News Clinton-Obama '08: Possible Historic Ticket?

[Ascetic Anchorite]

What's wrong with picking the lesser of two evils?

The lesser of two evils is still evil. It is time the two-party false paradigm was crushed.

 

[Evo]

I don't know enough about Obama, but I trust Gokul's opinion enough that if he's got that good of a track record, I'd vote more on his policies than demeanor. One of the things I hate about politics is the politicing.

 

[polar]

What's wrong with picking the lesser of two evils? Have you never done something you wished you didn't have to, but really didn't have better alternatives to pick from?

I guess I'm just more old fashioned, and a true believer that the filibuster, as practiced in the Senate, is an historical tribute to our freedom of speech, which shall never be curtailed, and it annoys me to hear it referred to as a "procedural maneuver". Symbolism used to be huge in this country, and I'm not sure all of it was bad.

But aside from my personal views, how does Alito ever get to the bench with 42 votes against him? This is just total nonsense, and it should never be possible, and statements like the one Obama made about this vote just serve as more disinformation. I think his statement is either stupid or dishonest, which is a lot different from making a choice between the lesser of two evils.

Or perhaps I just don't like the way that particular vote turned out, so I want someone to blame. But what he said sounds so stupid to me. It really does.

 

[gravenewworld]

Ross Perot>>Hillary Clinton

 

[Gokul43201]

I guess I'm just more old fashioned, and a true believer that the filibuster, as practiced in the Senate, is an historical tribute to our freedom of speech, which shall never be curtailed, and it annoys me to hear it referred to as a "procedural maneuver". Symbolism used to be huge in this country, and I'm not sure all of it was bad.

So, your objection to Obama is purely on the grounds of his philosophical discontentment with the process of filibuster. That is really something quite independent of the Alito confirmation, so let's make the positions clear.

But aside from my personal views, how does Alito ever get to the bench with 42 votes against him? This is just total nonsense, and it should never be possible, and statements like the one Obama made about this vote just serve as more disinformation. I think his statement is either stupid or dishonest, which is a lot different from making a choice between the lesser of two evils.

His voicing his opinion has morphed into promoting disinformation? Do you think some of the Alito opposers voted "aye" for cloture because they heard Obama's words and underwent an immediate philosophical about-turn? Would you be happier if he'd just kept quiet about his opinion? Would that have sat happily with your love for freedom of expression?

How did Alito make it to the bench with 42 opposing votes? Well, it was possible because there were at least 17 senators that expressed a stronger distaste for the filibuster than Obama did (including, I think, most of the Dems from the Midwest/South, Lieberman, Jeffords and Chafee). Or, more likely, they didn't want to look wimpy supporting an "action" that was, at the time, expected to fail. They were the reason the filibuster was defeated. Not Obama!

Now that I read some of the liberal bloggers bashing Obama for his opinion, I notice that they were also bashing him for foolishly expecting to win the majority in the 06 midterms. Hah! Of course, this is irrelevant to the topic, but as you admitted, I think you are blaming Obama because he was among the few that voiced an opinion at the time...and it appears a lot of the bloggers jumped on him for this and began bashing him. In the end, he voted both times, the way you wanted him to, and I see no logical inconsistency in his vote.

Recall how many years (decades?) it took for Civil Rights legislation to pass because of southern Democrats using the filibuster. You will also, no doubt accept that the filibuster, by definition, is a temporary paralysis of the Senate, whose members are paid out of tax dollars with the expectation that they do work, not recite the phonebook. And how often does the filibuster actually bring more meaningful debate - one of the prime reasons for its existence - to the issue at hand? To not recognize that there may be some negatives to the process of filibuster is silly, in my opinion. And to recognize that only under certain circumstances (one of these being the Alito confirmation), the positives outweigh the negatives, is at least thoughtful, even if not in concord with one's own personal philosophy.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military is a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

- Barack Obama, October, 2002
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16903253/page/2/

 

[polar]

- Barack Obama, October, 2002
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16903253/page/2/

He sure got that one right. And it does seem to be the most important thing.

 

[turbo]

Obama's statement regarding the upcoming war was nothing that realists like myself had not been writing to our newspapers and our elected representatives for months after Bush/Cheney started the saber-rattling. That Obama went on record publicly in this manner does him credit. It does not make him electable, nor is Clinton electable. The Republicans are hoping against hope that the Dems run Obama, Clinton, or even both, because there is no way that either of them could carry the South or the Western States, except possibly one or two pacific coast states. Republicans would be guaranteed another 4 years in the White House. Democrats need a huge dose of pragmatism if they want to win the presidency. Racism is very much alive and well in the deep South, killing Obama's chances, and Clinton and her husband have so polarized the electorate (with the help of years of neo-con attacks from the Republican party and hate radio) that she could never pull the volume of swing votes necessary to be elected. Any ticket containing Clinton or Obama in any configuration is at a disadvantage from the start.

A Gore-Edwards ticket has a chance, but I don't think the Democratic party has the vision to recognize the pragmatic choice. Right or wrong, there are a lot of Republican women (and some men) who would vote for a Democratic president who believes that we should work pro-actively to reduce pollution and keep the world safer for their children and grandchildren.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I understand what you are saying but the dems aren't stupid; and Obama certainly isn't. Obama wouldn't end up on a ticket if he couldn't possibly win. And it could be a matter of getting out the black and hispanic vote.

The demographics of the South are changing quickly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:USMapCommonAncestry2000.PNG

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This does make one wonder how Obama was so sure then others either weren't, or they perceived Saddam as a threat. But I think I know why. I think it was a case of cowardess on the part of the dems. Many knew that this was BS and that Bush was both reaching and rushing, but they were afraid of the Bush/Rove steamroller. They were afraid that speaking out would make them vunerable, so they acted to protect their butts. I remember thinking this at the time because the evidence presented to the UN was not compelling.

I don't know if he is electable, but Obama should play a major role in the next Presidency. We need men like him.

 

[turbo]

I don't know if he is electable, but Obama should play a major role in the next Presidency. We need men like him.

We need him in the Senate. We need an honest man who is not afraid to speak out and lead the liberal faction of that chamber of sheep. We also need real conservatives, not neocons for sale to the highest bidder, so the people have a choice. The difference between the average elected Republican and Democrat these days is like the difference between Time and Newsweek or Pepsi and Coke. We have very few real viable choices that are not beholden to the wealthy and powerful, to the detriment of the average US citizen and to our national good.

A term or two as Senate majority leader would let the US voters get to know him and help dampen the race issue so he has a shot at P/VP.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

We need him in the Senate.

Based on what I have seen so far I disagree. I want him as close to the President as possible. For example, the quote given is a great evidence of invaluable foreign policy insight.

 

[turbo]

Based on what I have seen so far I disagree. I want him as close to the President as possible. For example, the quote given is a great evidence of invaluable foreign policy insight.

I would love to take geopolitical issues out the the presidency, and put if back in the Senate, where it belongs.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

As for Hillary, it should be noted that like Obama, she is also very clean.

 

[verty]

I don't like how Hillary Clinton sounds when she speaks. I don't think she inspires confidence.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

As for Hillary, it should be noted that like Obama, she is also very clean.

It's about time you had a female president, but I don't think from what I've heard Hilary would make it as the front runner for the Democrats.

 

[turbo]

It's about time you had a female president, but I don't think from what I've heard Hilary would make it as the front runner for the Democrats.

Nope, unfortunately, she's carrying a lot of baggage. Rove et al would absolutely love to have her run. They'd give her a free ride until she got the nomination, then they would "Swift boat" her to death over her involvement in the health care reform project, Bill's marital infidelities, Vince Foster's death, financial dealings with Whitewater, and her husband's last minute pardon of convicted business partners. They would tar her with a very broad brush, as would their surrogates on hate radio, and she would never be able to fight it off and gain momentum. The Republicans would be guaranteed another 4 years in the White House. Unfortunately, she does not understand the damage that her candidacy would wreak on the Democratic party, and apparently her staff doesn't have the guts to urge pragmatism.

The US is ready for a woman president but not for Hillary Clinton as president. I think she could and would do a great job, if elected, but the chances of her pulling enough undecideds and cross-overs to win in the Electoral College are very, very poor even against a weak Republican candidate. If she gets the Dem nomination, expect the dirtiest, nastiest campaign ever.

 

[denverdoc]

I don't see her health care reform history as a liability, necessarily. The issues she tried to address are in some ways starker than ever.

 

[turbo]

I don't see her health care reform history as a liability, necessarily. The issues she tried to address are in some ways starker than ever.

It is not a liability with normal people, but the neocons paint this as socialism, despite the fact that most industrialized countries offer universal health-care coverage and regard it as a cost-saving enterprise. I am a liberal socially and a conservative financially, and I find it pretty hard to find a politician that I can vote for without holding my nose. Stay out of people's personal business, don't use tax money to fund "special" projects for contributors, and do not allow businesses to approach our government as if they were "super citizens" that have special access and special influence. Is it that hard to grasp? The constitution cedes all power to citizens, and administration after administration (THIS one in particular) has tried to deny us our power.

 

[denverdoc]

It is not a liability with normal people, but the neocons paint this as socialism, despite the fact that most industrialized countries offer universal health-care coverage and regard it as a cost-saving enterprise. I am a liberal socially and a conservative financially, and I find it pretty hard to find a politician that I can vote for without holding my nose. Stay out of people's personal business, don't use tax money to fund "special" projects for contributors, and do not allow businesses to address out government as "super citizens" that have special access and special influence. Is it that hard to grasp? The constitution cedes all power to citizens, and administration after administration (THIS one in particular) has tried to deny us our power.

Well, and maybe its wishful thinking, I believe the neocons have had their day in the sun and its setting. People may just be returning to their senses, and thinking about health care premiums, the costs of co-pays, etc. Back when Ms Clinton worked on the reform, the economy was thriving, employers were still shouldering much of the bill, etc. Its much different now, and we have a lot of people w/o any at all, and still more aware of this fact.

A single party payment system makes sense for all. As we speak, the average "overhead" in an HMO is > 20 percent. Medicare is around 3 percent. Thats nearly a 20 percent savings. And where there will be a hue and cry about restricting choices, this would actually open up the market. I won't participate in most HMO's because I either never get paid, or the costs to make sure I do, and hassle factor, make it unworthwhile. But I'm getting off thread, most folk are fed up. It could even be a significant plank of the platform.

One thing's for sure, we are headed for the dirtiest, most slander ridden election in history.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

A couple of things about Obama. First of all, I had been trying to think of the word that best describes what I felt as I watched Obama announcing from same steps as Lincoln. Even if I didn't care for Obama, the historic significance would still weigh heavily for me in all of this. It was certainly poetic, but for me it was more: It was a thing of beauty. How far we have come not just since the civil war, but even in the last fifty years.

I have family in Illinois. The other day I found out that my red-neck, racist cousin, LIKES Obama! I could hardly believe it; nor could his wife for that matter.

 

[denverdoc]

My opinion--any Clinton on either half of the ticket is both nauseating and a recipe for another smear campaign, ending in yet another Republican victory.

 

[Astronuc]

One of the things I hate about politics is the politicing.

Ah - Presidential material here.

With all of the experience managing GD and P&WA - why not the US government. Think of the possibilities!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Hillary is not a good public speaker. In fact, I found her to be very irritating when she tried to do Gospel-speak in Selma, Alabama.

I think she should let Bill give her speeches.

 

[denverdoc]

Hillary is strident--when she tried to pump the audience emotionally, I felt like flossing my brain with a bungee cord. She is just two left brained to capture enuf appeal. Watch while that campaign withers and dies over the next 1/2 year.

 

[Kalimaa23]

- Barack Obama, October, 2002
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16903253/page/2/

Nice. I like him already. Even though I'm European, it pisses me of when people are against the war in Iraq because of anti-American sentiments or naive notions on the use of force in international politics. He sums up my sentiments quite well : the war wasn't necesarry, a burden on the US and it's armed forces and even worse on the Iraqi people. Even if Saddam was an *******.

 

[BobG]

It is not a liability with normal people, but the neocons paint this as socialism, despite the fact that most industrialized countries offer universal health-care coverage and regard it as a cost-saving enterprise. I am a liberal socially and a conservative financially, and I find it pretty hard to find a politician that I can vote for without holding my nose. Stay out of people's personal business, don't use tax money to fund "special" projects for contributors, and do not allow businesses to approach our government as if they were "super citizens" that have special access and special influence. Is it that hard to grasp? The constitution cedes all power to citizens, and administration after administration (THIS one in particular) has tried to deny us our power.

Small niggling dig.

Paleocons would be more likely to paint universal health care as socialism, although a lot of present day neocons probably wouldn't be horribly enthused, even if a little more tolerant of the idea.

Neocons were originally Democrats that split from their main party because of differences over foreign policy. Being mostly Republican going on 30 years now, most have adopted more conservative economic views, but aren't the driving force against things like universal health care.

Neocons believe we should have a strong government to protect us against ourselves. That would seem to make government health care something fairly easy to slide into if public opinion warranted a change. In other words, they wouldn't sacrifice their foreign policy ideals for economic ideals any more than they did when they drifted from being Democrats to being Republicans.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I felt like flossing my brain with a bungee cord.

I'll be using that one!

I agree... I think this is a real problem for Hillary.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Nice. I like him already.

This explains the situation very nicely.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Speaker: Senator Barack H. Obama (IL)
Title: Executive Session
Location: Washington, DC
Date: 02/03/2005
EXECUTIVE SESSION -- (Senate - February 03, 2005)

...I Like the previous speaker, Senator Dodd, I wanted to give Alberto Gonzales the benefit of the doubt when we began this process. His story is inspiring, especially for so many of us-like me-who shared in achieving the American dream. I have no question that as White House Counsel, he has served his President and his country to the best of his ability. But in my judgment, these positive qualities alone are not sufficient to warrant confirmation as the top law enforcement officer in the land.

I had hoped that during his hearings, Judge Gonzales would ease my concerns about some of the legal advice he gave to the President, and I had hoped he would prove that he has the ability to distance himself from his role as the President's lawyer so that he could perform his new role as the people's lawyer.

Unfortunately, rather than full explanations during these hearings, I heard equivocation. Rather than independence, I heard an unyielding insistence on protecting the President's prerogative.

I did not hear Judge Gonzales repudiate 2 ½ years of what appears to be official U.S. policy that has defined torture so narrowly that only organ failure and death would qualify, a policy that he himself appears to have helped develop and at least has condoned.

Imagine that, if the entire world accepted the definition contained in the Department of Justice memos, we can only imagine what atrocities might befall our American POWs. How in the world, without such basic constraints, would we feel about sending our sons and daughters off to war? How, if we are willing to rationalize torture through legalisms and semantics, can we claim to our children and the children of the world that America is different and represents a higher moral standard?

This policy is not just a moral failure, it is a violation of half a century of international law. Yet while Judge Gonzales's job was White House Counsel, he said nothing to that effect to the President of the United States. He did not show an ability to speak with responsible moral clarity then, and he has indicated that he still has no intention to speak such truths now. [continued]

http://votesmart.org/speech_detail.php?speech_id=78401&keyword=&phrase=&contain=

I sure do like this guy. He sees right through and calls their bs.

 

[denverdoc]

Out of context, hard to judge, but the quote is so more thoughtful than the usual semantics and even carries within it an argument, and spoken by a politcian I am blown away! But i do believe it, I Have heard him interviewed and unlike the usual platitudinous snake in the grass, seems to make more sense than the average bear. Here's where the tentacles of racism enter the eqn: can I vote for a guy who makes sense but a good 1/3 of the population would oppose him on grounds of race. The guy is first too literate, too logical, and may not be able to do the Reagan "MY fellow Americans" thing very well.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Do make sure to note the date with the upcoming events this week.

If he is as good as I am starting to think, he might knock that third to a sixth. Besides, nearly by definition, that third always votes for the right-wing anyway.

 

[BobG]

Obama could be an even more formidable rival than the polls show. If you look at the internet markets that trade futures on elections (http://specials.slate.com/futures/2008/democratic-presidential-nominee/ ), there's a bigger gap between the markets than one would expect, even given that the Iowa electronic market only has three choices while Intrade lists 10. Either there's a huge difference in demographics between the two markets, or the results confirm polls that show people have already pretty much made up their minds on whether to vote for Clinton or not and her opponent won't matter.

Clinton has a huge lead with many candidates, but Obama leads in a market that lists only Clinton, Obama, and Edwards. Obama may need only to beat out Edwards and all of the second tier candidates to win nomination. Or a second tier candidate could move up very quickly capitalizing on anti-Clinton sentiments.

By the same token, Mitt Romney has more potential to increase his poll ratings than either Giuliani or McCain, but I think having two big candidates and the momentum swings that could occur between Giuliani and McCain make Romney's chances a lot less than Obama's.

 

[denverdoc]

Obama could be an even more formidable rival than the polls show. If you look at the internet markets that trade futures on elections (http://specials.slate.com/futures/2008/democratic-presidential-nominee/ ), there's a bigger gap between the markets than one would expect, even given that the Iowa electronic market only has three choices while Intrade lists 10. Either there's a huge difference in demographics between the two markets, or the results confirm polls that show people have already pretty much made up their minds on whether to vote for Clinton or not and her opponent won't matter.

Clinton has a huge lead with many candidates, but Obama leads in a market that lists only Clinton, Obama, and Edwards. Obama may need only to beat out Edwards and all of the second tier candidates to win nomination. Or a second tier candidate could move up very quickly capitalizing on anti-Clinton sentiments.

By the same token, Mitt Romney has more potential to increase his poll ratings than either Giuliani or McCain, but I think having two big candidates and the momentum swings that could occur between Giuliani and McCain make Romney's chances a lot less than Obama's.

Democracy/free enterprise--gotta love it--we can now bet on elections! No wonder there's such enthusiasm for the e-ticket balleting systems. From what little i have paid attention thus far, I would vote for Obama or Edwards n the d side, and romney on the r. This may be the most interesting election since adlai stevenson, another brainy candidate, bit the dust. Is Fox doing all of it, or just early debates?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

At this point I am supporting Obama. I could easily change my mind before the election - for a few weeks Perot sounded pretty good - but I am willing to bet that he could win, and by a large margin I prefer him over any other candidate.

If you plan to donate money to any campaigns, now is a good time. I know there is a deadline approaching that is a critical marker for fund raising.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Just a reminder: Tomorrow is the deadline for donations for this quarter. Good numbers here will help your candidate.

 

[Astronuc]

Why not just write an editorial or endorsement online or in the local newspaper.

Why do we insist on donating money, which goes to the media who control public access?

Why not call for a public forum or town meeting in which people can have a meeting to discuss matters of policy, e.g. taxes, public services, . . . , and candidates, who are supposed to represent the voters/public/general population, assuming I understand correctly the theory of representative democracy.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Money makes the world go round.

 

[Astronuc]

or greases the sticky gears of government.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Yep, we need to get this campaign spending under control. Maybe someone like Obama will finally do something.

 

[Astronuc]

Yep, we need to get this campaign spending under control. Maybe someone like Obama will finally do something.

Perhaps if he can resist the temptation of monied interests. I've heard he has raised a lot of money and there are some big bucks interested in his success.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Obama is keeping everyone in suspense, but CNN has referenced claims of an upset that tops even Hillary's 26 million. I wonder why he is delaying...drama, timing? It sure would be cool to see an upset!

Romney came in second with 20 million - a BIG upset
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-070402money,1,57601.story?coll=chi-news-hed

There is also talk of Romney picking Jeb Bush as a running mate.

How about if we all agree that if the Reps promise to never vote for a Bush, the Dems will promise to never vote for a Clinton.

 

[Astronuc]

I heard this morning that McCain has gone into a free-fall and Guiliani is dogged by his personal life, and so to Gingrich.

Romeny might have a chance, especially with Jeb Bush as a running mate.

It would be nice to see Obama give Clinton a run.

We really need a viable independent candidate/party.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

We really need a viable independent candidate/party.

Okay, I'll run. Thanks for your support.

Strangely, even as an underdog, expectations for Obama are so high that he may have a hard time meeting those expectations.

His appeal reminds me of JFK.

 

[turbo]

Okay, I'll run. Thanks for your support.

Strangely, even as an underdog, expectations for Obama are so high that he may have a hard time meeting those expectations.

His appeal reminds me of JFK.

Obama has appeal, but he is no Jack Kennedy (war hero, populist son of wealth). He might be able to win in a popular vote for president, but he cannot win the electoral vote, nor can Hillary Clinton. If either of them wins the Democratic nomination, the Republican candidate wins. As much as this country needs change and as much as progressives want change, the nomination of either of these candidates will cripple the progressive agenda and guarantee that real change is delayed for at least another election cycle. Anybody that thinks that either of these people can carry the southern and western states is out of touch with reality.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Obama has appeal, but he is no Jack Kennedy (war hero, populist son of wealth). He might be able to win in a popular vote for president, but he cannot win the electoral vote, nor can Hillary Clinton.

How did you come up with that?

 

[Evo]

Obama has appeal, but he is no Jack Kennedy (war hero, populist son of wealth). He might be able to win in a popular vote for president, but he cannot win the electoral vote, nor can Hillary Clinton. If either of them wins the Democratic nomination, the Republican candidate wins. As much as this country needs change and as much as progressives want change, the nomination of either of these candidates will cripple the progressive agenda and guarantee that real change is delayed for at least another election cycle. Anybody that thinks that either of these people can carry the southern and western states is out of touch with reality.

t_e and I were discussing exactly this. It's it not the time for either Hillary or Obama.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Why? To simply make the assertion doesn't make it true.

 

[Evo]

Why? To simply make the assertion doesn't make it true.

Why? Because the country is not ready to put a female in the Whitehouse as President and the same with placing a black into the Whitehouse.

This has nothing to do with my opinion of who would be good in office, it's knowing how the voters will react.

You of all peole should know that the American public will not usually elect the best choice. If they did, how did Bush get re-elected?

 

[denverdoc]

no Obama is no Jack Kennedy, he might be a lot smarter. But I understand the comparison, he is no PT-109 movie hero or author, and JFK had an astounding ability to talk fast and forcefully. and charisma up the wazoo. My guess if he were white this discussion would vanish.