Guest American Woman Posted May 29, 2008 Report Posted May 29, 2008 Wesley Clark would be a good choice. Quote
Argus Posted June 1, 2008 Report Posted June 1, 2008 Wesley Clark would be a good choice. How about Al Sharpton? That would certainly get noticed. LOL Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
BubberMiley Posted June 1, 2008 Report Posted June 1, 2008 How about Al Sharpton? That would certainly get noticed. LOL That's unlikely. Although Sharpton has a lot to offer, I think two black men on the ticket would be a little too much change all at once. I expect Edwards again. Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
Leafless Posted June 1, 2008 Report Posted June 1, 2008 How about Al Sharpton? That would certainly get noticed. LOL Only if it was daytime. Quote
BubberMiley Posted June 1, 2008 Report Posted June 1, 2008 Only if it was daytime. Hilarious. Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
Shady Posted June 3, 2008 Report Posted June 3, 2008 He'd be a total fool! Given Hillary's personality, she'd likely constantly try to exceed her station and attempt to run the country!Every day would be a fight. Not true. Under the American Constitution, the VP has very limited powers. One can't exceed what one doesn't have. And if she tried, she'd look like a fool.Anyways, it's pretty clear, especially after this weekend, Obama HAS to pick Hillary for VP. Quote
sharkman Posted June 5, 2008 Report Posted June 5, 2008 (edited) Not so fast. It appears that Obama is distancing himself from her. Today's reports are playing up the unverifiable point that Obama learned from the media of Hillary's decision to drop out. Now, why would Obama allow that report to be released if he was interested in choosing her? Too bad for the democrat party, that would be a dream team capable of causing the wishy washy center moderates to swoon. Obama, pride comes before a fall. Edited June 5, 2008 by sharkman Quote
HisSelf Posted June 5, 2008 Report Posted June 5, 2008 Not true. Under the American Constitution, the VP has very limited powers. One can't exceed what one doesn't have. And if she tried, she'd look like a fool.Anyways, it's pretty clear, especially after this weekend, Obama HAS to pick Hillary for VP. You are right about the constitution, but then there is the political thing where people, given a platform, use it to push their own agendas. I think that Clinton's attempt to push herself into the VP role, going over Obama's head through the press, was a big mistake and I would not be surprised if Obama saw this as a sign of what would be in store for him if he took her on as running mate. Quote ...
Kanadees Posted June 5, 2008 Report Posted June 5, 2008 (edited) Any ideas? Obama would be a fool to choose anyone but Richardson. Southern and Latino vote sewn up right there. Hillary - if he wants to look over his shoulder all the time. Edited June 5, 2008 by Kanadees Quote
HisSelf Posted June 5, 2008 Report Posted June 5, 2008 Obama would be a fool to choose anyone but Richardson.Southern and Latino vote sewn up right there. Hillary - if he wants to look over his shoulder all the time. Now that's a good idea! I'll bet Richardson is on the short list. Quote ...
Rue Posted June 5, 2008 Report Posted June 5, 2008 You're all wrong! It's going to be Senator Jim Webb of Virginia. He's the best choice to balance the ticket, since he's a military man who served in Defense Dept. under the Reagan Administration, has strong support among those so called "Reagan Democrats" that are needed by John McCain, if he actually has a hope in hades of winning the election. And even better, the Senate Bill to improve veterans benefits that he's sponsored and has just passed in the Senate, shines a little light on how the Bush Administration and Republicans in general, care nothing for the military other than how to use them for political advantage! Here's John McCain, following Bush's example of posing in front of tanks and soldiers every chance he gets AND HE REJECTS A BILL TO ALLOW VETERANS THE SAME OPPORTUNITY THAT WWII VETERANS HAD WITH THE G.I. BILL! McCain says he's afraid that they won't re-enlist and go off and die in Iraq, if they have the opportunity to go to college! McCain is no different than Bush and most of the other Republicans who see soldiers as pawns to play in the global chess game and nothing more. If Webb is on the ticket, John McCain's bogus concern for the troops is exposed for all to see! I personally think you are dead on. I guess we shall find out in August. Quote
August1991 Posted June 5, 2008 Author Report Posted June 5, 2008 Anyways, it's pretty clear, especially after this weekend, Obama HAS to pick Hillary for VP.Politics is a strange game but I would be very, very surprised if Obama chose Hillary and I'd be even more surprised if she accepted. (Then again, Mulroney made Clark his MFA.)Hillary won't be a running mate on a losing ticket and I reckon that she is now aiming for 2012. Her staff has already told Obama's staff that she will offer her full support in the fall. I'll bet she's even committed to about 60 engagements. Quote
BubberMiley Posted June 6, 2008 Report Posted June 6, 2008 The futures market on the presidential election shows McCain dropping like a stone and, for the first time, Obama over $60 for a $100 return in November should he win http://www.intrade.com I think McCain's speech the other night showed just how easy this campaign will be for Obama. Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
Shady Posted June 6, 2008 Report Posted June 6, 2008 The futures market on the presidential election shows McCain dropping like a stone and, for the first time, Obama over $60 for a $100 return in November should he win http://www.intrade.com I think McCain's speech the other night showed just how easy this campaign will be for Obama. Not at all. Obama will get a bump in the polls, and therefore a bump in the futures market from his mini-convention on tuesday, and all the positive media attention that followed. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 6, 2008 Report Posted June 6, 2008 Not at all. Obama will get a bump in the polls, and therefore a bump in the futures market from his mini-convention on tuesday, and all the positive media attention that followed. Agreed....hugs and kisses today mean nothing. The ebb and flow of the general election campaign is yet to come. Mike Dukakis thought he had it "in the bag" too. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Kanadees Posted June 6, 2008 Report Posted June 6, 2008 Nobody had the nerve as yet to mention: James Cone, Jeremiah Wright, William C. Ayers, Dwight Hopkins, Rashid Khalidi, Louis Farrakhan, Bernadine Dohrn, Michael Pfleger, James Meeks, Otis Moss. Quote
BubberMiley Posted June 6, 2008 Report Posted June 6, 2008 Not at all. Obama will get a bump in the polls, and therefore a bump in the futures market from his mini-convention on tuesday, and all the positive media attention that followed. Yes, but he's been consistently higher than McCain throughout the campaign. Only in the immediate aftermath of the Wright scandal did his numbers even approach McCain's. The futures market is one of the most accurate predictors of the political climate. People don't let their ideology get in the way of making some cash. Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
August1991 Posted June 6, 2008 Author Report Posted June 6, 2008 Yes, but he's been consistently higher than McCain throughout the campaign. Only in the immediate aftermath of the Wright scandal did his numbers even approach McCain's.The futures market is one of the most accurate predictors of the political climate. People don't let their ideology get in the way of making some cash. These markets may have been a good predictor in the past but I doubt that they are now. We are on the cusp of the first Internet election (just like 1960 was the first TV election). I tried to register with another site (and make some money) but it involved too many complications so I didn't bother. It appeared to be run by a university. I'll try with Intrade but these markets are thin and subject to gaming. They also appeal to the Obama voter. Quote
August1991 Posted June 7, 2008 Author Report Posted June 7, 2008 Bubble, I registered with Intrade and I'm about to do a trade. The asks on McCain amount to several hundred contracts at varying prices in the 30/40s. IOW, with about $50,000, it would be easy to game this market. I have no idea if that is what is happening. For all I know, many young Internet savvy, Ron Paul style fan boys are actively talking up Obama. Whatever the case, I'll be happy to relieve them of their cash. As my sister always says, if someone wants to give me $500, who am I to refuse? Quote
BubberMiley Posted June 8, 2008 Report Posted June 8, 2008 Bet the rent. Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
peter_puck Posted June 11, 2008 Report Posted June 11, 2008 Nobody had the nerve as yet to mention:James Cone, Jeremiah Wright, William C. Ayers, Dwight Hopkins, Rashid Khalidi, Louis Farrakhan, Bernadine Dohrn, Michael Pfleger, James Meeks, Otis Moss. Jeremiah Wright has been played to death. Louis Farrakhan ...... come on Michael Pfleger was a guest speaker at the church! A guest speaker! Obama was not there. Has Obama ever endorsed their views ? NO. It fact he has stated he disagreed with them. This is guilt by association gone to bizzare lengths. McCain would want to stick to the issues because when you play the guilt by association game, his connections to Bush are a bigger liability than what some guest speaker said in a church on some day he wasn't there. (here I mean perceived connections - obviously McCain hates Bush more than I do - I don't wish Bush a "special place in hell") Quote
jbg Posted June 11, 2008 Report Posted June 11, 2008 Not true. Under the American Constitution, the VP has very limited powers. One can't exceed what one doesn't have. And if she tried, she'd look like a fool.Anyways, it's pretty clear, especially after this weekend, Obama HAS to pick Hillary for VP. Trouble with that is that it shuts out the "majority" groups in the country.The election atmospherics are awful. Just ask Walter Mondale and Geraldine Ferraro. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.