RE: Barack/Hillary Together? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

Alumbrado -> RE: Barack/Hillary Together? (3/9/2008 2:18:37 PM)

I was speaking of the naivete that came in the form of pundits explaining why X, Y, or Z, had to be the only choice that the President could make for VP, based on unrealistic perceptions like 'honoring commitments' in exchange for delegate support....
And they all came out with egg on their face when he announced someone they hadn't even considered.



Alumbrado -> RE: Barack/Hillary Together? (3/9/2008 2:21:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

Does anyone seriously believe that even if Hillary somehow persuaded Obama to give up his lead for a figurehead position as VP, that she would bother to honor it, once she got the delegates?

That's the naivete that preceded the choosing of Dan Quayle.


The public nature of politics being what it is in the information age, it is unlikely Hillary would risk the negative public image she'd get from reneging on any deal made with the Obama camp.  If she woos Obama to surrender his delegates by putting him on the ticket, he will be the vice-presidential candidate for the Democrats come November.....




One of the hallmarks of psychopathy is the inability to perceive consequences for one's actions.



Ostentatious -> RE: Barack/Hillary Together? (3/9/2008 2:21:55 PM)

Over here in Britain I can honestly say this doesn't really matter because the next election HERE will probably be won by the person who decides it isn't in our interest to continually follow the US into ridiculous BS wars.

Chris Rock said it best...'Can we have a black president? Can we have a female president? Why the fcuk not...We have just had a retarded one!'

We are just happy Obama hasn't been shot, yet.



TheHeretic -> RE: Barack/Hillary Together? (3/9/2008 2:27:22 PM)

        What's funny is how one-sided the play is.  I'm pretty sure Hillary cannot win without Obama on her ticket, but Barry could pick anybody he wanted for his.  Two Senators is a lousy ticket.  A solid Governor would be a much better choice, or someone impeccable on national security.  Maybe Joe Lieberman if it has to be another Senator? [8|]



celticlord2112 -> RE: Barack/Hillary Together? (3/9/2008 2:29:04 PM)

quote:

but right now Obama has momentum on his side and his supporters are showing it with massive campain donations.


Prior to the March 4 primary results, I would agree with you.  Now, I am not so certain Obama has a full head of steam.

Regardless of delegate counts, Obama has yet to decisively beat Clinton in a major contest.  He outspent her by a wide margin in the Texas primary to no avail.  The notion that Obama is a flawed candidate because he cannot decisively dispatch Clinton is not without merit, and against McCain could prove a major credibility problem--McCain is at least as tough a political competitor as Clinton is, and his fund-raising difficulties are significantly mitigated by having the advantage of months to raise money without needing to spend it just as quickly.

Also, there is still the unexploded landmines of Florida and Michigan.  Hillary won both those states.  Granted, Obama has a credible rebuttal that, per the request of the national party, he did not campaign in either state, but, as he has been unable to convincingly beat Clinton in a major primary, how well does that resonate?  Clinton's decision to campaign "under the radar" in those two states was a political master stroke, because now there is significant pressure on the Democrats to find a way to give those two states back their delegations. 

If the current delegations are seated at the convention, Hillary pulls even with Obama in pledged delegates, or possibly even moves back in front.

If there is a do-over primary in either state, Clinton has a gift-wrapped bit of campaign rhetoric in that she can claim "she didn't ignore the voters" in the first go-round, meaning she could still pull even with Obama in pledged delegates.

If Michigan and Florida are ignored outright, McCain has a perfect campaign issue for the fall.

Obama is in the lead in pledged delegates, but he still can't get to the magic number of delegates without significant backing by the superdelegates.  Will he be able to avoid the perception that Clinton battled him to a draw by the time of the election?  I am not certain the answer is yes.



Muttling -> RE: Barack/Hillary Together? (3/9/2008 2:42:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

       What's funny is how one-sided the play is.  I'm pretty sure Hillary cannot win without Obama on her ticket, but Barry could pick anybody he wanted for his.  Two Senators is a lousy ticket.  A solid Governor would be a much better choice, or someone impeccable on national security.  Maybe Joe Lieberman if it has to be another Senator? [8|]



I think Hillary alone is just as strong as Obama alone, together they are really powerful.

I do agree with your comment on a solid governor or national security hawk.

I disagree on Lieberman, he's got a lot of baggage from the Kerry campain and he's really not the tough guy you need in a VP slot for the campain.  Cheney was eating him for lunch every time they debated.



celticlord2112 -> RE: Barack/Hillary Together? (3/9/2008 2:47:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

Does anyone seriously believe that even if Hillary somehow persuaded Obama to give up his lead for a figurehead position as VP, that she would bother to honor it, once she got the delegates?

That's the naivete that preceded the choosing of Dan Quayle.


The public nature of politics being what it is in the information age, it is unlikely Hillary would risk the negative public image she'd get from reneging on any deal made with the Obama camp.  If she woos Obama to surrender his delegates by putting him on the ticket, he will be the vice-presidential candidate for the Democrats come November.....




One of the hallmarks of psychopathy is the inability to perceive consequences for one's actions.


True, but I don't see a credible case being made for Clinton as psychopath.  Clinton as power-hungry bitch, sure--but that's more sociopathy than psychopathy.



Muttling -> RE: Barack/Hillary Together? (3/9/2008 2:49:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112


Prior to the March 4 primary results, I would agree with you.  Now, I am not so certain Obama has a full head of steam.


Well thought out comments but I disagree.  Every campain will ride the waves, but if Hillary can't bust his momentum she's toast.

quote:

Regardless of delegate counts, Obama has yet to decisively beat Clinton in a major contest.  He outspent her by a wide margin in the Texas primary to no avail.  The notion that Obama is a flawed candidate because he cannot decisively dispatch Clinton is not without merit, and against McCain could prove a major credibility problem--McCain is at least as tough a political competitor as Clinton is, and his fund-raising difficulties are significantly mitigated by having the advantage of months to raise money without needing to spend it just as quickly.


All very true.

quote:

Also, there is still the unexploded landmines of Florida and Michigan.  Hillary won both those states.  Granted, Obama has a credible rebuttal that, per the request of the national party, he did not campaign in either state, but, as he has been unable to convincingly beat Clinton in a major primary, how well does that resonate?  Clinton's decision to campaign "under the radar" in those two states was a political master stroke, because now there is significant pressure on the Democrats to find a way to give those two states back their delegations.


Again, very true.   However, there is a huge problem here for Clinton.  If she percieved as stealing the nomination it will do a lot of damage to her campain.  Right now there are negotiations underway to let Florida and Michigan's delegates count, but not a lot of details are coming out about how they will count.   



quote:

Obama is in the lead in pledged delegates, but he still can't get to the magic number of delegates without significant backing by the superdelegates.  Will he be able to avoid the perception that Clinton battled him to a draw by the time of the election?  I am not certain the answer is yes.


Super delegates are the big contention right now, but many of them will fall in line with voters of their states and movements of the party as a whole.  I still think Obama has it as long as he can maintain his momentum and he has Mississippi coming up which will be a slam dunk for him.



Alumbrado -> RE: Barack/Hillary Together? (3/9/2008 2:54:41 PM)

quote:

(CL)True, but I don't see a credible case being made for Clinton as psychopath.  Clinton as power-hungry bitch, sure--but that's more sociopathy than psychopathy.



The difference between socio and psycho is an affectation between competing disciplines.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sociopathy

And the category of 'partial psychopath' was coined for career politicians, used car salemen, ambulance chasing lawyers, et al., of which category, Hillary is clearly a charter member.



Muttling -> RE: Barack/Hillary Together? (3/9/2008 2:55:40 PM)

On a side note, NPR had a really interesting discussion on who benefits from the current situation.  Their conclusion was a big tie.....


McCain gets some breathing room to regroup, build money, and make nice with the more conservative portions of the party.


Obama gets a lot of press, builds money, and gets more practice at dealing with the Republican play book as that is pretty similar to what Hillary is throwing at him.


Hillary stays in the game, gains credibility as a fighter who doesn't give up, and the Republicans haven't started their aggressive assault as they are happy to let the democrats beat each other up.



Muttling -> RE: Barack/Hillary Together? (3/9/2008 2:57:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

quote:

(CL)True, but I don't see a credible case being made for Clinton as psychopath.  Clinton as power-hungry bitch, sure--but that's more sociopathy than psychopathy.



The difference between socio and psycho is an affectation between competing disciplines.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sociopathy

And the category of 'partial psychopath' was coined for career politicians, used car salemen, ambulance chasing lawyers, et al., ofwhich category, Hillary is clearly a charter member.


At least she's not an impluse spender like the vast majority of politicians (and every president) we have seen for the past 38 years.



celticlord2112 -> RE: Barack/Hillary Together? (3/9/2008 3:02:50 PM)

quote:

If she percieved as stealing the nomination it will do a lot of damage to her campain. Right now there are negotiations underway to let Florida and Michigan's delegates count, but not a lot of details are coming out about how they will count.


Hence the term "landmine".  Any solution has a huge credibility problem for both the candidates and the Democratic Party as a whole.  There is a very real possibility that the Democratic nominee, regardless of who it is, will be saddled with the taint of having "stolen" the nomination.



pahunkboy -> RE: Barack/Hillary Together? (3/9/2008 3:04:55 PM)

FL and MI simple.  just use the super delegats.

based on no bid contracts, and  "security"  --  big money isnt gonna let any one ruin the profits.

as to do overs- i want 2000 done over.

as far as Dems winning.    50//50, maybe   30/70. [against]

So we have a giant ponzi scheem, CEO pay in the 100 millions,  resouces[ human or otherwise] pludered and squanderred.

one lever on the vote machine can fix that?

sadly- it might not get fixed until the US street flow blood-



celticlord2112 -> RE: Barack/Hillary Together? (3/9/2008 3:09:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy

FL and MI simple.  just use the super delegats.

based on no bid contracts, and  "security"  --  big money isnt gonna let any one ruin the profits.

as to do overs- i want 2000 done over.

as far as Dems winning.    50//50, maybe   30/70. [against]

So we have a giant ponzi scheem, CEO pay in the 100 millions,  resouces[ human or otherwise] pludered and squanderred.

one lever on the vote machine can fix that?

sadly- it might not get fixed until the US street flow blood-



I'm going to regret asking this...but what the hell.  It's Sunday.

Dude, what the HELL are you rambling about?



pahunkboy -> RE: Barack/Hillary Together? (3/9/2008 4:36:09 PM)

I mean the figure head is immaterial when you consider who pulls the strings in this country.

and we havent hit bottom.



celticlord2112 -> RE: Barack/Hillary Together? (3/9/2008 5:25:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy

I mean the figure head is immaterial when you consider who pulls the strings in this country.

and we havent hit bottom.



Oh please, can we drop the conspiracy-theory nonsense?

There is no Illuminati or Tammany Hall pulling strings on a national level.  Arguing that there is gives the likes of Dubya both too much credit and too little.



Muttling -> RE: Barack/Hillary Together? (3/9/2008 7:00:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

Also, there is still the unexploded landmines of Florida and Michigan.  Hillary won both those states.  Granted, Obama has a credible rebuttal that, per the request of the national party, he did not campaign in either state, but, as he has been unable to convincingly beat Clinton in a major primary, how well does that resonate? 




This comment rang odd to me and Fox News clarified it for me today:

"Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton — as well as the other candidates who had been competing before the Jan. 15 and Jan. 29 primaries respectively — agreed not to campaign in those states. Clinton won both contests, although Obama’s name was not on the ballot in Michigan."

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/09/florida-and-michigan-delegates-look-for-ways-to-be-counted-at-democratic-convention/



celticlord2112 -> RE: Barack/Hillary Together? (3/9/2008 8:39:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Muttling

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

Also, there is still the unexploded landmines of Florida and Michigan.  Hillary won both those states.  Granted, Obama has a credible rebuttal that, per the request of the national party, he did not campaign in either state, but, as he has been unable to convincingly beat Clinton in a major primary, how well does that resonate? 




This comment rang odd to me and Fox News clarified it for me today:

"Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton — as well as the other candidates who had been competing before the Jan. 15 and Jan. 29 primaries respectively — agreed not to campaign in those states. Clinton won both contests, although Obama’s name was not on the ballot in Michigan."

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/09/florida-and-michigan-delegates-look-for-ways-to-be-counted-at-democratic-convention/


It's a very odd situation.  That Florida, of the 2000 "every vote must be counted" embroglio, should be denied a voice at the Democratic convention is a perverse irony at the very least.

With 313 delegates between the two states at issue--enough to push either Hillary or Obama over the top--failure to find a respectable solution is going to taint the Democratic nominee whomever it is.

Absent a sea change in the primary season, the Democrats are on track to make their 2008 convention every bit as contentious as the 1968 convention. 



awmslave -> RE: Barack/Hillary Together? (3/9/2008 11:08:46 PM)

Hillary's vice president wouldn't probably even get office space in White House. Hillary and Bill will take care of business.



Sinergy -> RE: Barack/Hillary Together? (3/9/2008 11:38:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
All the people who won't ever vote for Senator Clinton and all the people who won't ever vote for Senator Obama will be united with the people who are committed to the 'one true way' of voting Republican.


Perhaps it might be all the people that would vote or Senator Clinton, all the people that would vote for Senator Obama, all the people that would vote for either one, all the people that think one might enhance the other, and all the people feeling that you can't keep doing the same things and expect a different result ... vs. Senator McCain.


I dont think a Obama / Hillary ticket will be well-nigh unstoppable.  It might be if Hillary is on the bottom of the ticket, but too many people will show up to vote against her if she is on top.

I find it amusing that her initial olive branches to Obama are "We can be a combined ticket if I am on top, despite my trailing you in both the popular vote AND number of delegates."

Well, it is not unlike the Democrats to betray their constituency.

Sinergy

p.s. the Republicans have been actively betraying their constituency for years, dont read this to mean I am for either of the parties.



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125