Clinton-Obama '08: Possible Historic Ticket?

[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. :yuck:

Ah - Presidential material here.

With all of the experience managing GD and P&WA - why not the US government. Think of the possibilities! :tongue2:

 

[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.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: 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. :yuck:

 

[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. :yuck:

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.

 

[turbo]

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.

Yes, it would vanish immediately if Obama was white.

Let's face reality. Racism is alive and well in the US. Why do you think that Republicans talk about school vouchers before every election? It's not to allow poor urban black children to attend better schools - the fact is that if inner-city schools are failing, they need to be improved. There is simply not enough "slop" (classroom space, teachers, resources, transportation) built into the current system to allow wholesale movements of students from failing schools to better ones. The "school voucher" idea is a sop to those white southerners who send their children to all-white "Christian academies" - a sign that the candidate would earmark taxpayer money to help perpetuate existing segregation.

 

[Astronuc]

There's no time like the present!

It's time we change things.

 

[turbo]

There's no time like the present!

It's time we change things.

Well, I'm not sure that change is going to come about until mainstream politicians bring racism and prejudice into public discussions. So far, every time Bush has made noise about school vouchers, the Dems have given him a free ride, although they know that he is playing to the crowd that use race-restricted church membership to keep their "Christian academies" segregated. The attitudes that fuel this segregation are very deeply rooted and long-held, and they are not going to be changed in an election cycle, or even in a generation.

I was "taken to the woodshed" on this issue by a project engineer on a job near Atlanta. My (black) boss and I were having breakfast together at a cafe in Atlanta and we were scanning the morning paper and chatting. It seems that a local minister was fired for inviting a black family to the church picnic. The family showed up and when asked who invited them, they said that the minister had invited them. The church board members got together and fired the minister on the spot. When I got to the project site, I mentioned to the chief engineer that I thought that was an unfortunate move in a "progressive" place like Atlanta and he ripped me up. Freedom of association is guaranteed to churches and if churches can exclude blacks from membership, then there will be no black children in the members-only church academies and their precious little "Christian" children won't have to associate with "them". He said that the minister got just what was coming to him. Now, this man was a professional living in suburban Atlanta. You multiply him and his wife by the number of kids in these "Christian" academies, and you'll see the degree to which blacks are still shunned and marginalized in the South. I'd love to see Obama in the WH, but it isn't going to happen. Even if he got overwhelming support from the blacks in the south, the districts there have been gerrymandered to death and a win in the popular vote would probably still translate into a loss in the electoral vote race. The right-wing would love to see either Obama or Clinton win the Democratic nomination because they could run practically any viable candidate against them and be assured a win.

I'm with Evo on this one. There's no point in wringing our hands about how we need a black president or a woman president. We have to be pragmatic enough to realize that a candidate needs to be electable in this stupid electoral college ballot system, and neither of these candidates could take the south or the majority of the western and bible-belt states. If we could elect the president through a popular vote, there is a slim possibility that one of these candidates could win, IMO, but very slim. I believe that we could elect a woman president in this election cycle if we had a smart, competent, woman without Clinton's baggage, but we don't. If she wins the nomination, expect her to swift-boated on Whitewater, Vince Foster's death, inaccurate claims about her plan for universal health-care coverage, Bill's last minute pardons, and a hundred other things. The Republicans and their errand boys on hate radio and Fox will keep Clinton so covered in mud that she will be unable to get HER message out.

 

[BobG]

Obama pulled in $25 million for the first quarter, just behind Clinton's $26 million. At a minimum, that surely has to make folks like Richardson, Dodd and Biden reconsider their chances. Edwards looks like the only one that's going to be able to hang in there just to reach the primaries. Unless Gore enters, but spotting that much money to two candidates surely has to be intimidating to even Gore.

 

[turbo]

Obama pulled in $25 million for the first quarter, just behind Clinton's $26 million. At a minimum, that surely has to make folks like Richardson, Dodd and Biden reconsider their chances. Edwards looks like the only one that's going to be able to hang in there just to reach the primaries. Unless Gore enters, but spotting that much money to two candidates surely has to be intimidating to even Gore.

You might be right, Bob, but I think if Gore jumped in today, he would be the presumptive nominee, and a lot of Clinton/Obama funding would dry up. There are a lot of Democrats who are willing to embrace pragmatism and nominate a candidate that can gather enough votes to actually be elected, instead of tilting at windmills. I think if we were looking at a Pelosi candidacy, we would have a much better chance of electing a female president - Clinton brings so much baggage that she is dead off the starting line. Her support in Democratic/progressive circles is not at all indicative of her support in the general electorate. Many otherwise liberal/progressive women that I know have little to no respect for her after her tolerance for Bill's philandering, and though she may appeal to liberal moneyed interests, she will not play well in more conservative districts.