A Political Compromise?

[Nbadan]

The M$M has finally realized that Hitlary can't beat Obama no matter how far or wide she moves the goal posts, so they have started pimping the idea again of a Obama-Hitlary ticket. For many reason I don't think this is a viable choice for Obama....not the least of which, keeping Hitlary around completely goes against his campaign theme of change...

....but there is one man who is very loyal to the Clinton camp who I think Obama should consider for VP slot - that man is Wesley Clark. Clark brings credentials of a General who has never been just a yes-man for any administration (a.k.a Peterus), had great success in winning another dirty war - the Bosnia war at minimal U.S. costs in lives to American serviceman and financial costs to the American taxpayer....

Having Clark on the ticket also helps to null any negative effect for Demos of McCain's supposed war hero status and not being a politician, Clark doesn't bring a long political track record that the wing-nut echo-chamber can use against him...

So, what say you former Hillary supporters, would putting Clark on the ticket make you happy?

[xrayzebra]

Dan, doesn't it make you a little suspicious of the MSM when they
start talking about what the politicians should do. Instead of
reporting the news.

And Wesley Clark....my thoughts:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:rollin

[Nbadan]

Dan, doesn't it make you a little suspicious of the MSM when they
start talking about what the politicians should do. Instead of
reporting the news.

With 24-7 news channels there just isn't enough news to keep people interested, so I expect the news to talk about issues that concern real people, like the economy, jobs, globalism, the war in Iraq, health-care...etc..etc....not talk continuously about Rev. Wright...Ayers.....etc...etc...

[Nbadan]

And Wesley Clark....my thoughts

...since you always seem to be wrong it must be a good idea....

[Heath Ledger]

An Obama/Clinton ticket would be a home run against McCain and give Hillary a backdoor chance at the presidency should Obama get assassinated. I say go for it...

[George Gervin's Afro]

The M$M has finally realized that Hitlary can't beat Obama no matter how far or wide she moves the goal posts, so they have started pimping the idea again of a Obama-Hitlary ticket. For many reason I don't think this is a viable choice for Obama....not the least of which, keeping Hitlary around completely goes against his campaign theme of change...

....but there is one man who is very loyal to the Clinton camp who I think Obama should consider for VP slot - that man is Wesley Clark. Clark brings credentials of a General who has never been just a yes-man for any administration (a.k.a Peterus), had great success in winning another dirty war - the Bosnia war at minimal U.S. costs in lives to American serviceman and financial costs to the American taxpayer....

Having Clark on the ticket also helps to null any negative effect for Demos of McCain's supposed war hero status and not being a politician, Clark doesn't bring a long political track record that the wing-nut echo-chamber can use against him...

So, what say you former Hillary supporters, would putting Clark on the ticket make you happy?


:rolleyes

the lazy M$M card.. I am waiting to get the actual list of who constitutes the M$M.. lazy,lazy,lazy and intectually weak....

[Nbadan]

Don't be sore...Hitlary came in second...

:lmao

[boutons_]

I'd like to see Obama + Jim Webb.

[Heath Ledger]

How bout Obama picks his Pastor as his running mate? What could possibly go wrong?

[peewee's lovechild]

Wesley Clark would be a good choice, but I doubt that he would take up the offer.

[xrayzebra]

...since you always seem to be wrong it must be a good idea....

Oh Dan, how can you say such a thing.:nope
You make me feel so bad.

[Don Quixote]

How bout Obama picks his Pastor as his running mate? What could possibly go wrong?

That is an excellent idea! Who better to eloquently, and in a spiritual way, articulate Obama's vision for race relations than his own pastor?

Seriously, though, the Super-D's can't like their options right now. If they go with Hillary, they'll have to fight charges that she stole it, and will tork off alot of college radicals and people who KNOW the Clintons are crooks. Not to mention the anti-war people.

On the other hand, if they choose Obama, they'll do it knowing he'll get creamed in the general. Not only will middle-American Democrats not come through for him, but I imagine quite a few people will still be mad about the Wright/Ayers thing.

So, I don't envy the Super-D's decision. I DO, however, envy those people who have tickets to the convention. That will be a riot! Oops, wrong word ...

[Ocotillo]

I don't think Clark will get selected. Clark was a Clinton supporter and that counts for something when Obama is considering who to be veep. Myself, I would like Clark but he may end up being asked to be Secretary of State.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Don't be sore...Hitlary came in second...

:lmao

I don't blame you for not answering the question.

[BonnerDynasty]

Can you guys even imagine how nervous obama would be knowing if he got shot Hillary would become president?

yikes!


What took you so long Brutus?

[spurster]

With 24-7 news channels there just isn't enough news to keep people interested, so I expect the news to talk about issues that concern real people, like the economy, jobs, globalism, the war in Iraq, health-care...etc..etc....not talk continuously about Rev. Wright...Ayers.....etc...etc...

So that's why you call her "Hitlary". It's your own contribution to talking about "real issues".

[JoeChalupa]

I don't think Wesley Clark would be a good choice. Won't happen.
I think Bill Richardson is on the short list, besides Hillary that is.

[RandomGuy]

[Obama will] get creamed in the general [election].

Do you really think this?

Care to make a friendly wager on it?

The coming election will most likely be pretty close. I would give better odds at Obama winning by a large majority than McCain.

My best guess about the election:

The list of outcomes in order of probability:

1. Narrow win by Obama
2. Narrow win by McCain
3. Wide win by Obama
4. Wide win by a small lump of leftover meatloaf
5. Wide win by a large lump of leftover meatloaf
6. Wide win by McCain.

Seriously though, leave out 4 and 5, and you have the general consensus of most observers. 1 and 2 are pretty closely even in terms of probability, and 3 is waaay more likely than 6.

There are still months of campaigning after the Democratic nomination is sewn up, and given the overall weakness of both Obama and McCain as campaigners, all it will take is one or the other making fewer mistakes.

I also see Obama and the Dems running a MUCH more intensive campaign.

If nothing else, do not underestimate the depths to which Bush is disliked. However weak Obama is on whatever you think he is weak on, this is McCain's Achilles' heel.

In the end: we'll see. I think the election will be fun to watch, but I will be glad to see the end of what the Daily Show calls "The Long, Flat, Seemingly Endless Bataan Death March To The White House." :lol

[RandomGuy]

I don't think Wesley Clark would be a good choice. Won't happen.
I think Bill Richardson is on the short list, besides Hillary that is.

If I had to bet money it would be a small amount on Richardson, although I really have no idea and wouldn't guess as to who will be the ultimate pick.

[Yonivore]

I think Barack Obama more closely resembles a 1984 George McGovern than any of the more palatable Democratic nominees of the past century.

Right now, he looks pretty good but, when people really begin to understand the economic and cultural consequences of his policy initiatives -- as they did with McGovern -- they'll be running from him.

I don't know that McCain has the charisma and platform to pummel Obama as Mondale did McGovern and then Reagan did Mondale but, it'll be enough.

Throw "Bitter" Michelle, Rezko, his terrorist friends, his apparent lack of a sense of patriotism, his chain-smoking and hiding it, his former pastor and his current church, his place in the old-school Chicago political machine into the mix and you find Obama isn't change. He's just the new boss, same as the old.

I look for an Obama loss in November...that is, of course, provided Hillary doesn't manage to completely destroy the Democrat Party by somehow prying the nomination from him. The Clintons are clever.

:corn: In any case, it's been an entertaining primary to watch. Here's hoping they keep it up until the convention. :corn:

[JoeChalupa]

I think Barack Obama more closely resembles a 1984 George McGovern than any of the more palatable Democratic nominees of the past century.

Right now, he looks pretty good but, when people really begin to understand the economic and cultural consequences of his policy initiatives -- as they did with McGovern -- they'll be running from him.

I don't know that McCain has the charisma and platform to pummel Obama as Reagan did McGovern but, it'll be enough.

Throw "Bitter" Michelle, Rezko, his terrorist friends, his apparent lack of a sense of patriotism, his chain-smoking and hiding it, his former pastor and his current church, his place in the old-school Chicago political machine into the mix and you find Obama isn't change. He's just the new boss, same as the old.

I look for an Obama loss in November...that is, of course, provided Hillary doesn't manage to completely destroy the Democrat Party by somehow prying the nomination from him. The Clintons are clever.

:corn: In any case, it's been an entertaining primary to watch. Here's hoping they keep it up until the convention. :corn:

Good points. But I think McCain's position on Supreme Court judges may hurt him. Not with conservatives but with women and those who don't want to turn the clock back.

[Don Quixote]

Do you really think this?

Care to make a friendly wager on it?

The coming election will most likely be pretty close. I would give better odds at Obama winning by a large majority than McCain.

My best guess about the election:

The list of outcomes in order of probability:

1. Narrow win by Obama
2. Narrow win by McCain
3. Wide win by Obama
4. Wide win by a small lump of leftover meatloaf
5. Wide win by a large lump of leftover meatloaf
6. Wide win by McCain.

Seriously though, leave out 4 and 5, and you have the general consensus of most observers. 1 and 2 are pretty closely even in terms of probability, and 3 is waaay more likely than 6.

There are still months of campaigning after the Democratic nomination is sewn up, and given the overall weakness of both Obama and McCain as campaigners, all it will take is one or the other making fewer mistakes.

I also see Obama and the Dems running a MUCH more intensive campaign.

If nothing else, do not underestimate the depths to which Bush is disliked. However weak Obama is on whatever you think he is weak on, this is McCain's Achilles' heel.

In the end: we'll see. I think the election will be fun to watch, but I will be glad to see the end of what the Daily Show calls "The Long, Flat, Seemingly Endless Bataan Death March To The White House." :lol

You might be right, RandomDude. In a normal universe, where The Chosen One is running against a real conservative candidate, I would say that Saint Barack would get creamed. Northeastern élites like him just do -- they don't do well in national elections. That said, I would say that he has a long and bright future in the Senate.

However, the Holy One is not running against a very strong candidate. For all his personal character, courage, and heroism, McCain just has never won over many orthodox conservatives. However, I imagine most of us will go ahead and pull the lever for him, as I suspect most lefties will come around for St. Barack.

The real question, then -- will middle America come around for Barack? On that, I'm not so sure. But will they vote for McCain, either, who is soft on illegal immigration and wants an al-Qaeda bill of rights? And there's always guilt-by-association. Bush is a Republican, McCain is a Republican, therefore Bush=McCain.

I don't know at this point who wins.

[Don Quixote]

:corn: In any case, it's been an entertaining primary to watch. Here's hoping they keep it up until the convention. :corn:

I can't wait for the convention. That will make my summer.

[Yonivore]

Good points. But I think McCain's position on Supreme Court judges may hurt him. Not with conservatives but with women and those who don't want to turn the clock back.
I think you're wrong.

Senator McCain delivered an address on judicial philosophy at Wake Forest University Tuesday. It's a very strong, very sound speech. You can read it here (http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/Speeches/5385b2dd-fc8f-4bc9-9fb0-da2e2f1d9f98.htm).

My favorite part is where McCain differentiates himself from his two Democratic rivals, and especially Barack Obama:


Senators Obama and Clinton have very different ideas from my own. They are both lawyers themselves, and don't seem to mind at all when fundamental questions of social policy are preemptively decided by judges instead of by the people and their elected representatives. Nor have they raised objections to the unfair treatment of judicial nominees.

For both Senator Obama and Senator Clinton, it turned out that not even John Roberts was quite good enough for them. Senator Obama in particular likes to talk up his background as a lecturer on law, and also as someone who can work across the aisle to get things done. But when Judge Roberts was nominated, it seemed to bring out more the lecturer in Senator Obama than it did the guy who can get things done. He went right along with the partisan crowd, and was among the 22 senators to vote against this highly qualified nominee. And just where did John Roberts fall short, by the Senator's measure? Well, a justice of the court, as Senator Obama explained it -- and I quote -- should share "one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one's empathy."

These vague words attempt to justify judicial activism -- come to think of it, they sound like an activist judge wrote them. And whatever they mean exactly, somehow Senator Obama's standards proved too lofty a standard for a nominee who was brilliant, fair-minded, and learned in the law, a nominee of clear rectitude who had proved more than the equal of any lawyer on the Judiciary Committee, and who today is respected by all as the Chief Justice of the United States. Somehow, by Senator Obama's standard, even Judge Roberts didn't measure up. And neither did Justice Samuel Alito. Apparently, nobody quite fits the bill except for an elite group of activist judges, lawyers, and law professors who think they know wisdom when they see it -- and they see it only in each other.
That is exactly right.

Should McCain's speech satisfy conservatives or attract moderate Democrats? Not in and of itself; actions speak louder than words. However, McCain's actions over the years have mostly been consistent with these words. For example, he was a solid supporter of Roberts, Alito, and nearly all of the court of appeals nominees that Democrats attempted to block. His decision to join the Gang of 14 seems to have been a tactical one -- he thought it would maximize success in confirming worthy nominees. One can disagree with that judgment, as I do, without seeing it as inconsistent with a sound judicial philosophy. In fact, his willingness to work with Democrats on this issue may prove helpful in dealing with some of the Democrats who might be inclined to block McCain's judicial nominees, should he be elected.

McCain was also a staunch supporter of Robert Bork during the mother of all confirmation struggles back in 1987. You can read the Senator's statement as to why he voted for Bork "without any hesitation" here (http://media.pfaw.org/PDF/McCain-Bork.pdf). Keys parts of that explanation rely on the same view of the judiciary's role that McCain articulated Tuesday. He also denounced "the tactics of distortion, hysteria, and politicized paranoia that many of the special interests have used and exploited to oppose this man."

For my part, I don't expect that McCain will be perfect on these issues; indeed, even Reagan at times came up short. But I certainly agree that McCain understands most of the basics and that, in all likelihood, his approach to the judiciary will generally be sound.

Obama can't make that claim. And, apparently, women are "turning back the clock" themselves. Abortion isn't the issue is once was; nor do I see it becoming one again.

McCain is the more sober and articulate candidate on the judiciary...I would like to see he and Obama debate that topic.

[JoeChalupa]

I think you are wrong about Obama but that is just me. I've always said I like McCain but his view the supreme court doesn't sit well with me.

Abortion will always be an issue and the majority of women want to keep their right to choose.

[Yonivore]

I think you are wrong about Obama but that is just me. I've always said I like McCain but his view the supreme court doesn't sit well with me.

Abortion will always be an issue and the majority of women want to keep their right to choose.
I will agree with you on this...the majority of women least likely to vote in November (those having promiscuous sex and prostitutes) don't want the clock turned back. However, among the adults in this country, a growing number of women do want convenience abortions and selective abortions to be limited. I don't know that it is yet a majority of voting women but, it is certainly having an affect on their ability to gin up any kind of meaningful demonstration in support of abortion rights.

[ClingingMars]

With 24-7 news channels there just isn't enough news to keep people interested, so I expect the news to talk about issues that concern real people, like the economy, jobs, globalism, the war in Iraq, health-care...etc..etc....not talk continuously about Rev. Wright...Ayers.....etc...etc...

that's right, talking about relationships with terrorists isn't important to a presidential election. yeah, i hear ya.

- Mars