Who will be Obama's Vice President? - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

jorgelito · 06-05-2008, 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Congressional Quarterly has made it a spectator sport.

Choose the best VP candidate in head-to-head matchups of 32-person field:

VP Madness

The people's choice to be revealed on July 1.

View the Republican results.

At the very least, the CQ attempt at gaming the selection process provides snapshot profiles of the potential running mates for both Obama and McCain.

Cool link DC, thanks for sharing. There are some wild choices there. I was going to mention Colin Powell earlier but was afraid of getting a verbal lashing from the board here. But I think he's a real long shot if not downright impossibility. Wesley Clark is an interesting choice too.

Willravel · 06-05-2008, 08:20 AM

For anyone who thinks the VP is an unimportant role, 2 words: Dick Cheney.

pan6467 · 06-05-2008, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

For anyone who thinks the VP is an unimportant role, 2 words: Dick Cheney.

That's for a weak minded president that had no idea what he was doing.... are you saying that Obama will be as easily led by his VP. If so then there are problems.

I don't see Obama giving his VP "Dick Cheney" type power. Fr him the VP will be a figurehead in name only.

With McCain, his VP will probably be president. So, his selection will be of more importance to me than Obama's.

Willravel · 06-05-2008, 10:15 AM

Obama isn't a weak man, but sometimes it's difficult to tell who will and who won't be a "weak president". Had Gore been more assertive, Bill Clinton may have been a weaker president.

FoolThemAll · 06-05-2008, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tully Mars

I've known people like this. I know lots of people who still think the war was a good idea. Seemingly intelligent people who simply think it was a good idea. It boggles my mind. But the number of people I know who still support it has certainly waned lately. I'm beginning to wonder just how many of these folks simply can not and will not admit they were wrong.

End threadjack.

Gee, I can't imagine why you weren't able to change their minds. Must've been some flaw with them.

Tully Mars · 06-05-2008, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FoolThemAll

Gee, I can't imagine why you weren't able to change their minds. Must've been some flaw with them.

And you assume I'm making an effort to change their minds why?

FoolThemAll · 06-05-2008, 10:54 AM

Well, given your move to state a matter of value judgment as a unquestionably decided fact... I don't know why I assume that. Sorry, my mistake.

But hey, if you ever feel the need to strengthen their pro-war resolve, increase their hidden and/or unhidden stubbornness, and give them the warranted impression that dogmatism is not solely a feature of the pro-war side... you need only repeat what you said here verbatim. Good work!

Tully Mars · 06-05-2008, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

Obama isn't a weak man, but sometimes it's difficult to tell who will and who won't be a "weak president". Had Gore been more assertive, Bill Clinton may have been a weaker president.

I always thought Gore had more power then was widely reported. I feel like Cheney is almost an end result of a long line of ever increasing VP power within the E. branch.

Willravel · 06-05-2008, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FoolThemAll

Well, given your move to state a matter of value judgment as a unquestionably decided fact... I don't know why I assume that. Sorry, my mistake.

Fact: those supporting the war were in err. Of that there is no doubt.

Daniel_ · 06-05-2008, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

I'd like to see Sherrod Brown or Oho Gov. Strickland take the nod. Edwards, Webb. But in all honesty, the VP is just such a figurehead that it really doesn't mean that much in my voting determination. Tho any of those 4 may at least have me looking at Obama and considering him.

Realistically, I think just as with McCain the French Fry, the VP candidate has already been chosen by the power people in the party.

I really do not have see much to be hopeful for in either candidate nor do I have faith either will do much.

In fact, that maybe why the field was truly so weak on both sides. You have an unfavorable war, a dying economy, optimism is at a low and a country with its people so far indebted to the rest of the world that we may see a serious problem.

Now, blaming Bush will only work for so long, especially if for those voting for Obama believing he can save the country.

I see a severe reverse in 2 years in Congess and an extremely unpopular president who has lost all faith of the people.

I wish I could be optimistic again.... but I just don't see a positive change coming.

Sounds like JFK all over again. If he'd not been shot, he was headign for being a very unpopular guy indeed, as I understand it.

SecretMethod70 · 06-05-2008, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Congressional Quarterly has made it a spectator sport.

Choose the best VP candidate in head-to-head matchups of 32-person field:

VP Madness

The people's choice to be revealed on July 1.

View the Republican results.

At the very least, the CQ attempt at gaming the selection process provides snapshot profiles of the potential running mates for both Obama and McCain.

Ah, I love CQ

djtestudo · 06-05-2008, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by abaya

Well, that would pretty much summarize it. They're mostly average humans, after all.

What I don't get, though, is when some of the most intelligent people I know still chose to support Bush and even the war (back when it started). I was teaching US History to 11th graders in 2002-03, with another teacher in his 40s as my mentor. He was an INCREDIBLY smart man, knew FAR more about American history and how to teach it to hormonal teenagers than I will ever understand... I truly respect him at all levels. And yet, he was still 100% pro-war and pro-Bush, and felt it was the "right" thing to do. He is not evangelical (though he is a staunch Lutheran--Scandinavian roots), not really religious in that sense, one of the least prejudiced, fearful, gullible people I know... and he's chosen to make his career out of teaching, he lives a humble life, not greedy... so I don't get it. Eventually, he did come around and say that he thought the war was no longer a good idea (after some years), but I really never understood how a man like him could have thought it was a good idea in the first place.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tully Mars

I've known people like this. I know lots of people who still think the war was a good idea. Seemingly intelligent people who simply think it was a good idea. It boggles my mind. But the number of people I know who still support it has certainly waned lately. I'm beginning to wonder just how many of these folks simply can not and will not admit they were wrong.

End threadjack.

Because on every issue you can only be 100% right and 100% wrong, and if you aren't on a certain side you can have your very intellegence called into question.

Good way of thinking about things.

Tully Mars · 06-05-2008, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djtestudo

Because on every issue you can only be 100% right and 100% wrong, and if you aren't on a certain side you can have your very intellegence called into question.

Good way of thinking about things.

I don't think that's true. There are a lot of gray issues in the world and in everyday life. The current war in Iraq simply isn't one of them. It was a dumb idea to begin with and it's handling has been, at times, criminal.

FoolThemAll · 06-05-2008, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

Fact: those supporting the war were in err. Of that there is no doubt.

That's a mind-numbingly silly thing to say.

Willravel · 06-05-2008, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FoolThemAll

That's a mind-numbingly silly thing to say.

Reality may seem silly at times, but that makes it no more real.

SecretMethod70 · 06-05-2008, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tully Mars

I don't think that's true. They're are a lot of gray issues in the world and in everyday life. The current war in Iraq simply isn't one of them. It was a dumb idea to begin with and it's handling has been, at times, criminal.

You're not accounting for how closely the information was controlled leading up to the war. People who supported the war because "Iraq was behind 9/11"...they were wrong from the beginning, because it was very clear that that wasn't the case. The question of WMD's, though, was less clear, at least in the US media. Because of the way the issue was framed, both sides sounded reasonable and people had to decide which they believed more. I'd agree with you if the media had done its job better and made it more clear that the evidence was weak, but they didn't. Not everyone has the time or inclination to assume that they must go to non-US media sources to get a more accurate picture. Now... that has changed due to experience, but in 2003 that wasn't the case.

Continuing to support the war is a more clear cut issue...

only it isn't.

No question, it's going terribly, and "staying the course" is not an option. That said, the Powell Doctrine is very compelling. We broke it. There's a very healthy debate to be had regarding whether it's better for the Iraqi's for us to stay (though considerably alter our strategy), or for us to just leave. But I do think that that's where the discussion needs to be centered: what's best for the Iraqi's, and what do they want, not what's best for us. It sucks that the Bush administration got us into this mess, but that doesn't mean we can just pretend like we're not the country that is, in a large part, responsible for where Iraq is right now.

Personally, I think a responsible withdrawal is best, but that's largely because we're incapable of committing the time and resources necessary to fix the mess we've created. Because, at this point, we need to treat this like a whole new war if we're going to stick around, and we don't have the forces or the money for that.

jorgelito · 06-05-2008, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SecretMethod70

You're not accounting for how closely the information was controlled leading up to the war. People who supported the war because "Iraq was behind 9/11"...they were wrong from the beginning, because it was very clear that that wasn't the case. The question of WMD's, though, was less clear, at least in the US media. Because of the way the issue was framed, both sides sounded reasonable and people had to decide which they believed more. I'd agree with you if the media had done its job better and made it more clear that the evidence was weak, but they didn't. Not everyone has the time or inclination to assume that they must go to non-US media sources to get a more accurate picture. Now... that has changed due to experience, but in 2003 that wasn't the case.

I'm not sure it was necessarily the media's fault per se, but rather, more of a misleading information campaign by the administration.

For me, at first I supported action, that is until Hans Blix came back empty handed and I thought, "Whew, that's great, now we don't need to invade." Then, the whole thing just went to crap.

In the end, people will believe what they want to believe.

FoolThemAll · 06-05-2008, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

Reality may seem silly at times, but that makes it no more real.

Well then, by all means, provide a citation that shows we should never intervene militarily for purposes of removing a dictator, and/or for nation-building, and/or for preventing Iraq-sized injustices in other countries.

While you're at it, could you find me a citation on why green is a much better color than pink?

Before you go and waste time on google, here's a hint: facts can do much to describe the quality of execution, but they're nigh useless with the quality of intention.

SecretMethod70 · 06-05-2008, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jorgelito

I'm not sure it was necessarily the media's fault per se, but rather, more of a misleading information campaign by the administration.

For me, at first I supported action, that is until Hans Blix came back empty handed and I thought, "Whew, that's great, now we don't need to invade." Then, the whole thing just went to crap.

In the end, people will believe what they want to believe.

You're right that it started with the administration, but 1) they used the media for that purpose and 2) the media allowed themselves to be used. Donohue is a great example of this: one of MSNBC's top rated shows at the time, cancelled because he was critical of the upcoming war. That's just one of many such stories. And now we get reports that the military analysts for the networks were being fed info by the Pentagon. I don't think the administration or the media is without blame.

Incidentally, I had about the same experience as you.

jorgelito · 06-05-2008, 01:39 PM

Oh sure, I definitely agree with you - the media (not without blame, just not sole blame), the administration are not mutually exclusive in responsibility.

Here is a sample of what I am referring too.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080605/...ntelligence_dc

Quote:

Bush misused Iraq intelligence: Senate report

By Randall Mikkelsen Thu Jun 5, 1:23 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush and his top policymakers misstated Saddam Hussein's links to terrorism and ignored doubts among intelligence agencies about Iraq's arms programs as they made a case for war, the Senate intelligence committee reported on Thursday.
ADVERTISEMENT

The report shows an administration that "led the nation to war on false premises," said the committee's Democratic Chairman, Sen. John Rockefeller of West Virginia. Several Republicans on the committee protested its findings as a "partisan exercise."

The committee studied major speeches by Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and other officials in advance of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003, and compared key assertions with intelligence available at the time.

Statements that Iraq had a partnership with al Qaeda were wrong and unsupported by intelligence, the report said.

It said that Bush's and Cheney's assertions that Saddam was prepared to arm terrorist groups with weapons of mass destruction for attacks on the United States contradicted available intelligence.

Such assertions had a strong resonance with a U.S. public, still reeling after al Qaeda's September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States. Polls showed that many Americans believed Iraq played a role in the attacks, even long after Bush acknowledged in September 2003 that there was no evidence Saddam was involved.

The report also said administration prewar statements on Iraq's weapons programs were backed up in most cases by available U.S. intelligence, but officials failed to reflect internal debate over those findings, which proved wrong.

PUBLIC CAMPAIGN

The long-delayed Senate study supported previous reports and findings that the administration's main cases for war -- that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and was spreading them to terrorists -- were inaccurate and deeply flawed.

"The president and his advisors undertook a relentless public campaign in the aftermath of the (September 11) attacks to use the war against al Qaeda as a justification for overthrowing Saddam Hussein," Rockefeller said in written commentary on the report.

"Representing to the American people that the two had an operational partnership and posed a single, indistinguishable threat was fundamentally misleading and led the nation to war on false premises."

A statement to Congress by then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld that the Iraqi government hid weapons of mass destruction in facilities underground was not backed up by intelligence information, the report said. Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon said Rumsfeld's comments should be investigated further, but he stopped short of urging a criminal probe.

The committee voted 10-5 to approve the report, with two Republican lawmakers supporting it. Sen. Christopher Bond of Missouri and three other Republican panel members denounced the study in an attached dissent.

"The committee finds itself once again consumed with political gamesmanship," the Republicans said. The effort to produce the report "has indeed resulted in a partisan exercise." They said, however, that the report demonstrated that Bush administration statements were backed by intelligence and "it was the intelligence that was faulty."

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said: "We had the intelligence that we had, fully vetted, but it was wrong. We certainly regret that and we've taken measures to fix it."

PUBLIC SUPPORT

U.S. public opinion on the war, supportive at first, has soured, contributing to a dive in Bush's popularity.

The conflict is likely to be a key issue in the November presidential election between Republican John McCain, who supports the war, and Democrat Barack Obama, who opposed the war from the start and says he would aim to pull U.S. troops out within 16 months of taking office in January 2009.

Rockefeller has announced his support for Obama.

The administration's record in making its case for Iraq has also been cited by critics of Bush's get-tough policy on Iran. They accuse Bush of overstating the potential threat of Iran's nuclear program in order to justify the possible use of force.

A second report by the committee faulted the administration's handling of December 2001 Rome meetings between defense officials and Iranian informants, which dealt with the Iran issue. It said department officials failed to share intelligence from the meeting, which Rockefeller said demonstrated a "fundamental disdain" for other intelligence agencies.

Folks, it's starting to look like Hillary may not be in consideration nor is she looking to be the Veep.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080605/ap_on_el_pr/clinton

Quote:

By BETH FOUHY, Associated Press Writer 44 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Hillary Rodham Clinton on Thursday disavowed efforts by some supporters who have urged Barack Obama to choose her as his running mate. The push-back came a day after the former first lady said she would end her quest for the Democratic nomination and endorse the Illinois senator.
ADVERTISEMENT

"She is not seeking the vice presidency, and no one speaks for her but her," communications director Howard Wolfson said. "The choice here is Senator Obama's and his alone."

Clinton was planning an event in Washington Saturday to thank supporters and urge them to back Obama's candidacy. But as she was bowing out of the race, supporters in Congress and elsewhere were ramping up a campaign to pressure him to put her on the ticket in the No. 2 spot.

Bob Johnson, the billionaire founder of Black Entertainment Television and a Clinton supporter, sent a letter to the Congressional Black Caucus Wednesday urging the group to encourage Obama to choose Clinton as his vice presidential pick. He said he was doing so with her blessing.

Obama is seeking to become the first black president.

Clinton has told other friends and supporters she would be willing to be Obama's running mate. But her immediate task is bringing her own presidential bid to a close.

In an e-mail to supporters, the New York senator said she "will be speaking on Saturday about how together we can rally the party behind Senator Obama. The stakes are too high and the task before us too important to do otherwise."

Clinton expressed the same sentiment in a conference call with 40 members of her national finance committee, whom she urged to begin raising money for Obama and for the Democratic National Committee.

"She was in good spirits and totally supportive, without qualification, of Senator Obama and his campaign," finance co-chairman Alan Patricof said of the call.

It was a shift in tone by the former first lady, who announced 17 months ago that she was "in it to win it." Many of her supporters want her as the vice presidential candidate, in their minds a "dream ticket" that would bring Obama her enthusiastic legions and broaden his appeal to white and working-class voters.

But Obama indicated he intends to take his time making a decision.

"We're not going to be rushed into it. I don't think Senator Clinton expects a quick decision and I don't even know that she's necessarily interested in that," Obama told NBC in an interview.

Clinton's move to formally declare that she is backing the Illinois senator came after Democratic congressional colleagues made clear they had no stomach for a protracted intraparty battle. Now that Obama has secured the 2,118 delegates necessary to clinch the nomination, Clinton had little choice but to end her quest, and sooner rather than later.

Some of Clinton's closest supporters — the nearly two dozen House Democrats from her home state of New York — switched their endorsements to Obama Thursday.

The public announcement from the 23 New York followed two days of private phone calls weighing her options.

"She was just as spunky as ever," Rep. Charlie Rangel said of Clinton's mood on the calls, as her friends and supporters urged her to come to a decision "sooner rather than later."

Many of the lawmakers said it was important for them, as New Yorkers who are close to Clinton and helped launch her presidential bid, to work together to repair some of the rifts in the party.

"We're Democrats. Dammit to hell we fight. When it's over, we come together and go out there to win," said Rangel, the dean of the New York delegation.

The New Yorkers, said Rep. Gregory Meeks, have a duty "to lead this transition" to full party support of Obama.

Another of Clinton's most prominent supporters, Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland, also announced his "wholehearted and enthusiastic support" for Obama Thursday.

The move to end her campaign came Tuesday, when Clinton told House Democrats during a private conference call that she would get behind Obama's candidacy and congratulate him for gathering the necessary delegates to be the party's nominee.

The only degree of uncertainty was how. Clinton is exploring options to retain her delegates and promote her issues, including a signature call for universal health care.

The announcement closed an epic five-month nominating battle pitting the first serious female candidate against the most viable black contender ever.

Obama on Tuesday night secured the delegates needed to clinch the Democratic nomination. But Clinton stopped short of acknowledging that milestone, defiantly insisting she was better positioned to defeat McCain in November.

"What does Hillary want? What does she want?" Clinton asked, hours after telling supporters she'd be open to joining Obama as his vice presidential running mate.

But by Wednesday, other Democrats made it abundantly clear they wanted something too: a swift end to the often bitter nominating contest.

Her decision to acquiesce caught many in her campaign by surprise and left them scrambling to finalize the logistics and specifics behind her campaign departure.

You know, I think there are plenty of other areas in which Hillary can serve and do very well actually. A cabinet position certainly but I kind of like her in the Senate. Maybe even as Senate Majority Leader. I think that would suit her well. Attorney General is another possible position. I don't think Supreme Court Justice would be good for her at all.

The Dems really need to secure their positions in Congress if Obama is to have success in the White House. To me, the Congressional placements will be the most interesting thing to watch this November. I would like to see more independents, 3rd party members get elected too.

Tully Mars · 06-05-2008, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jorgelito

Folks, it's starting to look like Hillary may not be in consideration nor is she looking to be the Veep.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080605/ap_on_el_pr/clinton

You know, I think there are plenty of other areas in which Hillary can serve and do very well actually. A cabinet position certainly but I kind of like her in the Senate. Maybe even as Senate Majority Leader. I think that would suit her well. Attorney General is another possible position. I don't think Supreme Court Justice would be good for her at all.

The Dems really need to secure their positions in Congress if Obama is to have success in the White House. To me, the Congressional placements will be the most interesting thing to watch this November. I would like to see more independents, 3rd party members get elected too.

That's good news. Both about the Veep situation and a post in this thread about it.

I don't see Hillary over taking Reid in the majority position, but it could happen. I certainly don't see her doing worse then Reid. And I could see her being AG.

If she is indeed out of contention who do you think is at the top of his short list?

ratbastid · 06-05-2008, 02:03 PM

Why does every thread devolve into this "justification for war" talk, recently?

jorgelito · 06-05-2008, 02:10 PM

Tully, I think that's kind of the fun isn't it? No one really knows. If I worked in an office I would make an office betting pool. It may sound funny, but the way this race has been shaping up really makes me feel like part of the process. People are talking, deliberating, discussing - it's good for us really.

I think the Veep job is wide open. Looking at the CQ site made me dizzy, so many people I never even thought of.

Intuitively, I would think a person of experience, a familiar face that the people really like, maybe someone from the south, a bit more moderate, and notable/respected. Good gosh, could it be...Ted Kennedy? He sort of fits the bill. A solid Democrat, experienced, a Kennedy name, white, older, could be a good choice. Not very moderate though, but hey, this is the Democratic party. Wesley Clark is intriguing but he's been out of the spotlight for a while now, and I really don't know much about him other than he's a military man.

There definitely is a good opportunity here for the Democrats to make some strategic moves throughout the government at all levels, if they can unite and get organized enough. Then maybe our g'ovt can move forward agaon (just please oh please don't raise taxes).

The writing is on the wall.

SecretMethod70 · 06-05-2008, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jorgelito

(just please oh please don't raise taxes).

It's got to get worse before it gets better. I'm all for efficient government, but we've got lots of debts to make up for first.

loquitur · 06-05-2008, 02:29 PM

"don't tax you, don't tax me, tax that guy behind the tree.........."

FoolThemAll · 06-05-2008, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

Why does every thread devolve into this "justification for war" talk, recently?

abaya and Tully started it. Nyah.

Willravel · 06-05-2008, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FoolThemAll

Well then, by all means, provide a citation that shows we should never intervene militarily for purposes of removing a dictator, and/or for nation-building, and/or for preventing Iraq-sized injustices in other countries.

We didn't invade because there was a dictator or because Iraq once was dangerous. We invaded for two main reasons: WMDs and 9/11 links. Then that didn't pan out, so it was democracy. All three of those are massive and complete failures. Any reasons (excuses) made after that are moot. Those who supported the war did so based on incorrect information, therefore they were in err. It's no more or less complicated than that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FoolThemAll

While you're at it, could you find me a citation on why green is a much better color than pink?

I used to think I was smarter than everyone, too.
/threadjack

FoolThemAll · 06-05-2008, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

We didn't invade because there was a dictator or because Iraq once was dangerous. We invaded for two main reasons: WMDs and 9/11 links. Then that didn't pan out, so it was democracy. All three of those are massive and complete failures. Any reasons (excuses) made after that are moot. Those who supported the war did so based on incorrect information, therefore they were in err. It's no more or less complicated than that.

...so because the two main reasons were WMDs and 9/11, we're not allowed to have any other reasons? Or we're not allowed to consider any other reasons sufficient in and of themselves?

I don't think I need your permission.

Quote:

I used to think I was smarter than everyone, too.
/threadjack

Double threadjack with a nonsequitur on top? Neat.

ubertuber · 06-05-2008, 03:57 PM

Let's take this to another thread, please.

Tully Mars · 06-05-2008, 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jorgelito

Tully, I think that's kind of the fun isn't it? No one really knows. If I worked in an office I would make an office betting pool. It may sound funny, but the way this race has been shaping up really makes me feel like part of the process. People are talking, deliberating, discussing - it's good for us really.

I think the Veep job is wide open. Looking at the CQ site made me dizzy, so many people I never even thought of.

Intuitively, I would think a person of experience, a familiar face that the people really like, maybe someone from the south, a bit more moderate, and notable/respected. Good gosh, could it be...Ted Kennedy? He sort of fits the bill. A solid Democrat, experienced, a Kennedy name, white, older, could be a good choice. Not very moderate though, but hey, this is the Democratic party. Wesley Clark is intriguing but he's been out of the spotlight for a while now, and I really don't know much about him other than he's a military man.

There definitely is a good opportunity here for the Democrats to make some strategic moves throughout the government at all levels, if they can unite and get organized enough. Then maybe our g'ovt can move forward agaon (just please oh please don't raise taxes).

The writing is on the wall.

I do think it's fun.

Ted Kennedy? Hmm, not sure what to make of that statement?

I like both Clark and Webb. Webb could add that southern military blue collar accent to the ticket, IMO.

It's odd, thinking back on it, how quickly Hillary fell out of favor with me. It really wasn't that long ago I would have been very happy with Clinton/Obama or vise versa. Watching her campaign was like watching a train wreck. How could she not have a plan past Feb 5th? Why would her staff think she could simply win all the California delegates? The numbers really became impossible for her weeks ago. Even then I could have seen her as a viable option for his VP, though I was having serious doubts his campaign would agree. But I figured she could parlay her political capital into a spot if she wanted it. I went back and forth on this thinking why is she still running? It's hurting the party as a whole. But I suppose maybe at this point she needs to keep going to unite the party once the last primary is completed. After all the contests were over Tuesday and she announced she had decided not to decide what to do I thought, WTF? Umm, excuse me lady the voters decided. It's like she's completely disconnected from reality... and she wants to be the VP?

I think I'll be happy with who ever he ends up picking. But I do think it's time to choose somebody who won't, seemingly, make it their life's work to tell the other side of the aisle to go fuck themselves. Cheney, Rumsfield et el come to mind. All this "all or nothing, we want it our way and we'll stuff it down your throat to get" is getting us no where fast. Time to start listening to each other and actually solving some of the issues. The war continues on borrowed money, the economy is dropping like a rock-wasn't a rising econ. suppose to pay for all those tax cuts? I looked and I can't even find what is the current energy policy. While I have friends and family e-mailing me they can't afford to buy gas to get to work.

It's not too late, IMO. The US has a long history of stepping up to the plate and solving problems. But I don't see how we do that with more "us v. them." Bottom line is it's fast becoming one big fat shit sandwich and EVERYBODY going to have to take their bite. If Obama chooses a decent VP and gets to work it can be done. Hell I'm not so certain McCain might not be able to gets things going in the right direction, though obviously I prefer Obama. But it's going to take working together, not fighting against each other. If it is then the next Admin. is going to make Carter's look like a huge success.

jorgelito · 06-05-2008, 09:33 PM

I think you hit the theme right there: Unity and compromise. I am actually looking forward to the next administration whomever it may be.

You're right. It is time to get people on the same page and work together instead of sabotaging things for the sake of sabotaging things.

pan6467 · 06-05-2008, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel_

Sounds like JFK all over again. If he'd not been shot, he was headign for being a very unpopular guy indeed, as I understand it.

From what I understand, Kennedy wasn't the highest though of president before the assassination.

He had Johnson picked for him because Johnson was an extremely powerful senator and well liked man among his colleagues. Kennedy was not. Johnson was able to carry the South for Kennedy. Johnson and Kennedy hated each other immensely. Kennedy was unable to get anything done , then he was shot and Johnson was petty much handcuffed to follow through on the Kennedy visions.

That's what I have read and learned about that presidency.

abaya · 06-06-2008, 12:58 AM

Re: the comments on taxes...

Living in Iceland, paying 40% income tax and 24% sales tax, I am a BIG supporter of Americans needing to pay more taxes. We are allowed to be far too selfish, as a nation. I hope they DO raise taxes, as long as it goes to take care of our fellow citizens. I'm willing to pay it.

ratbastid · 06-06-2008, 04:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tully Mars

Ted Kennedy? Hmm, not sure what to make of that statement?

Yeah, I think his illness would probably rule him out. His prognosis is uncertain after his recent surgery, but a very optimistic best-case puts his lifespan at less than five years. If I were him, being Vice President is the LAST damn thing I'd want to do with my last years of life.

ASU2003 · 06-06-2008, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by abaya

Re: the comments on taxes...

Living in Iceland, paying 40% income tax and 24% sales tax, I am a BIG supporter of Americans needing to pay more taxes. We are allowed to be far too selfish, as a nation. I hope they DO raise taxes, as long as it goes to take care of our fellow citizens. I'm willing to pay it.

I'm ok in paying more for a balance budget, or for an improved infrastructure. And maybe even an emergency healthcare plan for all. But I don't think we need to be subsiding people's lifestyles unless they are going to work hard an improve themselves.

What about Caroline Kennedy? She is on his VP search team, but I think she would be a different choice and be interesting.

Brewmaniac · 06-07-2008, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

Wouldn't it be wise for Obama to pick someone with an extensive military and foreign policy background?

Excellent idea Will!

I don't see Obama winning if he doesn't do this!

ratbastid · 06-07-2008, 10:41 AM

Wes Clark provides those things, and would go a ways toward mending fence with the angry Hillary droids.

Upsides: VERY smart man, well thought-of, rich military experience. Certainly stronger on military, veteran, and foreign-policy than McCain.
Downsides: Not great on the stump, prone to intellectual rather than soundbyte-ready speech (which is, IMO, what killed Kerry)

Tully Mars · 06-07-2008, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

Wes Clark provides those things, and would go a ways toward mending fence with the angry Hillary droids.

Upsides: VERY smart man, well thought-of, rich military experience. Certainly stronger on military, veteran, and foreign-policy than McCain.
Downsides: Not great on the stump, prone to intellectual rather than soundbyte-ready speech (which is, IMO, what killed Kerry)

I like Clark a lot, but sadly I agree with you. In a world where everything is judged on how well you deliver a sound bite he might not be the best choice. He's freaking SMART and has a ton of experience, not solely military either.

Seems anymore the VP pick has to be the pit bull of the campaign. I think someone like Webb might not be a bad choice. His face as been out there, he used to be a GOP, has military experience up the wazoo (that's gotta hurt) and he's some what famous for telling Bush to politely, or not depending on your point of view, to go fuck himself. But I could also see him working with all sides to find real solutions to the mess we're in.

boink · 06-10-2008, 12:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

Wes Clark?

Imagine a West Point valedictorian and Rhodes Scholar against a damn-near-dropout plane-crashing albino chowderhead! Who's got military credibility now??

rotflmao

dirtyrascal7 · 06-10-2008, 04:17 PM

Not sure just how reliable this is, but here's a short list of names Obama's vetters are considering for VP (according to First Read).

Gen. James Jones, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, Evan Bayh, Kathleen Sebelius, Ted Strickland, Mark Warner, Tim Kaine, Jim Webb, Bill Nelson, Jack Reed, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Tom Daschle, and Sam Nunn.

06-05-2008, 10:54 AM	#47 (permalink)
FoolThemAll Walking is Still Honest Location: Seattle, WA	Well, given your move to state a matter of value judgment as a unquestionably decided fact... I don't know why I assume that. Sorry, my mistake. But hey, if you ever feel the need to strengthen their pro-war resolve, increase their hidden and/or unhidden stubbornness, and give them the warranted impression that dogmatism is not solely a feature of the pro-war side... you need only repeat what you said here verbatim. Good work! __________________ I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

06-05-2008, 03:57 PM	#69 (permalink)
ubertuber spudly Location: Ellay	Let's take this to another thread, please. __________________ Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

06-06-2008, 12:58 AM	#73 (permalink)
abaya Location: Iceland	Re: the comments on taxes... Living in Iceland, paying 40% income tax and 24% sales tax, I am a BIG supporter of Americans needing to pay more taxes. We are allowed to be far too selfish, as a nation. I hope they DO raise taxes, as long as it goes to take care of our fellow citizens. I'm willing to pay it. __________________ And think not you can direct the course of Love; for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course. --Khalil Gibran

06-10-2008, 04:17 PM	#80 (permalink)
dirtyrascal7 That's what she said	Not sure just how reliable this is, but here's a short list of names Obama's vetters are considering for VP (according to First Read). Gen. James Jones, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, Evan Bayh, Kathleen Sebelius, Ted Strickland, Mark Warner, Tim Kaine, Jim Webb, Bill Nelson, Jack Reed, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Tom Daschle, and Sam Nunn. __________________ "Tie yourself to your limitless potential, rather than your limiting past." "Every man I meet is my superior in some way. In that, I learn of him."

06-05-2008, 08:20 AM	#42 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	For anyone who thinks the VP is an unimportant role, 2 words: Dick Cheney.

06-05-2008, 10:15 AM	#44 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Obama isn't a weak man, but sometimes it's difficult to tell who will and who won't be a "weak president". Had Gore been more assertive, Bill Clinton may have been a weaker president.

06-05-2008, 02:03 PM	#62 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	Why does every thread devolve into this "justification for war" talk, recently?

06-05-2008, 02:10 PM	#63 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	Tully, I think that's kind of the fun isn't it? No one really knows. If I worked in an office I would make an office betting pool. It may sound funny, but the way this race has been shaping up really makes me feel like part of the process. People are talking, deliberating, discussing - it's good for us really. I think the Veep job is wide open. Looking at the CQ site made me dizzy, so many people I never even thought of. Intuitively, I would think a person of experience, a familiar face that the people really like, maybe someone from the south, a bit more moderate, and notable/respected. Good gosh, could it be...Ted Kennedy? He sort of fits the bill. A solid Democrat, experienced, a Kennedy name, white, older, could be a good choice. Not very moderate though, but hey, this is the Democratic party. Wesley Clark is intriguing but he's been out of the spotlight for a while now, and I really don't know much about him other than he's a military man. There definitely is a good opportunity here for the Democrats to make some strategic moves throughout the government at all levels, if they can unite and get organized enough. Then maybe our g'ovt can move forward agaon (just please oh please don't raise taxes). The writing is on the wall.

06-05-2008, 02:29 PM	#65 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	"don't tax you, don't tax me, tax that guy behind the tree.........."

06-05-2008, 09:33 PM	#71 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	I think you hit the theme right there: Unity and compromise. I am actually looking forward to the next administration whomever it may be. You're right. It is time to get people on the same page and work together instead of sabotaging things for the sake of sabotaging things.

06-07-2008, 10:41 AM	#77 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	Wes Clark provides those things, and would go a ways toward mending fence with the angry Hillary droids. Upsides: VERY smart man, well thought-of, rich military experience. Certainly stronger on military, veteran, and foreign-policy than McCain. Downsides: Not great on the stump, prone to intellectual rather than soundbyte-ready speech (which is, IMO, what killed Kerry)