many folks here ignore.

Dissent is fine. Stirring up shit looking for a fight isn't.

by LakersFan on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 08:31:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh. I see. They're not parallel because you say they're not parallel. Those people were concern trolls because you say their concern was illigitimate, but your concern is real and legitimate. Give up the double-standards already. You're not fooling anyone.

http://www.pollster.com/08-CA-Pres-GE-Mv O.php

hmmmm

Obama v. McCain in CA

looks like he is doing OK..

"harlequin speech of suicide, demanding instantaneous lobotomy"

by nogo postal on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 01:49:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by LakersFan on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 01:55:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Great! I bet he's leading in Illinois too!

How's he doing in Florida, Ohio or Pennsylvania? Think he could use a few more HRC Democrats supporting him in those states?

by Reaper0Bot0 on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 06:05:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

He's leading in Ohio and Pennsylvania. He's down by less than four in Florida.

I'd say he's doing just fine.

by Reaper0Bot0 on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 12:46:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Um, I think that growing the brand is about the most important thing we can possibly do. As to whether it is actually more important than securing our base?

It may actually be, yes. I'm not sure yet.

We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.

I'm developing a yen for Biden on the ticket. He's very smart and very good on his feet, extremely knowledgable on foreign policy, and has some great cred on some other issues -- recently managing lifting the travel ban on HIV positive individuals and back in the 1990s showing great leadership on the Violence Against Women Act.

And he's not afraid to call BS on Republicans.

I think he'd campaign well in states like Ohio and Virginia as well as out west.

by politicsmatters on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 09:44:30 PM EST

by Politicalslave on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 09:53:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I like Biden as well and Edwards but I don't think they measure up to Clinton overall. I think you may have mentioned in the past someone with a military background as well which I believe is very possible since we are involved in at least two wars at this time. Still I think Obama could just add military to his cabinet.

"Well the danger on the rocks is surely past... Still I remain tied to the mast"...Don Fagen, Poet and Piano Player

Well, my first choice is STILL Wes Clark, for the military and European Foriegn Policy expertise, but I would love to see
Senator Clinton tear apart whom ever they throw against her in in the VP debate.

Mittens? OMG, they will have to bring in a stretcher after Hillary slices him to ribbons.

Maybe then can get Bill head of the UN as someone suggested so he is fully occupied!

by WashStateBlue on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 09:46:33 PM EST

If you're being chased by an angry bull and then you notice you're also being chased by a swarm of bees, it doesn't really change things. Just keep on running.

Ugh, can you imagine Mitt presiding over the Senate? What a revolting display that would be.

by vcalzone on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 09:53:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by Politicalslave on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 09:56:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I like that idea about Bill but I don't think President Obama will put up with anything from Bill. President Clinton has to behave to make his wife look Presidential.Bill messed up a lot but he will be much better in the future.

That's why you send him to where he can help (on the international stage) but where no one in the media will pay close attention to him (on the international stage).

I like that idea about Bill but I don't think President Obama will put up with anything from Bill.

by TCQuad on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 12:58:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Your attempt to change the subject to "the issues" is irrelevant.

Special envoy to the Middle East. When he was in office, Bill came closer than any President since Carter to a major breakthough on Irael/Palestine situation. He would love a second bite at the apple, would work really hard at it, and he is a real expert on the issues and personalities - no learning curve.

The worst that could happen is he makes peace in the Middle East and Obama has to share the glory, and come up with a new mission for him.

by itsthemedia on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 02:33:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

by Politicalslave on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 04:50:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes absolutely TCQuaid

Your attempt to change the subject to "the issues" is irrelevant.

I've been amused in the past at how many Obama fans express their angst about having Bill Clinton around "causing trouble" or whatever. They seem to have much less faith in Obama's ability to handle strong personalities than I do, even though I am not a big Obama fan. I mean, is Obama a strong leader or not? If yes, he is not afraid of dealing with other leaders and finding a way to harness their abilities to get his agenda implemented. If not, why in the world were they so taken with the idea of making him President in the first place?

by itsthemedia on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 02:27:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

by Shaun Appleby on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 02:28:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Well, Hillary is nothing if not strong and it was beyond her. In the recent campaign, I mean...

Your attempt to change the subject to "the issues" is irrelevant.

Don't confuse dealing with a man like Bill Clinton with controlling him. He's a force of nature. You don't control him, you channel him and harness him. She got a lot more help than harm from having him on the trail for her, IMHO. I got to attend one of his speeches this spring - the first time I had seen him in person since '92. Simply put, the man has still got "it".

by itsthemedia on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 02:38:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

by Shaun Appleby on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 02:51:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Not doubting his energy, or effectiveness, at retail politics but looking back over all the controversies, and allowing for the amazingly ignorant narratives on display in the media, how do you keep score? Uncontrollable forces of nature seem inconsistent with the remarkably coherent message discipline we have seen so far from Obama's campaign.

Re: Obama /Clinton 08 Dream Team (none / 0)

That doesn't surprise me at all. President Clinton
is the Elvis of the Democratic party. Charisma is special and he's got it. That's why Obama should use him as much as he can. If he chooses Senator Clinton he gets more out of Bill.

by Politicalslave on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 04:48:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

by alamedadem on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 02:38:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

If he can't handle Bill, he shouldn't be president. The next president will have to "handle" a host of strong personalities. Obama's up to it. Stop with the excuses for the HRC hatred.

If you're being chased by an angry bull and then you notice you're also being chased by a swarm of bees, it doesn't really change things. Just keep on running.

It's not that he couldn't handle Bill, it's that his implicit involvement in any way would open up the window for all sorts of attacks. It'll be a little harder for conservatives to go after Hillary if she's not got Bill right behind her.

And make no mistake, I'm FOR Hillary as a potential VP, but she DOES have a great deal of baggage that must be considered. They made a whole lotta negative stuff that they never got the chance to use against her. This would give them the ability to use all of it. Fortunately, a lot of what they'd attack Hillary on is Bill.

by vcalzone on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 03:36:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

by LakersFan on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 04:28:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Your "concern" is noted.

Your attempt to change the subject to "the issues" is irrelevant.

OK, you segued into the other silly argument I see all the time - the "baggage argument". The best response to that came from an Obama supporter friend of mine. (Yes, I have friends offline, as unlikely as that may seem!) If Hillary had zero "baggage", the media and the right would immediately manufacture some "baggage" for her. Look at what they did to Gore and Kerry. I sure hope Obama has lots of "baggage" by the end of his term in office, and I hope he totes it along with him as proudly as Bill and Hillary tote theirs. It's the reward the righties give you for accomplishing progressive goals.

by itsthemedia on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 08:04:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Can't just make him "head of the UN" (none / 0)

The UN Secretary-General serves renewable 5 year terms. Ban Ki-moon has at least 3 more years, and likely 8 before he leaves. Furthermore the SG is appointed by the General Assembly and the US heavily pushing a former president, even if he is liked by the international community, would go down like a lead balloon.

Perhaps you meant UN Ambassador? That would be copacetic and would actually be a great fit for Bill

by notedgeways on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 03:33:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]