Another VP thread

by Jerome Armstrong, Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 05:03:13 AM EST

Obviously, some sort of deal got worked out, Clinton said she would not put her name up for nomination, and Obama agreed to reinstate the FL & MI delegates. I think that many, if not most of us probably see the value of Hillary Clinton as the VP, but that's certainly not the signal of the CW. There's an article just pasted with resentment (and threatening), over Obama's signal that if it is not Clinton, VP pick may chafe Hillary supporters. I was a 'last opposition left standing' Clinton supporter (against Obama) in the primaries, but I wouldn't describe myself as 'chafed' if he chose someone else, I'd just still be on the fence about predicting whether Obama is going to win this election or not.

Obama is definitely the weakest nominee that Democrats have put up this decade. If you doubt that, just imagine what the polls would be showing if Bush had an approval rating of 45% right now. I am partisan enough that I don't care if who I wanted to win the nomination didn't get it, but the party is not fully unified. Many of the undecided are going to look at his VP pick for an assessment of 'judgment' on his candidacy. This seems pretty right on for a lot of voters:

"Those adamant Clinton supporters, the older, and I would say wealthier women, and some of the better known feminists from the dark ages, I think they will use his vice presidential choice, whether a woman or a man, as an excuse not to support him," said Joan Hoff, an historian at Montana State University and a former president of the Center for the Study of the Presidency.


"I'm sorry to say this but I do think [the Democratic divide] is sort of significant," Hoff said. "It could have an impact. It's not that you need a lot of them," meaning Clinton supporters who will sit out the general or vote for McCain. "You just need enough of them in key places."


Hoff compared the current dynamic to the Republicans in 1976, when Ronald Reagan's supporters never fully rallied to Gerald Ford, and the Democrats in 1980, when Edward M. Kennedy's supporters never fully warmed to Jimmy Carter.


"Ford lost because the neoconservatives sat on their hands and didn't turn out to vote. The real worry is that [Clinton's supporters] are going to sit on their hands, the older feminists," Hoff said. "I'm telling you they're mad."

I know  there are a lot of Obama supporters for whom that makes them very mad. Obama won this thing, its over, he should be able to start from scratch and choose whomever he wants to, they say. Yes, true, but there are ramifications for going that route too.

It'll be interesting to see which way Obama goes. Usually, these VP signals from the CW are right on for the top three. In 2000, it was Kerry, Edwards, or Lieberman. In 2004, it was Edwards, Gephardt or Vilsack. Right now, Sebelius seems to have faded, and its Kaine, Biden, or Bayh.

I'd still stick with Kaine, out of those three. If Obama's going to go with Biden, then I really don't get him at all. Biden is as far away from 'change' as you can get, in Democratic politics. Biden was running for President before many of Obama's supporters were even born. I admit though, that seeing Obama choose the DLC's Bayh would be a theatrical display-- watching the mental gymnastics of his ardent supporters, lest their heads explode. If Obama really believes that he's got the stuff and doesn't need Clinton, he shouldn't choose someone that's a lesser breed. He should go with whom he really wants-- Kaine.

One more thing, if Obama is going with Clinton, it'll be because he's decided at the last moment (and not announced till like the 21st), and that its because he's come around to believe he needs her to win. Because if you read between the lines in Bill Clinton's "I am not a racist" interview, you can't see it. Personally, for Clinton to feel like he has to say that, brings me down quite a bit. We may get a situation like '60, when Kennedy realized it was necessary to offer the VP slot to Johnson, not realizing that he'd take it.

A poll, between Bayh, Biden, and Kaine, is attached for your vote.


Poll
Obama's VP pick
Biden
Bayh
Kaine

Votes: 66
Results : Vote Link : Polls


Tags: Barack Obama, VP (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 132 Comments :: Post a Comment


Re: Another VP thread (2.00 / 11)

Obama is definitely the weakest nominee that Democrats have put up this decade.

I wonder if, after the convention, you'll eventually make a positive post about our party's nominee.
John McCain: He flunked ECON 101.
by Shem on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 05:12:46 AM EST

Re: Another VP thread (2.00 / 0)

Jerome did you even see the interview with Bill Clinton not just read the article?


by eraske on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:14:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another VP thread (2.00 / 0)

Didn't see this comment at first when I commented. Jesus Jerome! What is up with this comment? You are seriously deluded about what makes a strong candidate if you think this. Oh well, yes please, during Obama's reelection campaign could you write something positive?


by wasder on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:01:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another VP thread (2.00 / 1)

Obama is also the first candidate that isn't a white male. Jerome, do you honestly think that Hillary's numbers against McCain would be better?
Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity would be igniting the base to unforseen proportions. Obama's strategy is to not motivate the conservatives to go out to vote and it's working. McCain hasn't gone over 45% in ANY poll.

And of  course the obvious: Barack Obama garned more primary votes than all of the Democratic Candiates in the 2004 primary COMBINED.


A PROUD Hopium user!
by xodus1914 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:27:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another VP thread (none / 0)

You are factually wrong.  

Rasmussen has McCain ahead of Obama with "leans Dem"  and "leans Republican" today, 47-46.


by dembluestates on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:22:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another VP thread (2.00 / 1)

Gallup just came out:

Obama 46
McCain 43


by BDM on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 01:37:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another VP thread (none / 0)

It's called a blip. All of the national polls combined,still hasn't showed MCcain comming more that 4-5% points of cracking 51%.

Obama has flireted with the nmagic number more than once.


A PROUD Hopium user!
by xodus1914 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 02:30:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another VP thread (none / 0)

These three are so mediocre: Kaine, Biden, or Bayh. Any would be a mistake, and in a close election, Obama cannot afford many mistakes.


by TomP on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:10:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another VP thread (none / 0)

I agree that these three are weak.  I was against the HRC VP nom from the start, but I've come around to this position ... we've winnowed the field and vetted the contenders ... and what we have left is less impressive than Sen. Clinton.  So just give it to her ... hold the news until the second to last day of the convention, after her speech, for dramatic effect.


by Dan Conley on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 01:44:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another VP thread (2.00 / 0)

That's truly a ridiculous statement.  What are you basing it on the fact that Bush's approval is so low and Obama isn't blowing McCain away?  In case you haven't noticed McCain was by far  the strongest Republican nominee out of the contenders this year.  If Obama were running against Romney this thing would be a blowout, but McCain is still viewed favorably among a lot of people.

Do you honestly believe Hillary would be as competitive in Montana, the Dakotas, North Carolina, Colorado, and Virginia as Obama is?  Do you honestly believe John Kerry was a stronger nominee?  That seems odd because Kerry got blown out in the above mentioned states and he was lucky enough to run against Bush.  The Democrats finally have a nominee that can expand the map and because he's not blowing McCain away in August he's the "definitely the weakest nominee that Democrats have put up"? Give me a break...  


by blueryan on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 12:16:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another VP thread (1.85 / 7)

"Obama is definitely the weakest nominee that Democrats have put up this decade."

your usual BS.

He is by far one of the strongest candidates in a long time, he has a superb organization, charisma, vision and intellect.

He lacks experience and he is black, those are his dis qualifiers which he will overcome at the end IMO.


by Fistjab on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 05:16:28 AM EST

Another Point to This (2.00 / 5)

WOULD Hillary or any other Democrat really be "20 points ahead" given how unpopular Bush is? Or is this a myth? All the polling shows that Republicans and conservatives are rejecting the idea that McCain = Bush. No amount of pointing out that McCain supports virtually everything Bush did will change their minds. It's important to understand why and what this means.

Many conservatives have abandoned Bush for his failures, but they haven't stopped being conservatives nor given up supporting Bush's policies.

They LOVED Bush and loved his policies as long as he was "winning." Now they're just looking for a Republican to carry forward Bush's ideas, but without being tarred with Bush, who is associated with failure.

Conservative ideology can never "fail" but only be "betrayed." Thus, since Bush failed, he was "never a real conservative." See how simple this is? They just don't want to admit they made a mistake in voting for Bush twice!?

Election Math: Right now Republicans are 31.5% of voters and Republican leaning Independents (47% of whom voted for Bush in 2004) are close to 1/2 of another 29% of the electorate according to the latest Rasmussen polling of Partisan Party ID.

Thus, the natural base of the Republican party in any election is close to 43% - 45%. No creditable Republican candidate is going to get less than that. That means that NO Democratic candidate can "run away with the election."

At best in November the Democratic base (around 39% of voters right now) and Democratic leaning independents (perhaps another 15% total) will turn out and vote.

If 89% of Democrats vote for their candidate (like Kerry got in 2004) and the nominee split Independents like Kerry did in 2004, then we're talking about 53% of the electorate at most.

Would Hillary really get lots of disaffected Independents by running a more partisan campaign than Obama has? Nonsense.

Hillary would ironically, have run a purely ROVIAN campaign, relying on the Democratic base the way Rove relied upon the Republican base.

Right now, that's looking like an attractive alternative as Obama fails to make good on his promise of reaching beyond and overcoming the limitations of partisan politics, by reaching out to Independents and registering new voters.

But, to pretend that Hillary or any other Democrat would be "running away" with the election because of Bush's failure is just pure B.S.


by Cugel on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:32:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Another way to look at this (2.00 / 4)

If Democrats are around 40% Voters right now, and Independent Kerry voters around 46% of 29%, then the number of people who can legitimately claim "I was right! We should have elected Kerry!" is around 45%.

Notice that magically, the number of people who "strongly disapprove" of Bush is around 49%.

The rest of "mild" Bush disapproval is made up of Republicans and conservatives who blame Bush for failing, but still support his ideas and policies.

They're now supporting McCain even though they don't particularly like him out of party loyalty.

Since they all hate Hillary with a passion, and have spent the last 15 years demonizing her, would this segment of America be any LESS united for McCain in opposition to her?

Of course not! She might be doing better in Ohio and Florida right now, but she'd be in trouble in Michigan and have NO chance of winning Colorado, New Mexico or other Red states.

It might actually be a less nerve wracking election for Democrats if Hillary were really able to keep a 5-8% lead in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania, but Michigan would be in worse shape and losing Florida would then be fatal.

So, everything would come down to Florida and Ohio again. We've been down that road before in 2000 and 2004 and it's not fun. Who's to say Republicans couldn't win Florida and thus, steal another election?


by Cugel on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:48:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another way to look at this (none / 0)

Hillary would win Ohio, Pa, Florida, and New Mexico, as well as Michigan.


by handsomegent on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:14:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another way to look at this (2.00 / 3)

Amazing sources for this refutation. I was skeptical till I clicked through to read the data provided.
by Exiled on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:15:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another way to look at this (2.00 / 1)

Not Florida. McCain appeals to the older voters and the veterans. Libermann would camp out down there and make sure that he got the Jewish vote, and probably pull some more conservatives.


A PROUD Hopium user!
by xodus1914 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:33:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

apples to oranges (2.00 / 1)

Michigan might be harder to keep but there is no evidence that FL would be harder for Hillary to keep than Obama, as throughout the entire primary cycle, she out polled Obama.

On the other hand, Arkansas and WV would be in play instead of Colorado.

NM you have no clue how it would turn out. The increasing number of Hispanics was always a fertile ground for Hillary.

The map would look different, but I dont think Hillary would have had problem.


vote blue in 2008
by sepulvedaj3 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 01:53:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: apples to oranges (none / 0)

WV was only in play for Hillary vs. a Black guy. None of those people are voting for Hillary over John McCain. Hillary is still a clean-are liberal vs McCain , who is for drilling, nuclear power and , oh yeah, coal.


A PROUD Hopium user!
by xodus1914 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 02:45:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another Point to This (2.00 / 1)

And Obama is NOT going to get 89% of registered Dems either.


by handsomegent on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:07:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Exactly (2.00 / 2)

I have stated this several times to no avail at getting through to some people.  The 'natural' basement of the GOP candidate is going to be 43-45%.   They, unfortunately, have a higher basement than the Democrats.  John McCain has yet to exceed this basement threshold, while Obama, has never gone below it in recent polling.

You bring up 1976 because the GOP was split, but you fail to mention the real reason was the pardon of Nixon.  The country was still reeling from Watergate and unhappy with the GOP.   Reagan would not have helped that year because HE was the Obama candidate.  He was the one that Americans did not yet know.

This election is much closer to 1980.  It wasnt until right before the election that Reagan started to blow Carter away, even though Carters numbers were similar to Bush's.


by gavoter on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:04:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another Point to This (none / 0)

Conservative ideology can never "fail" but only be "betrayed." Thus, since Bush failed, he was "never a real conservative."

Truer words have rarely been spoken.

Liberalism/progressivesim by definiton gives people something tangible to contrast. Change vs. no-change. It's "what he have vs. What we used to have"

Conservatism by definiton, is harder to prove a failure because there is nothing tangible to compare. It's "what we have vs. what we could have". Both sides will paint the theoretical opposite path in their own terms. * In the end, the American people usually are more likely to embrace a peachier version of the screwed up present vs. the faith to embrace an uncertain future.*

Unless, the conservatives screw the present up so much , that they force everyone to look for alternatives, like now.....


A PROUD Hopium user!
by xodus1914 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 02:42:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

John McCain should stop running ADs. (2.00 / 1)

If some Democrats are still this delusional, I would hate to think what goes through the slimy Republican mind when they think about Obama.

And the experience thing is going to drive me crazy.  It's funny that the Presidents generally ranked as the best in history had less experience than Obama does now.  While Presidents like Nixon were in politics forever.  I seem to recall HRC talking about the difficulties of the early JFK presidency and contributing it to a lack of experience, but JFK was in the US House and Senate for 13 years, longer than the majority of US Presidents. Obama will be at 11 years in elected office, assuming he is elected, which will again be more than most US Presidents have had.


Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win. ~ Sun Tzu
by Tumult on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:52:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: John McCain should stop running ADs. (2.00 / 1)

What?  I don't recall Hillary ever talking about JFK having difficulty.

I also don't recall any President claiming experience to be President, just from their State Senate experience.  This is essentially what Obama is doing, b/c he's been running for President since he got into the Senate.

So, he's running on his State Senate experience, and grass-roots organizing experience.

As you point out, JFK was in the UNITED STATES Congress for 13 years, before becoming President.  I don't think the Kennedy comparison works, unless you want to hear Lloyd Bentsen's Kennedy remark again, and again.


He that lives upon hope, will die fasting. -Ben Franklin
by TxDem08 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:06:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: John McCain should stop running ADs. (2.00 / 1)

The point is what experience is valid for President?  I am not sure I recall hearing the "experience" argument as one to disqualify Ross Perot. It is and has always been a false argument.

Hillary was claiming far more experience than the 9 she would have had in the US Senate upon becomming President.  So why did Hillary get to claim all this nebulous experience, but none of Obama's counts?

THe assumption is also that this "experience" is a positive thing. Nixon had a tremendous amount of experience, part of which was on the House Un-American Activities Committee  which is experience which should have disqualified him as a defender of the Constitution.

The person below you mentions Kennedy's military experience, if that was a requirement, then Bill, Hillary and Obama are all unqualified.

Also National Experience was mentioned,  again Bill Clinton would have been disqualified, as would Reagan, Eisenhower ect.

It is all just lines in the sand.  Arn't these bullshit excuses a Republican thing?  Confuse the issue enough that a good idea can be overcome by bias and seem like a bad one?


Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win. ~ Sun Tzu
by Tumult on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:47:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: John McCain should stop running ADs. (1.50 / 2)

Yeah, but only 25 months of national experience; plus JFK had military experience which Obama lacks.


by handsomegent on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:09:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: John McCain should stop running ADs. (2.00 / 4)

Obama, the best candidate we have put forward in along long time, has judgment. The ability to weigh facts opinions and theory until the sensible thing to do becomes obvious. What we suffer from as a nation, is a lack of judgment. Firstly in the entire Republican Party whose deluded world view and corruption prevents them from making anything but self-serving choices, no matter the cost. And The judgment of a still far too large handfull of Democrats.

I want calm, dignified, purpose driven, judgment. I want someone whose goal is to grow the American dream, i want someone who makes this ad, In the Pocket Ad which delineates perfectly where America is, and what our political choices are. Sound judgment, focused on the average American. Click on this link Please!!!!!! Its Obama brilliant new Ad. Think about the republican ads while watching it, what I call "McCain's Stains"

I am so happy to be a Democrat, and have Obama leading us.
by Exiled on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:26:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another VP thread (2.00 / 1)

I don't think so.  While I believe he's stronger than Kerry or Gore on the personality/communication/charisma front, he's seriously lacking on the policy, experience, GE party to party combat exchanges.

After everything that was characterized and happened to Gore and Kerry, you would think the first thing a candidate would understand is in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary..."Pick a position, draw a line in the sand...and keep it!"

Saying he lacks experience and that is the only disqualifer...is like saying my dog can be the local sheriff, b/c he only lacks experience.


He that lives upon hope, will die fasting. -Ben Franklin
by TxDem08 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:59:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another VP thread (1.00 / 1)

Nah, he's weak.  He should be a dozen points ahead right now.


by dembluestates on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:23:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another VP thread (1.50 / 8)

As I've said here many times--Obama will NEVER pick Hillary primarily because he's too egotistical to admit that he "needs" her and it would seem obvious.  Second of course is the fact that the Daily Kos/MSNBC crowd wouldn't stand for it because HRC doesn't jibe with O's "message of change".  Oh yeah, like Biden, Bayh, Dodd, and Nunn do. Now we have the Botox Queen of San Francisco floating Chet Edwards-CHET EDWARDS,  Gee, what a brilliant choice.  Let's see, HRC got more votes than Obama and a recent survey had her BEATING McCain by EIGHT points while Obama only tied him. And she thinks an obscure congressman from a state Obama will lose by 10 points if he's lucky would be just peachy. Whether you think Rasmussen is biased or not (I think he's quite fair) eight points is still eight points and this stunning result is for someone who is supposedly such damaged goods. Let's face facts: Obama should be WAY ahead by now considering the mood of the country and he ISN'T.  But the hate Hillary crowd not only don't want her on the ticket, they want the Clinton "brand" debased and humiliated.


by handsomegent on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 05:24:39 AM EST

Re: Another VP thread (2.00 / 1)

you'll get over it


by hocuspocus on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 05:26:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

"Botox queen of San Fransisco"? Wow. (none / 0)

That's some feminist mouth you have on you. Get some therapy, quit spilling your crap all over this site.


by upstate girl on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 02:28:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

heh heh (2.00 / 2)

Jerome you just can't get over it can you?  Don't be so bitter sugar, life is way too short to be this jealous.


by hocuspocus on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 05:28:05 AM EST

Re: heh heh (1.25 / 4)

I'm not "jealous" of Obama at all. I'm just proud of the fact that I spotted a phony: FISA, off-shore drilling, public funding for campaigns, "You're likeable enough Hillary", long before a lot of other geniuses on this board did.


by handsomegent on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 05:36:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: heh heh (2.00 / 2)

Sore Loser eh?


by Fistjab on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 05:50:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: heh heh (2.00 / 4)

the problem is that I can name a lot of things Hillary did that was disgusting as well, but I'm not bitter about it.  

Welcome to American Politics
/don't get me started on Middle Eastern politics


by hocuspocus on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 05:52:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another VP thread (2.00 / 3)

Damn. You, Jerome, sure are no fun.

'Weakest candidate' is ridiculous. He's campaigning so much better than Kerry or Gore did, but the regular GOP attacks (as in, this person is different = foreign, gay, egghead, arrogant, etc) gets added value from the fact that Obama does represent a huge change for America. However, he'll do much better (and is already doing much better) than Kerry in defining himself.

That said, I've never really been against Clinton as VP, and think it could be quite a magical convention if she's picked.


by amsterdem on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 05:35:34 AM EST

Re: Another VP thread (1.00 / 2)

Obama is at least as weak a candidate as Dukakis was.    Maybe even worse.


by esconded on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:56:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

There's a connection here Jerome (2.00 / 1)

As one of the blogfathers, and co-author of crashing the gates, can't you see the connection?

Obama is definitely the weakest nominee that Democrats have put up this decade.... but the party is not fully unified.

The only great disunity I see largely stems from members or former members of this site.

You have a role of leadership here, Jerome, to keep the party unified.


by duende on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 05:56:18 AM EST

Re: Another VP thread (2.00 / 2)

I don't agree with you about Obama's weakness and regret the unwillingness of some of Hilary's supporters to close ranks.  But, I agree with you about how sad it is for Bill Clinton to feel he has to explain he is not a racist.  Whatever weaknesses he had as a politician and a president (and he had many more strengths), he was committed to racial justice and made progress.


by LenL on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 06:28:15 AM EST

Re: Another VP thread (2.00 / 5)

It's the weird circular logic that gets me.

Obama is the weakest candidate because he has not unified the party?

Yet if the party were unified he wouldn't be the weakest candidate?

So Obama is a vulnerable candidate, according to the Dems who are on the fence about him, but wouldn't be if those same Dems would just get over themselves and support the candidate that best represents them politically?

That's like one of the members of a basketball team saying "I'm not going to try my hardest because this team isn't that good," all the time knowing that the team would be fine if all the players would just play their hardest.

It's all phony, anyway.  It's August now, and if HRC was the nominee we would just barely be through the first page of Clinton library donors, and the polls would be worse than they are today.


by NeverNude on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 06:31:02 AM EST

Re: Another VP thread (1.33 / 3)

Of course you ignore the Rasmussen Poll I cited.  And what's with this "full of themselves". If there's anyone who's full of himself, it's Obama.


by handsomegent on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 06:49:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another VP thread (2.00 / 4)

I don't know what you're talking about. I didn't ignore anything.

Of course HRC still polls pretty well, no one kicks anyone when they're down.  But if she was the nominee, we would be knee-deep in Clinton hatred, and reading blog after blog of buyers remorse hand wringing about why the Dems chose the nominee that filled the Repubs with glee and fired up the base.

It's all pointless speculation anyway.  Sore losers are fun to laugh at.


by NeverNude on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:16:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another VP thread (1.00 / 2)

You'll see how "sore" we are on election day.  And genius, doesn't the fact that the overwhelming favorite Obama is only tied with McCain in the Rasmussen survey while Hillary (the "polarizing" one) beats him soundly say a lot more about her electibility than your hot air.


by handsomegent on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:17:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another VP thread (none / 0)

Just fyi:  I know Republicans who don't like McCain; will not vote for Obama; but actually would have voted for Hillary Clinton as President.


by cameoanne on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 01:04:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another VP thread (none / 0)

Oooh!  Anonymous anectodal evidence!  I'm convinced.

PS: those people you know are voting against their own principles and HRC's principles.  Therefore they are stupid.  You should tell them that.


by NeverNude on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 06:21:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another VP thread (none / 0)

Oooh!  Anonymous anecdotal evidence!  I'm convinced.

PS: those people you know are voting against their own principles and HRC's principles.  Therefore they are stupid.  You should tell them that.


by NeverNude on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 06:22:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another VP thread (1.66 / 3)

Why is this person still on the site and not kicked off?


by eraske on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:20:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Jerome? (2.00 / 1)

It's his site.  ;)


John McCain, maverick
by lojasmo on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:24:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jerome? (none / 0)

No, handsomegent


"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson
by MS01 Indie on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:15:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another VP thread (none / 0)

What about the Gallup poll today

Obama 46
McCain 43


by BDM on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 01:47:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another VP thread (1.50 / 2)

I'm not politically astute enough to determine whether or not Obama 'needs' Hillary to win per se, but I do believe it would be the best choice on a number of levels, particularly the party unification and healing it would engender, not to mention the sudden infusion of enthusiasm it would inject into his campaign by Hillary supporters equal in number to his own.

Due to Clinton's stature, it would indeed require a rare combination of both wisdom and strength on Obama's part to choose her. Nothing against the man, but the stances he's taken on issues since the primary don't reflect that type of depth or committment. I'm waiting for him to prove me wrong.


by phoenixdreamz on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:05:01 AM EST

Re: Another VP thread (2.00 / 0)

Please cite polls that show that party unity is significantly more of a problem this year than others.


by NeverNude on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:20:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another VP thread (2.00 / 1)

Jerome's mention of polling is more realistic, and revealing:

"... just imagine what the polls would be showing if Bush had an approval rating of 45% right now."


by phoenixdreamz on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:32:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another VP thread (2.00 / 3)

No, it's a stupid hypothetical. If Bush were still popular, the entire presidential race would've been different for over a year now. The arguments would've changed, the nominees probably would've changed. Obama won because Bush and congress are so unpopular and he ran on change. He would've run a completely different campaign if Bush were popular.

Also, I remember Al Gore losing when Clinton had a +60% approval rating, and he was the guy's vice president.


The truth about John McCain.
by Jawis on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:47:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another VP thread (2.00 / 1)

Al Gore lost, because he refused to combat Bush on the issus, urging that he could bring Republicans into the mix as well.

Al Gore lost because he compromised and assumed that he had political capital to spare, and didn't need Bill Clinton to help him get elected.

Al Gore lost because the country was polarized into REP/DEM and the third party cadidates had more fire in their bellies to fight the Republicans and Gore allowed some of his base to be siphoned off.

I see the same mistakes being made now, all over again and it's killing me.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.


He that lives upon hope, will die fasting. -Ben Franklin
by TxDem08 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:29:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Actually (2.00 / 0)

Bill Clinton had a 60% negative rating on a personal level and Bush exploited that. Remember Bush discussing bringing "honor" back to the White House?  He offered himself as an "honorable compassionate conservative." Forget the fact that the 90s were prosperous Bush portrayed them as scandalous.

So Al Gore was never able to say 'what was it that you didn't like about the 1990s?' because Bush would just remind them of Bill Clintons scandals.  

If there was no Monica in the late 90s regardless of how bad a campaign Al Gore ran, he would have been President just like Bush I.


by sweet potato pie on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:10:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Actually (none / 0)

Bullshit. Clinton was the most popular exiting president since polling began. If Al Gore couldn't find a way to capitilize on that, it certainly does reflect on him as a candidate.


The truth about John McCain.
by Jawis on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 03:09:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Actually (2.00 / 1)

False. False. False.

There's a lot of "shoulda, coulda, woulda" with the Gore campaign. One resounding truth is that had he used Clinton, we would've faced the end of a second term of a Gore administration.

What is with people on this site? They just pull statistics and poll numbers out of their ass and never bother to back any of it up.

Obama is still polling dead even.

Recent polling shows Hillary adds a significant bounce to Obama and helps him cross the 50% threshold.

Further, when paired  against Romney, the OC pair TROUNCE McCain/Romney.

But let's ignore all this given that it's based on fact and go back to our need to hate genuine Democrats just so we can satisfy a bizarre need to be right.


by Babloo328 on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 12:39:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another VP thread (1.00 / 1)

Okay, according to a recent News Dymanics Poll, Obama is losing white women over 40 by four points.  He by all previous standards should be ahead by double digits among that group.


by handsomegent on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:20:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another VP thread (1.84 / 13)

"Jerome is definitely the weakest Democratic blogger of this decade."

I have rarely encountered someone, blogger or not, who was so unable to get over the results of a presidential primary.

As in every other election since Eisenhower, no veep candidate on either side of the aisle is going to deliver a state or change the election in any kind of dramatic or definitive way.

It has been about a half century since a veep choice really made a difference (Truman/Eisenhower).

In fact, Obama is on target to capture the usual Democratic voter percentage.  Dems have, in recent years, lost about 10% of their voters who cross over to the Republicans after the primary.  I'm afraid Obama's supposed inability to "unite the party" just doesn't show up in the polling.  You can push the anecdotes and speculation all you want.

Jerome has lost the plot, and quite frankly, I think most of us at MyDD are sick of all the naysaying and endless pessimism.

Grow up.


Obama/Sebelius '08
by evantakesall on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:12:20 AM EST

Re: Another VP thread (2.00 / 1)

Well said. Just last night defended this site to someone who said they were going to leave, and now THIS bullshit. His dislike for Obama has infested every single corner of the site. If it weren't for Todd and EVERY OTHER DAMN BLOGGER ON HERE, who act normally, I'd have been long gone.

I only wonder what Jerome's alternate screen name is, because it's clear he hasn't just been spending time in personal reflection. He's venting that anger somewhere.


"Hey, check it out. You just had yourself a glue OD. So you're learning another lesson. Don't do too much glue, or your night sucks."
by vcalzone on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:51:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another VP thread (2.00 / 0)

I admit though, that seeing Obama choose the DLC's Bayh would be a theatrical display-- watching the mental gymnastics of his ardent supporters, lest their heads explode.

I'm definitely an Obama supporter but I will not try to rationalize a Bayh pick for vp.  It would be a serious disappointment.  I'll still happily vote for Obama in the fall, but I probably wouldn't donate to or volunteer for an Obama/Bayh ticket.


by Will Graham on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:26:28 AM EST

Re: Another VP thread (2.00 / 2)

"...I wouldn't describe myself as 'chafed' if he chose someone else, I'd just still be on the fence about predicting whether Obama is going to win this election or not."

[...]

"If Obama's going to go with Biden, then I really don't get him at all. Biden is as far away from 'change' as you can get, in Democratic politics."

I don't see how you can reconcile these two statements....Senator Clinton would have fitted into the "change" theme? How exactly would Clinton bolstered this?

As for the ongoing "we should have gone with Clinton" discussion - if Senator Clinton was the nominee the Republicans would be having a field day, dipping into Whitewater, her Tuzla gaffe, tying her into knots (as they did with John Kerry) on her Iraq war vote, casting John McCain as the "change agent" given that the Clintons have already occupied the White House for 2 terms, and on and on.

Whether or not Obama was the right choice remains to be seen...I think we should spend more time working on getting him elected and less time second guessing his nomination. Just my opinion.


by GrahamCracker on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:26:52 AM EST

Uh...clue here....psssst (2.00 / 1)

Hillary Clinton is a WOMAN.   Having a female VP is CHANGE big time.  Women are OVER 50% of the electorate and the MOST UNDERREPRESENTED GROUP OF ALL.

CHANGE BIG TIME = AA MALE + WOMEN

To the world outside of the USA, a world were the CLINTONS, both Bill and Hillary, are loved; where Hillary is admired and respected by women of every ethnic group they would see this ticket as CHANGE + GREAT.  It's only here in the old MACHO USA where the boys club, from the old boys like Kerry and Kennedy and the young boys (the bloggers) are still threatened by strong, assertive, ambitious, smart women.


by Jjc2008 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:59:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Uh...clue here....psssst (2.00 / 2)

Every day, our trolls get closer to Time Cube caliber...


Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics
by BishopRook on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:10:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another VP thread (2.00 / 2)

Obama the weakest? You really ought to back up that little gem with some facts .. maybe a poll or two that shows Obama is weaker than past candidates. But who needs facts. Obama should be doing better ... but with Dem leaning people like you, it hasn't happened ...yet

After this, I don't know why I read this blog. Back up that statement.


Dare to be free.
by misscee on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:27:47 AM EST

Re: Another VP thread (2.00 / 4)

That whole post just reeked of pettiness, but this stood out.

Obama is definitely the weakest nominee that Democrats have put up this decade.

Bullshit. I love Al Gore, but you do realize he lost when Clinton had the highest approval rating of any president leaving office. Sure, he won the electoral vote, but Obama is still polling better than Gore was at this point.

You also seem to forget the McCain has done a good job of painting himself as a different kind of Republican. It may not be true, but the media believes and many people around the country accept it.

If Bush was up in the polls it would be a completely different election, from the primaries on. It's a stupid hypothetical.


The truth about John McCain.
by Jawis on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:41:11 AM EST

Re: Another VP thread (2.00 / 2)

I haven't been on this blog for some time (since Obama won the nomination, really), and decided to stop in to see what was up.  All I can say is that I feel like I'm (or you're) stuck in a time-warp.  

Jesus H. Christ, enough with the hand-wringing.  She didn't win because 1) she never apologized for her Iraq war vote; 2) many of us were afraid that she had more baggage than a Saudi harem, and we didn't want to go back to having to defend the Clintons' indefensible; and 3) she never really ASKED for progressives' votes, when you get right down to it.

Move on!


by dhfsfc on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:43:05 AM EST

Get over yourself and calm down your ego (1.00 / 2)

She didn't win because the OLD BOYS NETWORK (Kennedy, Kerry, Daschle, Dean) hand picked someone else.  Hillary is a bit too smart for the good old boys.  

She did NOT HAVE TO APOLOGIZE because she did not vote for war.   She voted to give the president powers if and only if inspectors were not allowed in.  When the hell are people like you going to stop whining and spinning about this.  AND she represented the state that was attacked.  Her constituency was still in shock and wanted answers.  
I disagreed with her vote but unlike the close minded "know it all" progressives, I understand why 80% of the country and the legislature felt compelled to give the president at the time the power to something if Iraq did not comply.  NO ONE, not even Hillary, could predict Bush would lie over this.

Just because YOU buy into right wing memes doesn't mean it's HER baggage.  This is a good woman, a smart woman, and no she did not kill her friend.

She wants the votes of democrats...not former independent, libertarians pretending to be progressive.  When the same blogs that worship Obama also thought Ron Paul was a great candidate, it speaks volumes about so called "progressives."

Unlike you a lot of us look at ALL THE ISSUES.  Foreign policy is important. So is domestic policy, the rights of workers (and still Obama progressives think Kaine, a person who wanted an anit union guy in his state cabinent, and is a pro lifer is a good choice)..HEALTH CARE for all, education...you know the "women's issues" because it is the women who end up caring for the majority of elders and children.

So please you, get over it.  You and your candidate are not Moses and not everyone is following the commandments.


by Jjc2008 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:10:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Wow. Personal identification much? (none / 0)

Go talk to someone with a diploma on their wall. They specialize in helping you work through your anger issues so you don't vomit them all out on the internet in the guise of rambling screeds detached from reality - or gleeful button smashing to try and get a rise out of an anonymous whoever on a message board.

Or, you know, read a book or something. You're parroting talking points from months ago. No one's buying anymore, sister.


by upstate girl on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 02:36:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: With all due respect (none / 0)

Whoa, wait a minute.  Some of her (his?) points are very valid, and they are representative of the perspective of many long time Democrats.  We are in a fix as a party, because the nomination was highly contested and the party was essentially sharply divided, 50-50, about which Democrat should be our nominee.  I for one would feel much better about Obama if he would invite Clinton onto the ticket - what I've mostly seen so far from Obama, with the exception of his European trip for which he seems to be getting mostly skewered here at home in the press accounts, is a Republican-lite campaign, which is a turnoff to me (Obama's FISA vote bugs me, his recent more nuanced approach to withdrawal from Iraq bugs me, partly because I think the self-identified "progressives" were taken for something of a ride during the primary season and one reason we wound up with Obama as our nominee).  Selecting Clinton would be a great - and strong and positive and confident - statement about the power of a united party to elect a Democrat this year, and would get people like me motivated to not just vote in November, but to work for the ticket and "max out" with $ as I did with Clinton.


by lakelover on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 12:07:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Clinton would be a good pick... (2.00 / 1)

I think Clinton's strengths outweigh her weaknesses as a VP pick. I don't think Obama is a weak nominee. His floor of support is right at McCain's ceiling, he has the best fundraising and organizing of any Dem nominee this decade, and he'll be able to move the polls by Nov. I am salivating for the debates.

I also think he should pick Wes Clark. That might be his strongest possible pick. Kaine or Bayh would both be disappointments to me, but I think Biden would be a good choice because he's smart and a strong partisan.


by ajpuckett on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:46:42 AM EST

Intrade - Democratic VP Nominee (none / 0)

Intrade - Democratic VP Nominee, as of 7:46 am ET on Aug. 4, 2008:

1. Evan Bayh 30.1

  1. Tim Kaine 22.5
  2. Kathleen Sebelius 14.5
  3. Joe Biden 10.1
  4. Hillary Clinton 5.0
  5. Dick Gephardt 5.0
  6. Brian Schweitzer 4.5
  7. Anthony Zinni 4.0
  8. Jack Reed 4.0
  9. Ed Rendell 3.5


Obama/Sebelius '08
by evantakesall on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:51:17 AM EST

Re: Another VP thread (2.00 / 5)

Re weakest

Breakdown of prior presidential runs for Democrats in the last 30 Years with Electoral College and Popular Vote Outcome:

Jimmy Carter: 49 electoral votes; 41 percent of the popular vote

Walter Mondale: 11 electoral votes; 40.6 percent of the popular vote

Mike Dukakais: 111 electoral votes; 45.6 percent of the popular vote

Bill Clinton (1992): 370 electoral votes; 43 percent of the popular vote (note Perot was on the ballot)

Bill Clinton (1996): 379 electoral votes; 49.3 percent of the popular vote

Al Gore (2000): 266 electoral votes; 48.4 percent of the popular vote

John Kerry (2004): 251 electoral votes: 48.3 percent of the popular vote

(Note:I don't have time to go through the most damning point- I need to dredge up views about how long it took Kerry to consolidate the base. Dean says it took months. This is based on a direct quote from him.)

Where is Obama:

538: 303 electoral votes; 49.7 percent of popular vote
Electoral-vote: 316 electoral votes
Pollster.com: 46.8  of popular vote

I can find others.

here's what you say: 352 electoral votes.

My point: Your definition of weak is a great headline, but like the MSM its not supportable by evidence. I have no idea what will occur in November. I just question your train of thought based on current data. Oh, and I m not even going into the map changing aspect of the states currently at play or the reality that Bill Clinton at his height structurally was performing the exact same as Obama (except Bill Clinton had Ross Perot, horrible opponent (I don't know what price of milk is) and a recession in 1992, and the power of incumbency and a booming economy in 1996). Final note- no Democrat has won with over 50 percent of the popular vote in 30 years. Obama right now polls from 45 to 51 percent of the popular vote.


by bruh3 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:00:00 AM EST

Facts against this drivel, how dare you sir (2.00 / 2)


by Dog Chains on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:03:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Facts against this drivel, how dare you sir (2.00 / 4)

I thought after the primaries this would end. I had given up before and thought I would return now. but I think I am about to give up permanantly.


by bruh3 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:16:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another VP thread (none / 0)

Who says he has 49.7% of the popular vote?


by handsomegent on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:22:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another VP thread (2.00 / 0)

Karl, you have to learn to use "teh google"
by Exiled on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:32:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another VP thread (2.00 / 0)

fivethirtyeight.com, just like he said in his post.


by Cincinnatus on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 12:50:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another VP thread (2.00 / 2)

Poor Jerome. One of these days he just may take his ball and go home.

Weakest candidate this decade? Have you forgotten John "I'm John Kerry, and I'm reporting for duty" Kerry?


by PSUdan on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:10:04 AM EST

Exactly (2.00 / 2)

John Kerry did not get a huge amount of votes.  The candidate NotBush got those votes.

Kerry, while a great senator, was a terrible, terrible candidate.  To suggest he's better than Obama is ridiculous.


by Sam Loomis on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:23:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Closely divided country (2.00 / 4)

That Hillary or Edwards or anyone else would be way father ahead than Obama at this point is crazy.

And speaking of bitter supporters, if Hillary had won I submit that many more Obama supporters would be sitting on their hands or giving overgeneralizations to Politico about how angry millions of them are.

Plus, there's that thing about how every single dead republican in this nation would rise up out of the ground for a chance to vote agains Hillary that no one ever talks about, her personal polarization of the gop.  It's a lot larger than Obama's.

This thing would be close no matter who our nominee was.

While I agree with the Biden comments, perhaps he'll also be comfortable with Bayh because he's midwestern as well.  Who knows.  No one gives a crap about VP picks when they hit the voting booth.  Count me in the "He won, get over it" crowd.  He won't need a few dozen overstated Hillary fans to win in November.


by Sam Loomis on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:21:56 AM EST

Re: Closely divided country (none / 0)

The Repubs I know have changed their view of Hillary.  They don't like McCain, won't vote for Obama, but would vote for Hillary for President over McCain.


by cameoanne on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 01:21:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Closely divided country (none / 0)

Yeah, we know - they're all over this site.


I'm voting for Saxby Chambliss!
by Jess81 on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 06:21:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't know whats wrong with Jerome. (2.00 / 6)

He may not know his blindness, and is writing honestly what he thinks is true, but it has been a long long time since he wrote anything helpful, or useful to the progressive movement, let alone the Democratic Party.

Is this enough to have me banned? And if it is enough to have this writer banned is this site worth anything besides tearing down this election cycles major projects?

Just to make sure everyone is on board with facts. While a famous oddly-blind-to-his-own-racism pundit says:
"We have a race that by every measure of every poll is a statistical dead heat. McCain's not supposed to be in this thing, and Obama's supposed to be blowing everybody away and it just isn't happening, at least to this point."

Lou Dobbs (July 17th, Lou Dobbs Tonight)
But in response:
...over at Pollster.com, UMass Amherst Poly Sci Prof Brian Schaffner explained:that "Obama had been tied or ahead in 50 consecutive national polls through Sunday," and that meant there was only a .0000000000000009 chance that the race was actually tied at this point.
Over at Openleft it is written:
Swing State Clusters Tell Story of Potential "Map-Changing" Obama Landslide (+) by: Paul Rosenberg
And I draw your attention to the corner graphic up above under the mydd.com logo, which at the time of this writing shows Obama winning the electoral vote 352 to 189. Pollster.com has Obama winning 284 electoral votes to McCain's 147 and a further 107 in tossup too close to call.

fivethirtyeight.com says Obama has right now a 66% chance of winning.

electoral-vote.com gives Obama 316 electoral votes today, and McCain 198 and a further 24 too close to call.

I am sure with teh google you can find more data to bolster your arguments. Rassmussen has found that in every crosstab Obama's electoral support beats Kerry's at this point in the campaign, in every one.

You can believe whatever you want but facts aren't convinced.
by Exiled on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:38:25 AM EST

The Article Jerome Quotes ... (2.00 / 2)

... also had the following quote regarding possible running mates:

"There are a lot of women apoplectic at the discussion of Bob Barr and Chuck Hagel," said Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women.

Bob Barr?

I guess I've missed the "discussion" that Obama might pick Bob Barr.


by Collideascope on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:51:37 AM EST

Re: Another VP thread (none / 0)

Jerome--for once I totally agree with you! kaine!


by wasder on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:59:28 AM EST

Re: Another VP thread (2.00 / 1)

"Obama is definitely the weakest nominee that Democrats have put up this decade."

This needs to be put into a time machine and revisited come November 5th (or whatever the date is the day after the election). I suspect strongly this will look pretty foolish. But if not it will be a sad day, but Jerome will look smart. Wouldn't bet on that right now though.


by wasder on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:05:50 AM EST

Re: Another VP thread (2.00 / 1)

Whats sad is that it will look even more foolish than his predictions that HRC would win the nomination after Obama had been dominating the primaries in the spring.

It seems to me that Jerome gets his news/views from the right now, since all the anti-Obama points he spews here now are simply slightly rephrased talking points from communities like RedState that are hopelessly trying to convince themselves that they have a better candidate.


by sorrodos on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 12:26:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another VP thread (2.00 / 5)

Congrats Jerome...  you pissed away the last of your credibility.  Thank god Bowers is 50 times better than you at this... his analysis proves just how wrong, biased (biased against Obama... don't want that mistaken for something else which I DON'T THINK you are) and jaded you have become.  You've been bitter since Warner dropped out and it still hasn't let up.

How about tuck the bitterness away, lets win this thing and then you can bitch all you want.  Otherwise, do us all a favor, DON'T be part of the problem and kindly stop posting until after the election or post on topics NOT related to the Presidential election.  You have proven you can't do it without saying things are bad for Obama.  


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:27:57 AM EST

Re: Another VP thread (2.00 / 1)

Dude, as an obama supporter, nothing you said made me mad.  Just, utterly baffled, because you managed to completely contradict your earlier post in which you said you didn't Care whether or not Clinton was VP.

Seriously are you just, lying, or schizo?  

Oh and by the way, Pro-tip!

When you say "In order to understand why I am right, please imagine i am right, and then imagine a doomsday scenario!  Scary huh?!"  You don't convince anyone.

By saying "Imagine Bush had 45% approval rating," you are proving.. absolutely nothing.

Why don't you do real Analysis like Nate over at Five Thirty Eight?

Good lord, Jerome, why do you keep posting if all you can do is make unfound assertions, misinterpret charts (accidentally, and then pretend you knew it all along), and try to talk-down our Democratic Nominee.

BS, you are Partisan enough to support whoever wins.

You don't support Obama.  You pray every day he's going to lose.

Give your site over to someone who isn't considering becoming a freeper.  Good lord.


by mrrara on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:51:18 AM EST

Cut off your nose to spite your face (2.00 / 0)

Look, even Gloria Steinhem has now come out and endorsed Obama.  I will admit, I do have some issues with the older second wave feminists.  Many of them have bordered on homophobic with their tirades against porn in the 80s.  They gleefully joined up with the most right wing of right-wingers like Edwin Meese in the 80s, to eliminate anything that could be considered obscene (something often used by right wingers to gay-bash).

Now, if these second-wave feminists are so pissed that they are going to vote for McCain, it would just be the cherry on top to show that they really don't practive or believe what they preach.    If John McCain is elected, the Supreme court will definitely tilt enough to overturn Roe.  And it might not just be an overturn but an interpretation that uses the 14th Amendment to ban all abortion.   They would probably also overturn Title IX.

I am not doubting that some of these people exist.  Just take a look at the posts by Jeralyn, Armondo and the rest of the anti-Obama echo chamber over at talkleft and you can see that.


by gavoter on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:58:48 AM EST

Re: Another VP thread (2.00 / 2)

Obama is definitely the weakest nominee that Democrats have put up this decade.

Jerome, whatever you're smoking, please hook me up with your dealer because that's some powerful stuff.

Obama is the strongest nominee we've put up since either Clinton or Kennedy, depending on whether you think Ross Perot pulled more votes from Republicans or Democrats.


Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics
by BishopRook on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:00:25 AM EST

i totally agree Jerome (2.00 / 1)

I'm still having a hard time "getting over it".  I want to.  I know the ramifications.....it's bigger than just one nominee... etc. etc.  Sometimes the heart is just stronger than the head.  All of this "seat all the Mich/Fla delegates" talk- combined with Bill's obvious hurt feelings- brings back the hurt feelings in me (not that they had ever really faded).  Rational people can argue both sides to the argument of who was treated fairly- what the "rules" were- and how things should've ended in the nomination.  The real truth is that like it or not- there are many dejected democrats (I know, I'm one of them).  It has a lot more to do with the PROCESS than it does Obama or Clinton.  In THEORY- I should love Obama.  In reality?  Not so much.  I just feel as though his campaign is arrogant and he is inexperienced.  I know, i know- this will piss people off.  I'm just being real.  Does this make me like McCain?  HELL NO!  I'm just completely without inspiration. I feel as though choosing Clinton would help to heal all the wounds of the primaries.  It's his choice- and I respect it- but I just really hope he has the audacity to choose the best VP candidate.
Also- it doesn't help to hear people argue why we should "get over it" or how he "doesn't need us", etc.  I know it's human nature- but better left unsaid. I REALIZE that Obama is a better candidate than McCain- that still doesn't make me like him.  

by easyE on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:06:54 AM EST

On the Flip Side (2.00 / 0)

Do you really believe that the situation would not be the same in reverse?   This is what infuriates me.  This argument that there would be no dejected Democrats if Hillary were the nominee.  That everyone would come together and sing Kumbaya.  

And I don't buy the argument that giving her the number 2 spot would solve anything.   Even Gloria Steinhem stated this.  If anything, I beieve it would only make things worse because all of her supporters would be furious that she were not at the top of the ticket.  That she would have to do exactly what Obama wanted her to do.  That she could not speak her mind independently.  I feel it would heal none of the 'wounds' of the primary.

The VP is not an independent position.  While Cheney may be powerful, he has in no way ever undermined Bush.  Gore was the same way, everything he did was to enhance Bill Clinton.  Hillary as VP would never work under Obama.

I know you feel Obama is arraogant, and that is valid.  I hope you can also accept that I feel Hillary is self-aggrandizing, selfish and incincere.  As dejected as you feel now, I would feel the same way were she the nominee.  

Now, this gets to the biggest difference in the parties.  As much as many Republicans hate McCain, they are no longer attacking him.   During the primaries I saw a lot of Republican Anti-McCain Bumper stickers, and they are all gone now.   On the other hand, the Democratic attacks on Obama have only increased since June, and I have no doubt they will get even louder this fall.   This is why Democrats have trouble breaking 50% in national elections.


by gavoter on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:39:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the Flip Side (2.00 / 1)

Of course there were going to be dejected Democrats regardless of which candidate won. The difference is that Hillary Clinton was clear the Obama would be her VP, she would have moved quickly and aggressively to unite the party. She would have immediately put an end to the media psychodrama of "how does Obama feel? Is she going to help him out? Does she know she needs his coalition?"

Obama sees things differently. He has been more interested in reaching out to conservatives and evangelicals that he has in uniting the party.


by souvarine on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 12:10:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the Flip Side (