MyDD :: Is Hillary Running to be McCain's Running Mate

Is Hillary Running to be McCain's Running Mate

by Annabella, Sun May 04, 2008 at 04:05:31 AM EST

Hillary's Fall Back Position:McCain's Running Mate?

Well it looks like it has happened officially. Hillary is being embraced by The Weekly Standard as one of their very own.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Pu blic/Articles/000/000/015/063kvafy.asp

The article praises her Margaret Thacher toughness, her new found voice, her channeling of her Republican father. It even suggests that she may be more conservative than McCain.

Well it looks like it has happened officially. Hillary is being embraced by The Weekly Standard as one of their very own. The article praises her Margaret Thacher toughness, her new found voice, her channeling of her Republican father. It even suggests that she may be more conservative than McCain.

[If this weren't enough to make right-wing hearts flutter, Hillary has another brand-new advantage: She is hated on all the right fronts. The snots and the snark-mongers now all despise her, along with the trendies, the glitzies; the food, drama, and lifestyle critics, the beautiful people (and those who would join them), the Style sections of all the big papers; the slick magazines; the above-it-all pundits, who have looked down for years on the Republicans and on the poor fools who elect them, and now sneer even harder at her. The New York Times is having hysterics about her. At the New Republic, Jonathan Chait (who inspired the word "Chaitred" for his pioneer work on Bush hatred) has transferred his loathing of the 43rd president intact and still shining to her.]

The article goes on to quote The National Review that Hillary has managed to bring the Right Wing's agenda into the Democratic Party and may win in the General by running to the Right of McCain.

In the right-wing conspiracy, this adaptation has not gone unobserved. "Hillary has shown a Nixonian resilience and she's morphing into Scoop Jackson," runs one post on National Review's blog, The Corner:

[She's entering the culture war as a general. All of this has made her a far more formidable general election candidate. She's fighting the left and she's capturing the center. She's denounced MoveOn.org. She's become the Lieberman of the Democratic Party. The left hates her and treats her like Lieberman. . . . Obama is distancing himself from Wright and Hillary is getting in touch with O'Reilly. The culture war has come to the Democratic Party.

She might run to the right of McCain, if she makes it to the general election, and get the votes of rebellious conservatives.]

And all of you progressives thought you were imagining things. No, now it has been confirmed. Maybe McCain should chose Hillary as a running mate if she does not get the Democratic nomination. Is it conceivable that this is in fact her preferred fall back position and not making sure Obama is defeated in 2008 so she has another shot in 2012? And could it be that this would in fact be the Dream Ticket for the Republican Party? Just think Bush III combined with Nixon. Can it get any better than that? It would be the unbeatable combination.

The question is would that be good or bad for the Democratic Party? Would Hillaryistas follow her into the arms of the Republican embrace and if so which portion of her base would go with her? All her women supporters? Only her over age 65 supporters? Only those with only a High School education? Only the racists? All the Reagan Democrats? There really should be room for 2 polls on this one.

Poll

Votes: 16
Results : Vote Link : Polls

Tags: Hillary Clinton, 2008 Election, McCain, Vast Right Wing Conspiracy (all tags)

Permalink :: 36 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Is Hillary Running to be McCain's Running Mate (2.00 / 4)

You just proved that Hillary is more electable than John McCain and Barack Obama because she is mainstream. She relates to 60% of the mainstream population, not the 20% left wing nuts and the 20% right wing nuts.

by Sandeep on Sun May 04, 2008 at 04:18:50 AM EST

Re: Is Hillary Running to be McCain's Running Mate (2.00 / 1)

This country is moving left.

_____________
changiness

by lizardbox on Sun May 04, 2008 at 04:20:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is Hillary Running to be McCain's Running Mate (2.00 / 2)

Since when?

Not 2000 not 2004

by DTaylor on Sun May 04, 2008 at 05:04:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Did you miss 2006? (2.00 / 1)

I was there. Look at the Pew polling. Check out in the next national poll party id levels. Hell, yesterday a Democrat won a special election in a seat held by Republicans for 33 years. You've got to be blind to be missing it.

John McCain wants you to be poor!

by nklein on Sun May 04, 2008 at 05:52:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Did you miss 2006? (none / 0)

There is an Anti Bush backlash I see that.

But that is different to trending democratic and may not even last into the 2008 election.

Adjusting policy for that shift is likely to be a big mistake in light of the demographic shift to the right in the last 30 years.

by DTaylor on Sun May 04, 2008 at 05:07:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Did you miss 2006? (none / 0)

Check out the Pew poll and party regisration numbers. The signs of liberal swing are there, if you don't ignore them.

John McCain wants you to be poor!

by nklein on Sun May 04, 2008 at 05:37:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is Hillary Running to be McCain's Running Mate (2.00 / 1)

I thought it was moving Wright.

Wisdom Is The Reward For Listening Over A Lifetime

by gunner on Sun May 04, 2008 at 08:06:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is Hillary Running to be McCain's Running Mate (2.00 / 2)

Wow! I thought Hillary's spin machine was good...but you are incredible! Congratulations on your attempt to silk purse this sow's ear and generate gold from lead! I am humbled in your presence...

by wayne204 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 06:58:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is Hillary Running to be McCain's Running Mate (2.00 / 2)

i suspect this is the newest 'put a diary togetherin the blogosphere' kit sent out to obama.com subscribers. the blogs get saturated in waves with such crap from the Obama side. it's ridiculous.

what a TROLL diary!

by swissffun on Sun May 04, 2008 at 08:21:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is Hillary Running to be McCain's Running Mate (2.00 / 1)

Troll diary? I mean it's in the Weekly Standard, nothing made up it what the right wing is now saying about Clinton! They love her, I hear it all the time, Republican Joe Scarborough refers to Clinton as his 'girlfriend', Pat Buchanan says rave things about how right her campaign is moving, how she can and will win votes from the right wing of the Republican Party as she moves more to the 'right' of John McCain--moves to the right now, to the right wing over John McCain.

Is this the type of Democratic Party we want a right wing Democratic Party? This is serious, it's not a troll diary, these are legitimate issues that as a party we've got to really take into consideration--do we want to become the old 'Republican Party" and move to those 'culture warriors' right wing positions or do we want to be a distinctive alternative to the right wing Republican Party?

This is a legitimate issue we should all be thinking about because it is happening.

by Wary on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:22:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is Hillary Running to be McCain's Running Mate (2.00 / 1)

so HRC=right wing DEM party in your mind? what a troll train of thought, seriously. you must have no clue about the 35 years of hard work HRC has given to the DEM party. Much less the first and still most believable commitment to working for whomever the DEM nominee is - compared to the late, and tepid me-too commitment from Obama.

by swissffun on Sun May 04, 2008 at 06:46:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

except for the "wingnuts" part, (none / 0)

i could swear ralph nader said almost the same thing.

so.............what's the difference then? (between reps and dems)

by citizendave on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:40:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is Hillary Running to be McCain's Running Mate (2.00 / 3)

Though I vehemently disagree with Senator Clinton on many of her approaches to the political process in general and campaigning in particular, I almost never ever base an opinion on, show admiration for, extract facts from, or give credence to anything that is written in the official publication of the dark side of the force, aka the Weekly Standard.

_____________
changiness

by lizardbox on Sun May 04, 2008 at 04:20:02 AM EST

Re: Is Hillary Running to be McCain's Running Mate (2.00 / 1)

One article only, I wouldn't give it any credence either, BUT this isn't the ONLY article, many in the right wing of the GOP openly admire her, her adoption of their tactics and how she is legitimizing their positions and tactics.

Pat Buchanan, Karl Rove, to name a few all openly admire her as she moves more to the right, their positions, their tactics, Buchanan went as far the other day to say that in the General Election she will move to the right of McCain and take away more of their right wing supporters, as well as Reagan Democrats.

For gosh sakes, we've discovered that her own political advisor, Sydney Blumenthal has been frantically emailing news sources making them aware of right wing attacks against Obama, she's met with and sought out the most right wing people she could find, Mellon Schaife, Bill O'reilly, why is she doing this going after the right wingers if not moving in their direction.

Anyone think that since she's going after the right wing of the Republican party and she wins the Presidency she will somehow then move back to her once 'progressive' supporters?

That won't happen, she will be beholden to them, and the rest of the Democratic Party base can just go bye bye.

This is legitimate, this is something we MUST discuss as a legitimate issue, because it is happening.

by Wary on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:37:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is Hillary Running to be McCain's Running Mate (none / 0)

When did a mid-east umbrella policy become mainstream?

by Renie on Sun May 04, 2008 at 04:21:14 AM EST

Re: Is Hillary Running to be McCain's Running Mate (2.00 / 3)

I would absolutely vote McCain if Hillary was his running mate. For real.

And they would win in a landslide. Every red state + Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, California, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island. Obama would carry Illinois, Washington, Vermont, D.C., Maryland, Hawaii, and nothing else.

McCain is moderate on social issues. So is Hillary. They'd be the centrist ticket that would promise the "bringing people together" line that Obama's been falsely peddling. She would stay Democratic and they'd run as the unity ticket.

Plus, he might retire early or something (cough, cough) and Hillary would replace him by 2012 at the latest. Obama would be so marginalized.

Young lifelong Democrat. One of over 3,000,000 voters who kicked McCain and Palin out of Pennsylvania, permanently.

by BPK80 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 04:37:54 AM EST

That just shows how useless your opinion is (none / 0)

The man is arguing for a hundred-year occupation of Iraq. How could want to spend one more second in the swamphole?

You would sacrifice the lives of countless people and billions of dollars for a ceremonial position. You would sacrifice our economy and our sustainability for a man with no plans and no understanding of these issues for a position often derided as "worth less than a bucket of spit." I will not. I'll vote for Clinton in November, if she's the nominee, but I would never vote to continue the Bush administration's insane and illegal policies.

The fact that you would speaks volumes.

John McCain wants you to be poor!

by nklein on Sun May 04, 2008 at 05:49:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That just shows how useless your opinion is (2.00 / 1)

The 100-year-occupation is a distorted hyperbole. I suspect you're aware of that (as any well educated individual would be) but consciously omitted that for argument's sake.

Perhaps the subtext of my comment was to illuminate a potential disadvantage Barack Obama risks in not picking Hillary as a running mate should he win...

Anyway, despite some of the caustic things you write, you seem fairly intelligent. Why is it you support Barack Obama?

Hope and change? You have "evidence"?

Young lifelong Democrat. One of over 3,000,000 voters who kicked McCain and Palin out of Pennsylvania, permanently.

by BPK80 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 07:50:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That just shows how useless your opinion is (none / 0)

The man said in response to Bush's idea of a 50-year occupation: "How about 100 years, as long as no American soldier gets injured?" I don't want to be there whether people are hurt or not. Remaining there in any capacity is horrible policy. It makes it more difficult to defeat al-qaeda. It makes it more difficult to spend money on the grave crises that are affecting us domestically. It is not a distortion to say that he wants a hundred-year occupation. He said it. It's on tape. If I had said, McCain wants to leave our troops in a warzone for a hundred years, it would a distortion. But I didn't say that. And even though that would be a distortion, McCain never lays out when his rosy picture of this peaceful Iraq will come about.

Moreover, anybody who claims that my statement is "a distorted hyperbole" obviously has no interest in ending this war which is the highest Democratic policy priority. Where are you on the war? Why do believe you believe it's good public policy to remain in that country whether we're being shot at or not?

Anyway, despite some of the caustic things you write, you seem fairly intelligent. Why is it you support Barack Obama?

Hope and change? You have "evidence"?

And with statement you show both your arrogance and your ignorance. Barack Obama is a brilliant man, a brilliant speaker and a policy wonk. If you heard him speak you would know that. Do I like to be inspired by my politicians? Yeah. It's nice to know that a politician will speak honestly on the most complex issues, like race and energy policy. Instead of playing the same pathetic games every even-numbered year so that we end up exactly where we were two or four years earlier. I loved his 2004 DNC convention speech, b/c it spoke to my patriotism. So I do have hope and I desperately wish for change.

But I chose my candidate b/c he is the best on issues and his record demonstrates a keen understanding of policy. Here is my evidence. His policies are the best for short-term and long-term. He calls for $1000 tax credit for the middle class, paid for by closing the tax loopholes on off-shore companies. He proposes helping students pay for college as long as they devote two years to public service. He is insistent on making government more transparent and more participatory (including providing live coverage of any healthcare negotiations in his administration). He has the most progressive energy policy. And, oh yeah, HE WAS AGAINST THIS MOTHER-FUCKING WAR.

His efforts in the state and federal Senate show him to be a thoughtful and earnest public servant. Whether it is his great work on ethics and transparency (where he reached across the aisle with Senator Tom Coburn) or his work with Republican Dick Lugar to prevent nuclear proliferation. Moreover, his bill on ending the Iraq war was the vehicle used by the Senate in Spring of 2007, when a Bush veto prevented an end to this awful war.

There are plenty of reasons to support Obama besides "hope" and "change," which you so callously dismiss. But what am I wasting space here for? You're not going to listen to me, b/c all I've ever seen from you is an attempt to be divisive and destructive. I've never seen anything from you, but the most ugly insults against Obama or his supporters and the most strigent support for any similiar attitudes. You do no help to my (I'm not even sure if you are a Dem) party's attempt to end the country's crises. And your ridiculous endorsement of McCain (as long as Hillary's the VP) is evidence that you do not wish to be part of the "good fight."

John McCain wants you to be poor!

by nklein on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:43:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That just shows how useless your opinion is (none / 0)

I was against the war in 2003. I am against the war in 2008. I'm not sure how much latitude John McCain would have to entrench us further in that quagmire with an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress (which I anticipate). FWIW, my top concern is the economy.

I don't see Barack Obama's policies as being substantially different than Hillary Clinton's. They are both Democrats. They both intend to end the war. They are both safe bets on Federal Courts. They both have domestic policies favoring the reignition of America's faltering middle and working classes.

Hence, the main distinctions in Obama and Clinton stem from character and electability. I find Clinton personally inspiring. I have both an emotional and intellectual admiration for her. She moves me when she speaks on social issues like civil unions and she impresses me when she speaks on economic/foreign policy issues. I see her transition from Senate to White House being seamless given her eight years during which she not only engaged in policy work but also became acquainted dozens of world leaders, forging the types of personal connections across the globe that will advance America's diplomatic interests.

By contrast, aside from a switch from a GOP to Dem platform (that we also get with Hillary), I don't see any specifics on the exact types of major change Barack Obama envisions. I hear rhetoric and vague generalities. Transparency doesn't seem likely given his obfuscation of his own past. I have a strong distaste for his handling of the Wright issue as well. Having been a civil rights advocate for years, I take issue with his sudden poll-driven reversal of his fostering an understanding of the solid non-controversial underpinnings behind Wright's scholarship. The Philadelphia race speech was a good start. But the sudden 180 on that issue was inconsistent and now gives America a basis for dismissing Critical Race Theory and similar substantive equality approaches as "rants not based in truth" (Obama).

It also calls into question his honesty.

Much as Clinton's Lewinsky scandal was prurient and irrelevant, it became a character issue when he began lying.

"You're not going to listen to me, b/c all I've ever seen from you is an attempt to be divisive and destructive."

Actually, I was listening to you pretty carefully and thought you made some good points.

"I've never seen anything from you, but the most ugly insults against Obama or his supporters and the most strigent support for any similiar attitudes."

I don't know why you would write that when even the most cursory glance at any politically charged blog these days would unveil a host of primitive attacks on both sides of the divide, none of them bearing any resemblance to my contributions here. The first conversation we had was a pretty civil discussion of the nature of evidence. My main area of interest and topic on which I am most vocal here is illuminating the actual rules and procedures governing the Michigan/Florida seating. I find you subject me to very shrill assessments of my character, but that is okay because I am not personally affected.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts, the majority of which were helpful.

Young lifelong Democrat. One of over 3,000,000 voters who kicked McCain and Palin out of Pennsylvania, permanently.

by BPK80 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 05:50:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

When somebody endorses the Rep. over... (none / 0)

a Democrat (either one), it irritates me to no end. So when you did so I became extremely upset and I may have painted you with too broad a brush, but you have been divisive. I called you divisive and talked about the insults you hurl b/c you constantly refer to Obama supporters as obamabots, O-bots and "minions." Those pseudonyms are offensive and inappropriate. You never see me call anybody a criminal or stupid or so on without cause. But on this blog, I've seen you do it many times. And that does not even speak to the insults that you hurl at the front-runner of the Dem. nomination.

On the issue of transparency, Obama has passed a bill with Tom Coburn that has been hailed by good government organizations as a landmark on ensuring tranparency in earmarks and other legislative practices. Moreover, he has called for the policy that I described above of airing the healthcare negotiations.

I don't understand your issue with the Wright subject with regards to honesty. Most objective accounts and I think that he hss been uniquely honest on this subject. And this is not the only personal issue that he has demonstrated such characteristics. Both Chicago papers praised Obama's honesty and willingness to endure repeated iterations of numerous questions that had been asked of him before about Rezko. They went out of their way to praise his honesty. Finally on the subject of transparency and honesty, BC lied in several instances about his personal relationships. This did not prevent him from having his administration grant the most FOIA requests of any administration since the law was passed. He was dishonest sometimes, but his administration was still transparent. Obama has promised to be more transparent (i.e. healthcare) and has a record to back up his promises.

On the war, I fail to understand how somebody who claims to have been against the war from the beginning and still endorse the idea of supporting McCain. And then you claimed I distorted what he said. Only Republicans say that in response to the "100 years" charge. (I'll also note that you did not your claim of distortion.) I understand an anti-war since 2003 Clinton supporter, b/c at least she has come to the right position. But your initial support for McCain (in this thread) is incongruent with a person's desire to end this war. That's why I went you after so hard. B/c this war is awful and that you sacrifice people's lives so that HRC could get a ceremonial position is a little weird to say the least. I hope that you will retract said endorsement.

John McCain wants you to be poor!

by nklein on Sun May 04, 2008 at 06:27:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: When somebody endorses the Rep. over... (none / 0)

"So when you did so I became extremely upset and I may have painted you with too broad a brush."

I think this strikes at the heart of the matter with some of the general grievances between HRC and Barack supporters. In general, Hillary supporters are comfortable with the idea of dissent within the party while Obama supporters are more apt to be disturbed by pro-Hillary voices in the Democratic blogosphere. Personally, I am fine with the fact that people in the party have opinions with which I disagree. And I oppose the theory of "shut up and get in line behind Barack because you're ruining the party's unity."

"I don't understand your issue with the Wright subject with regards to honesty."

I think Barack is well aware of Rev. Wright's theological and sociopolitical views. As a lawyer, you would understand that he would have what we'd call constructive knowledge of those viewpoints. Further, I don't fault him for that. Despite the harsh soundbytes on youtube, there is a legitimacy in Critical Race Theory (and in Black Liberation Theology which, in my opinion, is a bit too extreme but nonetheless address very real concerns) and the views espoused by Wright and the Trinity Church. Frustration with oppression is natural. Barack may take issue with the most hyperbolic assertions, like the HIV-Government connection, but I find it hard to believe he was as ignorant and opposed to these philosophies as he purported to be in March and most recently, last week.

The conversation on race is something this country needs to begin. Colorblindness has failed by blinding society to genuine substantive disparities in opportunity. Last week, that conversation on race became politically inopportune so Obama hastily dismissed it. This stance is the diametric opposite of the one he took in his acclaimed race speech.

The most common defense I see for this is that "Wright showed he was crazy on Monday!" But Wright did nothing more than to reiterate his long held viewpoints from decades past except that he peppered it by saying Barack Obama's race speech was simply an instance of him being "politician."

For Barack to say that he didn't realize Wright really meant the things he preached for decades until he heard him (for the first time?) reiterate his views last week is disingenuous.

"On the war, I fail to understand how somebody who claims to have been against the war from the beginning and still endorse the idea of supporting McCain."

I'm not a single issue voter.

Young lifelong Democrat. One of over 3,000,000 voters who kicked McCain and Palin out of Pennsylvania, permanently.

by BPK80 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 08:30:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: When somebody endorses the Rep. over... (none / 0)

Your statement that "in general, Hillary supporters are comfortable with the idea of dissent within the party while Obama supporters are more apt to be disturbed by pro-Hillary voices in the Democratic blogosphere." is completely untrue and does not speak to what I was objecting. You endorsed a Republican presidential candidate over a Democratic one (with the proviso that Hillary would be VP). That's not a sign dissent in the Democratic party. Nobody would define somebody abadoning the party to endorse the horrible policies of the Republicans as dissent within in the party. And the fact that you would characterize voting for the Republican candidate over the Democrat as a sign of dissent within the party demonstrates your disingenuousness. It also reconfirms what I originally wrote.

Last week, that conversation on race became politically inopportune so Obama hastily dismissed it.

That is an inaccurate portrayal of what happened last week. Wright had been politically inopportune since he came on the scene in March. If Obama was going to abandon Wright for political reasons, he would have done so in March. If he was going to avoid the issue of race he would have done so in March. He distanced himself from Wright not b/c he learned something new about Wright's philosophy or b/c he was bringing up race again, but b/c Wright questioned Obama's truthfulness with regards to Obama's positions on the extremes of that philosophy. When Wright implied that Obama was lying, I think he did reveal something new about himself. Not his philosophy, but his opinion of Obama. An opinion that is completely divorced from almost every other associate who knows Obama as an honest person. Thus Obama distanced himself from someone who he thought was a friend questioning his authenticity. I think that Wright might have done this b/c his ego was damaged due to Obama's rejection of the extremes of Wright's rhetoric in his Philly speech. But the fact remains that Wright did something different with the Bill Moyers interview and the Nat. Press Club appearance than he did before. Wright attacked Obama. Do you lie down when your friends attack you? Obviously, Obama doesn't. Thus, I don't see how this becomes an issue about Obama's honesty.

Finally, you may not be a single issue voter, but the war is one of the biggest issues in this election. You claim to be anti-war, so which policies of McCain's do you like his pathetic economic policies or his non-existent plans to solve the energy crisis. Do you not see that McCain and Hillary are radically different on policy? You realize you're on a Democratic blog, right? We generally refrain from endorsing Republicans over Democrats. The fact that you would endorse a Republican over a Democrat makes me question your committment to the Democratic party. And my calling you out for endorsing a Republican over a Democratic is not my objecting to dissent within the party, but objecting to someone abandoning the party and its principles.

John McCain wants you to be poor!

by nklein on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:38:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: When somebody endorses the Rep. over... (none / 0)

"You endorsed a Republican presidential candidate over a Democratic one (with the proviso that Hillary would be VP)."

That proviso is pretty fanciful, is it not?

Hypothetically, if Hillary were running with John in some sort of Unity ticket, I probably would strongly consider it and would vote for them, provided Hillary's input and views on policy were incorporated, even if in a tempered fashion. I don't think my vote would matter though because Hillary + John would rack up such enormous margins in most states, my otherwise swing vote in Pennsylvania would instead be a moot padding to an overwhelming J&H victory.

John would carry the right and center-right. Hillary would bring the center, and yes, the center-left. Obama would appeal only to the far left and his AA base. Electorally speaking, that may carry Illinois (home state), D.C., Maryland, Vermont, Oregon (maybe...), and Hawaii. But not much else.

"The fact that you would endorse a Republican over a Democrat makes me question your committment to the Democratic party."

Feel free. Lo and behold, after years of loyalty, it turns out I may not be as much in lock-step synch with the party as I once believed I was. The unqualified adulation for a candidate who I see as nothing more than a smooth-talking fresh face with even less experience than George Bush (!?) may have something to do with it. Note that I don't consider your opinion unqualified. I disagree with it but you've spoken your mind more clearly and reasonably than many, excepting of course the errant vitriol.

Young lifelong Democrat. One of over 3,000,000 voters who kicked McCain and Palin out of Pennsylvania, permanently.

by BPK80 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:07:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: When somebody endorses the Rep. over... (none / 0)

Even if Barack Obama was McCain's VP, I would never vote for McCain and I don't understand how you can. McCain is a disaster in the making. Not only is he completely wrong on policy, but like Bush he hates details and will allow this country's infrastructure and bureaucratic institutions to continue to atrophy. I would never vote for him (and this is coming from a person whose meeting John McCain in 2000 was a highlight of my life). Thus I don't understand how you could ever vote for McCain, but you each his/her own.

John McCain wants you to be poor!

by nklein on Mon May 05, 2008 at 08:31:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is Hillary Running to be McCain's Running Mate (2.00 / 2)

I'm not trying to imply anything here (I swear) but there has got to be a reason the right is continually singing Hillary's praises.

When Ann Coulter (facetiously) endorsed her, it just creeped me the hell out.

John McCain smells like mothballs.

by asherrem on Sun May 04, 2008 at 04:51:29 AM EST

Re: Is Hillary Running to be McCain's Running Mate (2.00 / 2)

The left sang McCains praises relative to the other candidates because he was the choice they liked more.

After the Bill Clinton years the GOP has a certain amount of respect for the Clinton clan.

Some conservatives are backing Hillary becaise they think she would do a better job than Obama.

Whats interesting is how many would back her over McCain...

by DTaylor on Sun May 04, 2008 at 05:08:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is Hillary Running to be McCain's Running Mate (none / 0)

Coulter's vote was in response to McCain being the nominee. She said she'd rather vote for HRC than McCain, because he wasn't conservative enough. Please note that she certainly wasn't saying that she and HRC have anything in common, politically. Frankly, it sounds like what some posters here say about the other candidate should theirs lose.

by TinaH1963 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:56:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is Hillary Running to be McCain's Running Mate (2.00 / 1)

Oh my god...

Hillary supporter for Barack Obama in 2008

by zcflint05 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 05:13:20 AM EST

Re: Is Hillary Running to be McCain's Running Mate (2.00 / 2)

Some conservatives are backing Hillary becaise they think she would do a better job than Obama.

Backing in what manner?

During the 2000 primaries, I voted for McCain because by the time my state voted, Gore was already the nominee. I felt if we got stuck with a Republican, I'd prefer him over Bush. Do you mean backing in that sense, or in the sense they'd actually vote for her in the GE, because I just don't see readers of the Weekly Standard and regular viewers of Fox News doing that.

John McCain smells like mothballs.

by asherrem on Sun May 04, 2008 at 05:13:32 AM EST

Re: Is Hillary Running to be McCain's Running Mate (2.00 / 1)

This actually makes sense. Hillary is way to smart to believe that she has any realistic chance to win the Democratic nomination. Then again, one would have thought Hillary way to smart to back anything as ludicrous, as antithetical to Democratic ideals, as ecologically harmful as the "gas-tax holiday," so maybe she's not that smart after all.

Or maybe Hillary will do or say absolutely anything to get that which she feels, for some reason, entitled to.

by vermontprog on Sun May 04, 2008 at 05:53:09 AM EST

Re: Is Hillary Running to be McCain's Running Mate (2.00 / 1)

^this actually makes sense^ what flavour are you drinking today?

by swissffun on Sun May 04, 2008 at 08:23:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Thank you for this diary. (none / 0)

I've been thinking the same myself. After all, they have this long friendship and multiple trips abroad together where they traded shots and he couldn't drink her under the table.

Certainly, the praise-McCain-Obama-be-damned campaign she is running gives the appearance that she and not Romney or Huckabee has a better chance of getting the VP spot.

But this is all fantasy. In the real world, Republicans are backing Hillary now because they have been dying to run against her for the last 4 years. They can't wait to unpack that suitcase of hers.

As for the McCain-Clinton ticket? The few Hillary die-hards would switch to McCain, but the vast majority of Republicans would sit home. Result: landslide for Obama and everyone down-ticket.

by wayne204 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 07:02:36 AM EST

Re: Thank you for this diary. (2.00 / 2)

Yea, I guess since Obama's buddies with Coburn, he must be a Republican, right?

We should probably vote for McCain then, by your standards he's going to be the most progressive in the race, with friendship being the standard by which progressive politics is measured.

Hillary supporter for Barack Obama in 2008

by zcflint05 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 07:07:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

A better question ..... (2.00 / 1)

is the diarist running for "most likely to wear a tinfoil hat"?

Hell's bells, even the GOP didn't have to crucify Eisenhower's record in order to make Reagan their 'saint'. We can have two great ones, you know?

by emsprater on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:31:59 AM EST

The Better Question (none / 0)

Is there really a difference between between McCain and Hillary Clinton?
Their position on Iran appears identical.
They both support the Gas Tax Holiday, which is a prelude to eliminating the Gas Tax altogether.
Hillary has said that McCain passed the "Threshold of Commander in Chief", which implies that she will be like him as Commander in Chief.
They have both been endorsed by the same hard right news publications.
They both except donations from lobbyists.
And neither one has regretted their decision to give authorization to invade Iraq.
To me they look the same, and I am not sure which one is better, and a lot of Democrats will be asking themselves the same question if Hillary is given the nomination. But the Republicans will be firmly aligned behind McCain if Hillary is the nominee.

My thoughts on McCain: I have no desire to let that idiot fulfill his desire to "Bomb Iran"

by Otaku Saru on Sun May 04, 2008 at 05:06:10 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.