Obama-Clinton Ticket Is Unlikely Option, Kennedy Says

by louisprandtl, Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:34:06 PM EST

From the diaries, jerome

Senator Ted Kennedy one of Senator Obama's prominent supporter told Bloomberg TV that Barack Obama isn't likely to pick rival Hillary Clinton as a running mate. He attributed this to the "tenor of the campaign".

http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/200805 09/pl_bloomberg/adga8qsyojl0


``I don't think it's possible,'' Massachusetts Senator Edward Kennedy said in an interview on Bloomberg Television's ``Political Capital With Al Hunt,'' airing this weekend. That is because of the ``tenor of the campaign'' in recent weeks, Kennedy spokesman Anthony Coley said later.

Earlier Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House also dismissed the Dream ticket option.

http://www.necn.com/category/32/4893

It is clear that Obama surrogates are saying what he wouldn't say publicly.

Personally I think that is sad and potentially damaging for November General Election and for the party as I was hoping for Obama/Clinton ticket. But then that is my humble opinion and what do I know. Senator Kennedy and some of the party bosses are taking HRC supporters for granted which is a potential fault line for lot of women supporting HRC.


The prolonged battle between Obama and Clinton probably won't hurt the Democratic Party, Kennedy said. ``It's basically the divisions in terms of race and gender, and these involve people's emotions deeply,'' he said. ``Ultimately, the party is going to come together because they are so thirsty for victory.''




Tags: obama, clinton, ted kennedy, dream ticket (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 245 Comments :: Post a Comment


So what do you think? Is Kennedy right? (2.00 / 1)


by louisprandtl on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:31:47 PM EST

Re: So what do you think? Is Kennedy right? (2.00 / 3)

He may be right, but Obama will be making a huge mistake not to pick her (as she would be not to pick him).  Clinton supporters are not going to simply 'come around' and support him.


by slynch on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:35:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Kennedy is no stranger to acting against the (2.00 / 2)

public interest in many areas.

He's probably still angry with Hillary for promoting a universal healthcare plan before he did in 1994.

(Kennedy is one of the politicians who ganged up together to help Jim Cooper derail it.)


Universal healthcare IS a core Democratic value
Comprehensively cover 100%, not only the healthiest 80%
by architek on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:33:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are so right (2.00 / 1)

and that isn't all he said:

Kennedy, 76, without naming names, said Obama should pick someone who "is in tune with his appeal for the nobler aspirations of the American people. If we had real leadership -- as we do with Barack Obama -- in the No. 2 spot as well, it'd be enormously helpful," Kennedy said.

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/5/9/1 7419/80068

-----

What a slap in the face. I'd like to slap his.


by phoenixdreamz on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:08:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What a hypocrite (2.00 / 2)

No kidding, after he contested a sitting Democratic President all the way to the convention, though he was 900 delegates behind, then after he lost pointedly refused to shake Carter's hand?  And Kennedy wants to complain about tenor?

***A


by adrienne4dean on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:06:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

why would any of her supporters (2.00 / 2)

want her to be VP?

She could be a powerhouse in the Senate and could serve for 20 years or more.

As VP she would be cutting ribbons for Obama for a maximum of eight years, then what?

I don't even understand why HRC supporters would want her to leave the Senate under these circumstances.


John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."
by desmoinesdem on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:34:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: why would any of her supporters (none / 0)

 Exactly. Why would she go from potential SML, to second-banana to a guy who dosen't trust her any farther than he could throw her? Plus, Obama knows that Clinton as a part of his administration makes it into the Hill & Bill Show. He won't have her as Veep, he's going to need her too badly in the Senate, and her supporters need to FINALLY see the forest, as opposed to obsessing about every stunted tree...


by Kordo on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:47:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: why would any of her supporters (2.00 / 1)

No, we'll need her in the Senate just to keep President McCain in check, as the only way Obama gets into the WH is as a visitor.


by SoCalHillMan on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:17:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

LOL...If Obama loses and she is deemed the reason. (1.50 / 2)

after running her negative campaign and causing our party to become so divided, she will not have a job in Government period.  I admit you guys can cause Obama to lose at a time no Dem runner should...if you do you this...you also guarantee your girls future is history also.  


by netgui68 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:14:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

She will be 'deemed' the reason no matter what (2.00 / 1)

It's an easy out.  Win or lose - a good presidency or in the weeds - the fault will be hers as it was her husbands before her.  Let's all blame the Clintons!  It's what Republicans have been doing these last 8 years.  I can hardly believe Democrats and progressives are now ginning up to join them.


by The Fat Lady Sings on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:00:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: LOL...If Obama loses and she is deemed the rea (2.00 / 1)

This is not going to have the kind results you desire.  People don't generally vote with you if you berate them.  Your stance isn't helpful.  

Sorry to inform you, even if they share your positions on something, nobody is obligated to vote for Obama just to keep you from losing.  That's an illogical, and frankly, undemocratic stance.

And, for the record, Obama ran a pretty negative campaign, too, and when he didn't, he simply had his surrogates do it for him.  If you're rational, I don't think you can hold onto this stance for too long.


by MadeUBlink on Sat May 10, 2008 at 07:24:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: why would any of her supporters (none / 0)

Well, you also guaranteed that the only way Obama would get on the ticket is as the VP, so color me unimpressed.

http://www.mydd.com/comments/2008/3/18/1 73057/505/92#92


by Brannon on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:28:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: why would any of her supporters (2.00 / 1)

I do not think that she should stay in the Senate.  The best she could hope for would be majority leader and her "colleagues" will make sure that she never gets it.  I'm sure she'll serve out her term, but I'd like to see her run for NY Governor when the current term is up.

Then, when Obama implodes, which he will because he won't have Mommy to do his homework for him, she should run for President again.

Either that, or she should, dare I say it, leave the Democratic Party to the loonies and the intellectual cowards and finally form a VIABLE center left party with her supporters.

(I know, it's radical, but it's an idea so please don't flame me, I'm new!  :)  )


by MadeUBlink on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:25:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

no, I don't (2.00 / 1)

I think there is something else going on here... perhaps Kennedy and McGovern seen a little bit of themselves in Obama...you know, starting a movement, alienating the core democratic voters, and then dividing the party and losing the election.  So maybe they want OBama to vindicate them?   And if that is remotely a possibility, then it is truly selfish.

Kennedy is about Kennedy, thus I will take his "advice" under consideration.  I think we are really seeing the end of the democratic coalition that has sustained us for so long.

This voter will not "flock" to Obama, because my principles will not allow me to vote for him.  Just like my principles will not allow me to vote for McCain.  I'm staying home.  But who cares?  Ted Kennedy doesn't, neither does Brazile.


by 4justice on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:56:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm frankly baffled by Kennedy..his coming out (2.00 / 1)

and supporting Senator Obama was fine with me. It was a critical moment that gave a huge boost to his campaign. But this one is baffling..but then Kennedy's opposition to Cape Wind is also baffling..


by louisprandtl on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:04:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

me too (2.00 / 1)

and then to go along with the line that the supers must not over turn the will of the people (MA went HRC).

I also thought it was interesting that none of Obama's supporters--especially Ted--came to his aid in recent weeks...


by 4justice on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:36:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I hate to say it but I agree with Rush (2.00 / 3)

McGovern wants a dem to lose worse than he did so he can sleep well for eternity.

Kennedy is just a pompass ass.


I didn't believe in god before the primaries and I still don't.
by NewHampster on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:23:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: no, I don't (2.00 / 1)

It's the old democratic structure trying to keep control of the party-McGovern, Kerry, Kennedy Daschle. The ones that have brought electoral loser upon electoral loser to bear on the party.

I'm tired of voting for these losers. Let them crash and the new coalition of the working class, hispanics and women take over.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:34:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: no, I don't (none / 0)

couldn't be more articulate. I think some in the party find some virtue in losing. They feel like martyrs, because they've served mostly under Republican presidents, they're used to being on political defense. It's easy, because they still get the pork they want, and get re-elected


"there is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right in America"-William Jefferson Clinton, forty-second President of the United States
by DiamondJay on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:52:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: no, I don't (2.00 / 0)

And what principles are those? A Supreme Court that will ban abortion? Endless war in Iraq? Continued shift of wealth to the top 1%? How can anyone who supported either Clinton or Obama end up staying home?


by lsapadin on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:42:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: no, I don't (none / 0)

I'm going out on another limb now and saying that it's time Democrats stopped hiding their heads about Roe v. Wade.  It's going out.  There's little we can do to stop that.  

And when you look at it coldly and rationally, it really should.  It was decided on completely the wrong precedent -- viability rather than right to privacy.  The rub is that, currently, we have a court that's fashioned with Bush appointees who see no "right to privacy" in the 4th Amendment.  That's not going to change, unless one Scalia gets hit by a cross town bus or something.  The mood of the court is currently leaning toward strict constructionist, those judicial fundies who don't believe that there's anything at all valuable in the concept that law is dynamic.  It's not long before they undo everything Warren-Berger ever did.  So, Roe v. Wade's gone.  It's not going to stay.

And Kennedy's just a dick.  He'll vote with who he perceives the "cool kids" are.  (Both Kennedy's are, when you come to think about it -- the Justice AND the Senator!)  

Choice is a hot button issue for me.  It's personal.  So, I think it's time that women and men who believe strongly in this issue stopped depending upon the Court to do our work for us and  decided that it's time to give those Bush appointees no wiggle room or doubt about what our "intent" is -- let's grow a pair and push for a Constitutional Amendment either guaranteeing the right of people to choose their own reproductive destinies.  Hell, let's go one better than that and push for a Constitutional Amendment guaranteeing the right to privacy, broad as that sounds (and it is.)  A President Obama should be willing to sign that, as I'm sure a President Clinton would.  

Ratification would be another climb, but, it was also a big climb when women got the right to vote in the first place.  I just think that, if we want to eventually prevail, we should work to take the Court out of the equation.


by MadeUBlink on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:47:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: no, I don't (2.00 / 1)

Let me get this. YOU would choose to NOT vote for a Democrat if your candidate doesn't get in?  Way to go to helping us change the bad course this country has been on.  You don't have to campaign for Obama, or send him a donation, or even vote for him-- just vote the Dem ticket.  It's thinking like yours that is hurting this party.

FYI, I was an early voter for Hillary in CA.  I now see the writing on the wall.  She won't be prez or vp.  But, I'm not gonna hurt the party because my choice didn't get in (geez, it's like taking your toys and going home!).  Get over it!


by citizensane on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:59:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: no, I don't (none / 0)

I will not vote for Obama.  I am a Reagan democrat.  I actually am a registered democrat but I agree with republicans on some issues.  The ones that Obama called bitter people.  I believe in the 2nd amendment.  I believe in god and do not like what Obama and his pastor believes in. I do not agree in Obama's health plan, it would leave out to many people.  I just do not agree with Obama.  You do not talk to your enemys.  On to many things between Obama and McCain, I agree with McCain this year.


by kmr1964 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:14:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: no, I don't (none / 0)

I don't think this kind of crap is very helpful.  It's generally not a good idea to beat up people who you perceive you need to help you reach a goal.  Leave that to the Republicans.  On any front, we should be listening to what people have to say, and if they choose to vote in a way we don't agree with, we need to respect their choice even if we don't agree with them.

Maybe a person who would vote for Hillary but won't vote for Obama doesn't agree with Obama on issues that Hillary presented to them in another light.  I personally can't stand Obama because I think he's lying about his stance on the war.  When the war came, I knew was lying.  I was angry at the Democrats who voted for it for doing so, but with hindsight, I really can't say that I would have voted any differently if I'd been in the position they were in at the time -- a position in which the interals told that that they could lose Congress permanently to the Republicans who would have painted their decision as irresponsible at best or traitorous at worst.   And I believe whole-heartedly that Obama would have voted to authorize the Iraq invasion if he had been in the Senate at the time, no matter what he says, because his current voting record supports that logic.  So, in this instance, I agree with Hillary, and I think Obama's lying.  That's an area where Hillary says something I agree with and Obama doesn't.

Therefore, I don't agree with this "traitor to the Party" stance at all.  Tribal mentality is much of what's wrong with political parties in the first place.  I mean, the Republicans got some place with it, but then they sold all their moderates out to the fundies and the Grover Norquists of the world and ended up having to consistently pander to those groups.  Now they're screwed.  Not a good place to be currently, wouldn't you say because eventually those people want you to deliver something and they'll hold you responsible if you don't.  So, I'm a little more pragmatic about the whole issue than that.  

Liberals, of which I'm generally one, talk a lot about voting their consciences but, lately, when push has come to shove, have recently been acting very much like Republicans and seem to be taking the "you're either with us or against us" tack and it will bite us in our collective asses eventually, just like it bit them.  


by MadeUBlink on Sat May 10, 2008 at 07:07:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

why would you ever put (none / 0)

someone with 45 to 50 % negatives on your ticket unless you had to?

She drives the republican base to the polls and scares off independents.


by responsible on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:28:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Ted Kennedy knows not of victory n/t (none / 0)


by activatedbybush on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:47:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Here is what else he had to say (2.00 / 3)

"If we had real leadership -- as we do with Barack Obama -- in the No. 2 spot as well, it'd be enormously helpful..." Kennedy's opinion on all matter politics means about this much ( . ) to me. He can kiss my Clinton supporting ass.
by linc on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:33:35 PM EST

Re: Here is what else he had to say (1.16 / 6)

You found the real money quote.  The good old boys club is at it again.  

Real Leadership = penis.


The universe is a casual place, not a suit-and-tie affair.
by mtnspirit on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:41:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Here is what else he had to say (2.00 / 2)

You're way out of bounds here.  Kennedy's comments have nothing to do with Hillary's gender.  They have EVERYTHING to do with the negative tactics employed by her campaign.

Can you imagine the media asking the VP candidate "Well, you said McCain had passed the Commander-in-Chief threshold, so do you think Obama has now, since you're his VP?"

SHE has made HERSELF unacceptable in a supporting role for Obama.


by ArkansasLib on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:51:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh, get over it (2.00 / 1)

that wouldn't be question and you know it. Like Obama's 'more of the same' bullshit wasn't just as bad.
by linc on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:54:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh, get over it (none / 0)

My point is, she has publicly and ferociously been undermining him for months...if you think it wouldn't be a big media distraction, you're deluding yourself.


by ArkansasLib on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:01:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The hell she has (2.00 / 2)

She said that one frickin' time.  It's the Obamasphere that's magnified it * one google gazillion, which was kind of a curious thing to do if it was supposed to be so allfired damaging and stuff.  She rode him pretty hard about his "bitter" comments for about three days, and other than she's been quite gentle.

You're going to see ferocious soon, and when you do you'll realize that Hillary wasn't it.


by Trickster on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:34:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The hell she has (none / 0)

I fully expect McCain to trash Obama and run a tough campaign...but he's also probably not suited to be Obama's VP.


by ArkansasLib on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:42:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's called running for election (2.00 / 1)

When you run for election you make the case for yourself and against the other guy.  

Obama has done the same.  Why is it that it's okay for Obama to differentiate himself from Clinton but when Clinton does it she's evil?


by lisadawn82 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:16:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's called running for election (none / 0)

It's perfectly OK to draw distinctions and attack an opponent, it's another thing if you then want to be that person's running mate.

They even touched on this on the "West Wing".


by ArkansasLib on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:00:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh yes, the west wing (none / 0)

THATs where we should all be getting our political knowledge, from a popular fiction television series completely based on... fiction.
by linc on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:07:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Here is what else he had to say (none / 0)

So, she didn't bow down and kiss his ass, right?  Yeah, she did what every male politician has done for time in memoriam and she went negative.  Here's a clue -- so would have Obama had he not had a media largely gave him a bye.  

Did you call the Obamites for going negative on her?  Have you step out to call out the media for their OBVIOUSLY biased coverage?

That's just a tad naive.


by MadeUBlink on Sat May 10, 2008 at 07:29:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama-Clinton Ticket Is Unlikely Option, Kenne (none / 0)

Ed Rendel!  Ed Rendel!


by Drummond on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:34:03 PM EST

Re: Obama-Clinton Ticket Is Unlikely Option, Kenne (none / 0)

Stop with the snark already.

Haha, everyone knows the joke already:


Unable to rec or rate

Read this: http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/15/1427 30/254

by GeorgeP922 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:40:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama-Clinton Ticket Is Unlikely (2.00 / 1)

he should pick whoever he wants, and Hillary supporters should respect that decision.

with that said, STFU Ted


I would say at this point we're starting to see a little desperation on the part of the woman who I support... NY Governor Paterson
by obamaovermccain on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:37:39 PM EST

Re: Obama-Clinton Ticket Is Unlikely (none / 0)

I agree.  I don't want her to run with him.  I don't think that he deserves to lean on her experience. When he snarkily told her that he'd consult her, much to the delight of his limp-brained supporters, she should have shot back, "Yeah, and you'll pretty much HAVE to consult me, Barry, you're wholly unqualified to do it on your own."  

I think he should lean back on the laurels and talents of people like Kennedy and Kerry and all the other "LIMO" -- aka "Liberal In Name Only" or limousine liberal, take your pick -- jerks who supported him when he can't do his Presidental homework by himself.

She's too talented and smart to be relegated to funerals and ribbon cutting ceremonies.  So, let Obama be Obama and PROVE to us that he can govern.  

I'd like to see her run for NY Governor and then run again in the future.


by MadeUBlink on Sat May 10, 2008 at 07:53:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

F**K Kennedy (1.60 / 5)

Kennedy really really irks me. Hillary doesn't have "real leadership"? I'm tired of the "boys club" opioning on what "real leadership" is. The only thing I know is that Kennedy doesn't have it, and never will. RETIRE, Teddy boy!


Hillary supporter for Barack Obama in 2008
by zcflint05 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:38:03 PM EST

Re: F**K Kennedy (none / 0)

It has nothing to do with the boys club, it's her negative campaigning against Obama.  It would undermine the ticket to have your candidate's greatest doubter in the VP slot.

That being said I defy you to find me ANY senator with a better record of leadership than Ted Kennedy.


by ArkansasLib on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:53:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: F**K Kennedy (none / 0)

There is no Senator with a better or lengthier legislative record than Ted Kennedy.  He is called the Liberal Lion for a reason... He is a true champion for Liberal causes.

It's a shame he had to endorse anyone though... I hate watching him get trashed on progressive blogs worse than Conservative ones...  


Like the nominee, don't like the nominee... Our nominee is still better than John McCain...
by JenKinFLA on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:01:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Ted Kennedy (2.00 / 1)

Ted Kennedy has been one of the most progressive voices in Congress for a very long time.

Then there is this:

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches /ekennedytributetorfk.html

One of the great speeches.  One of the worst moments, future changing, and creating a cloud of despair that has hung over the political lives  of many of my generation for a very long time.

"F**k you Kennedy" offends me from Republicans but I might expect it.  

This is probably stupid and sappy, but it is 40 years next month and it is still raw.


by mady on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:57:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ted Kennedy (none / 0)

If I could mojo you to the moon and back I would...


Like the nominee, don't like the nominee... Our nominee is still better than John McCain...
by JenKinFLA on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:02:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ted Kennedy (none / 0)

Thanks.  First campaign I ever took part in, and my college graduation was on the night he was dying.  He was something else.


by mady on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:04:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ted Kennedy (none / 0)

Most definitely...


Like the nominee, don't like the nominee... Our nominee is still better than John McCain...
by JenKinFLA on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:15:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No (2.00 / 2)

No...Obama needs to be able to exercise his judgment and pick the VP that he thinks will be best for success in November.

Hillary Clinton is simply not that candidate.


by wengler on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:39:56 PM EST

Re: No (2.00 / 3)

You're right.  She should be president.  But in lieu of that, there are 49.5% of the democratic electorate out there that probably don't agree with you...me being one.


The universe is a casual place, not a suit-and-tie affair.
by mtnspirit on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:44:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No (none / 0)

So you are saying that the only way to placate Hillary supporters and bring them back into the fold is to make her VP?


by wengler on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:50:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No (none / 0)

Yeah, I'd say that. Obama will not win if Hillary is not on the ticket.  His campaign has significantly alienated a large number of Hillary supporters, and not just in the blogosphere.


by slynch on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:56:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No (none / 0)

I think he should do everything he needs to do to get her supporters back into the fold short of making her VP then.


by wengler on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:09:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No (2.00 / 2)

His campaign has alienated a significant portion of her supporters? Uhm, no, SHE has gone so negative on him that her supporters have followed suit and gone negative on him.

Notice that Obama supporters would support a Clinton campaign FAR more than Clinton supporters? Why is that? Because Obama hasn't hit her below the belt like she's hit him.

When you have the head of the campaign saying he cannot win, he is unelectable, and he isn't ready to be president, even less so than the republican, do you honestly believe that won't filter down to the supporters?


by Yalin on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:12:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No (2.00 / 1)

I don't think you've been paying attention at all this entire primary season.  He has been just as negative as she has.  "same old story."  "a liar." "will do anything to win."  etc. etc.

I could just as easily say the reason Obama supporters would support her at a greater rate than her supporters will support him is exactly because HIS campaign has been more negative.  That's why her supporters are bitter enough not to vote for him.


by slynch on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:37:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No (none / 0)

See, you've used this same canard before. In a prior back and forth you questioned how old I was as if to say I'm just some young whippersnapper who doesn't know any better. And I responded that I would never question how old you are and if you're wearing depends and eating prunes because you support Hillary Clinton.

It's really stupid, and you need to stop.

I've been paying attention to politics in general very hard for years, and I've followed this race on a day-in, day-out way.

As for the "same old story", "will do anything to win", "a liar" (when did Obama say that hmm?), it is the truth. She has proven that with her shifting reasons for being more electable, her shifting reasons why she's actually ahead in the math. Her shifting idea of which states actually count, etc etc etc.

She has proven that she WILL do anything to win. And the Clinton's and their drama and scandals ARE the same old story of politics. I don't want to deal with their psychodrama and pathologies again for 8 years. Good god no.

Lastly, the reason why Obama's supporters would support her more than her supporters would support him is because he has not been as negative against her as she has been toward him. He has never EVER said that McCain is qualified to be President, but she isn't. He has never EVER said that she cannot win.

And he has never EVER said that black people will not vote for her should she be the nominee, as she has said white people will not vote for her.

And so forth and so on.


by Yalin on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:00:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No (none / 0)

I didn't say you were young here--I said you weren't paying attention.  Try reading before you reply to comments.  And, get the chip off your shoulder.

I'm not wasting any more of my time with you, because you clearly believe what you want to and twist "facts" to suit yourself, or you just have a very selective memory.  All of this is bunk.   For example, Clinton did not say whites wouldn't vote for him.  She said she was ahead with the white vote.  That's a different argument, but you strive to twist anything you can against Clinton while ignoring Obama's nastiness.


by slynch on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:20:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No (none / 0)

1) You did say so in an earlier comment. Start here:

http://www.mydd.com/comments/2008/5/1/12 496/92357/101#101

You said that Obama supporters are just young and inexperienced, blah blah blah.

2) Clinton's words:

"I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."

"There's a pattern emerging here," she said.

-------------

In other words, the pattern is that white americans don't vote for Obama. That her base is wider because they will vote for her, but not him.

And quite frankly, it's intellectually dishonest because it ignores the states where he has beaten her in the white vote, which is practically all of the ones he has won.


by Yalin on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:18:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No (none / 0)

Ah, Yalin, I'm beginning to like you for your spunk, even if I disagree with you.

1) I did say that earlier to you, but not here.

2) I think her choice of words was unfortunate (because they can be twisted), but it doesn't say what you're trying to make it say.  In fact, you quote her, and then you say "in other words..."  Don't put words in her mouth.  It's true that whites with less than a college education support her in greater numbers.  It's also true that the vast majority of blacks support him.  Unfortunately for him, a smaller portion of white, blue collar votes translates into a larger proportion of the electorate than a larger proportion of black voters, because of the difference in the size of the base populations to which the proportions apply.  Pointing this out isn't racist, even if it isn't necessarily true in every state (to be honest, I haven't sat and calculated).  It's yet again an example of the media and others (i.e., Obama supporters) trying to paint Hillary as a racist, and it's what makes HRC supporters dislike Obama.


by slynch on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:30:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No (none / 0)

1) Saying it in this thread or saying it in another thread was never the point of contention. It was the fact that you said it.

2) Obama is pulling the same percentage of white less educated voters that Bill Clinton got in the 90s and John Kerry and Gore got in the 00's.

It is intellectually dishonest to say that all of a sudden it's a problem now because it's Obama.

And again, the Clinton campaign has been doing this kind of racially charged campaigning all along, whether it's Bill Clinton calling Obama just another Jesse Jackson in South Carolina or this.

And quite frankly, if Obama said that Hillary cannot get the hard working americans, black americans, there'd be a firestorm coming from the Clinton campaign AND her supporters.

Why? Because it's wrong. You don't say crap like that.

It has NO redeeming value whatsoever.


by Yalin on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:43:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No (none / 0)

1.  Go back and read your OP here--you claim I'm making a comment about your age here.  I wasn't.  If you are now claiming that you were simply referencing an earlier post by me in refuting this one, that's a bizarre way to carry on a discussion, isn't it?  Criticizing something I said before doesn't have anything to do with what I'm saying now!

2.  Again, you've put words in HRC's mouth, and you refuse to address that.  She pointed-out that she is winning the white vote, a simple fact.  So all of this line of response is irrelevant.  You've built a strawman.

Obama and his supporters have been as guilty of race-baiting as HRC.  You just won't admit it.  So, your self-righteous attitude about it is unjustified.  And, using an argument about what you speculate the response would be if the tables were turned...not a logically valid argument.  Again, it's also a strawman.  

But, I do agree with you about the fact that saying what you're trying to claim she said (he can't get the white vote because he's black) would be wrong to say.


by slynch on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:56:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No (none / 0)

1) You've never heard of an allusion?

2) I'm not the one who's built the strawman. Hillary Clinton is the one who did that by arguing that Obama's white support is weakening again (it isn't) and by deductive reasoning that he CANNOT win that white vote and that is why she is more electable. She has the broader base and therefore should get the democratic nomination.

There is implicit and explicit argumentation that she should be the nominee because he cannot do what she is doing, i.e. win over white voters. There is no other argument she can make other than this when it comes to her electability vs his.

This is deductive reasoning 101.


by Yalin on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:34:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No (none / 0)

Btw, read this and look in particular at the #s of white support: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment /columnists/andrew_sullivan/article39072 39.ece


by Yalin on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:36:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No (none / 0)

1) I know very well what allusion is, but I have no idea what you're talking about.  My claim was that you haven't been paying attention.  Your response was that I've used the argument that you're young before (true) and I should stop it.  
But, I wasn't making that argument--age (at least past childhood) has nothing to do with attention-paying.

2)  The fact remains that she did not say anything racist.  To point out that she is winning the white vote is not a racist statement--it is a statement of fact.

Now, is it, in fact, a fact?  That's really immaterial, but from the numbers I've seen, and from which she was using, she is winning the white vote.  Doesn't matter whether he's doing as well as BC did. That's not the issue.

As for Andrew Sullivan, please.  Talk about someone who's intellectually dishonest.  He hates the Clintons with a passion and write bs about them routinely.


by slynch on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:39:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No (none / 0)

1) The argument you've made before is that obama supporters are young and have not been paying attention to the process before this. That we're only whining because we're not getting everything we want now and as quick as possible.

Your words.

2) Winning more of the support of white voters in a primary contest between two DEMOCRATS is not an argument about fall electability. It means that people prefer one over the other between two DEMOCRATS. It makes no bearing as to whether or not that translates to the fall.

And yet that is the argument she's been making for her own electability. Look at me everyone! I can win whites in a democratic primary and he can't do it as well as I can! Therefore I should be the nominee because this performance will translate in the fall!

It is totally playing the race card and it is totally intellectually dishonest when one considers Bill Clinton's own support levels with white blue collar voters.

And at the end, it IS wrong to make white vote support your electability argument. I haven't seen Obama saying that blacks won't vote for Clinton should she be the nominee and that you need 85-95% of black support with high turnout to even have a prayer of electing a democratic president.

That's the flip side of Clinton's argument, and it's just as wrong to use as an argument in this as Clinton's is.


by Yalin on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:21:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No (none / 0)

1) not my words before, but also not in this thread, so again, you're barking up the wrong tree here.  why don't you just admit it?  I didn't say anything about age in this thread.  And, in the very first thread that I said something akin to what you're claiming but not quite. (can't remember exactly though, might be going senile).

2) Yalin, not every argument you disagree with is "intellectually dishonest."  I've seen you use that expression about half a dozen times today in various threads, and it's really just ad hominem.

It is debatable, when half of her supporters say they will not vote for him, whether her white support will translate into white support for him.  I maintain this is not a racist statement to point this out.  Also, it is irrelevant whether Obama has made the argument.  Of course, it isn't quite as good of an argument, because your numbers are way, way off.  Black turnout tends to be low in elections, and Democrats do not need 85-90% of that demographic to win.


by slynch on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:34:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No (none / 0)

1) "It's simply frustrating some of the younger Obama supporters because they are impatient and aren't getting their way, IMO."

Just as I've said. :)

2) Much of the argument for Clinton winning the democratic nomination is in fact intellectually dishonest. Whether it's shifting the goalposts of what it means to be the nominee or changing the metrics or using arguments that fall flat on their face with just a touch of logic applied to them, that is the epitome of intellectual dishonesty.

Calling it as it is isn't an ad hominem.

Also, do you know what the #s were from Dean supporters who said they wouldn't vote for Kerry if he were the nominee, but voted for Kerry anyway?

Additionally, it was half of her supporters in a couple of states, not nationally. Nationally it's about 30% of her supporters and about 20% of Obama's supporters.

Much of that has to do with the negative campaigning of this primary and will melt away once Obama is the nominee and Clinton is working her arse off for him.

Lastly, no democratic president has won since the 60s without 85-95% of black support.

Why? Because of the dwindling white vote. Carter was the last democrat to garner near 50% of the white vote. Bill Clinton got about 40%, which is what Gore got and only a little more than Kerry got.

The only thing that gave Clinton his wins was Perot taking 18% in 1992 and 12% in 1996. Clinton didn't garner a majority vote in either election.

Blacks have been the most loyal and largest block vote for the democratic party for decades. If blacks do not turn out in enormous numbers in key states for democrats, the democrats do not win. That much is proven by statistical history.

Black voters made up 11% of the voting electorate in 2004, and that has significantly increased this cycle.


by Yalin on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:48:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No (none / 0)

1) like I said, not my words, but something like it.  Again, though, there was nothing about this in this thread to prompt your initial response.

2) what you fail to see here is that this is simply a matter of your opinion.  I do not see it as intellectually dishonest.  Instead, I see the repeated use of strawmen by Obama supporters as intellectually dishonest.  And it is so very very prevalent that there are common phrases/names for them.  Like "moving the goal posts."  There has been no "goal-post moving."  It has always been about getting the most delegates, but given that neither will get enough pledged delegates, it is a valid argument to use the popular vote to sway superdelegates to align with Clinton.  I mean, geez, is it not a common meme among BO folks to talk about the "will of the people?"  The best metric of that is the popular vote.  

Another common strawman is the "she'll do anything to win" bit.  She's never said that.  No one in her campaign has said that.  And, her campaign hasn't done it. It's simply made up and then ruthlessly attacked by you guys and used as the basis to justify hateful language and poor behavior on your part.  That's true intellectual dishonesty.

As for the rest of it, I'm too tired to keep this up, but it's clear that we're comparing apples and oranges here.  Black registration is lower than white registration.  Election turnout of registered voters is comparable between blacks and whites--it actually goes back and forth.  Consider this--blacks constitute about 13% of the US population, and yet they constitute less than 10% of all those who vote in most elections (not sure where you got 11%, but my source covering multiple years shows less; doesn't matter though).  The point is, yes, they are an important block, but they are a relatively small block compared to whites.  You can win without black support, but you cannot win without white support (your post 1960 comparison is somewhat bogus--there have only been two democrats elected since then).  Part of the reason is that you cannot look at this at a national level.  Instead, you have to look at swing states.  There are only a couple of swing states that have enough blacks to tip an election--Ohio being one.  Anyway, this is to say that it is not intellectually dishonest to argue that whomever can draw the white vote is a better candidate.  You can argue with the validity, but it is absolutely not intellectually dishonest.  I mean, hell, my colleagues and I discuss these issues (I'm an academic).  Are you calling all of us intellectually dishonest because we make these same sort of arguments?  You really should try attacking the substance of arguments rather than dismissing them as intellectually dishonest--that is exactly what ad hominem is.
 


by slynch on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:55:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No (none / 0)

1) LOL. So unless your words are 100% exactly as I've stated, you're off the hook eh? Hilarious.

No wonder you're a Clinton supporter. "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is...."

:)

2) You sir are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

Trying to make it so is the epitome of intellectual dishonesty.


by Yalin on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:04:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No (none / 0)

1) I'm actually agreeing with you about what I said--as I said, my words were something like what you were saying, but not exactly (and I couldn't remember exactly how it was phrased).  I stand by what I said, but it isn't an issue here.

What you continue to ignore is my repeated statement that what I said in a previous thread is irrelevant to the current thread.  

Oh, and I am not a Clinton supporter.  If you look at my comment history, you'll find that I spend the bulk of my time here defending her against ridiculous attacks.  But, personally, I think the party has made a drastic mistake letting both of these candidates get this far.  Both are, I think, decent Democrats (although neither are really progressive), but neither are politically viable.  The GOP will eat them alive.  I think HRC would have a slightly better chance of winning than BO, but I'd give them both less than 45%, as have/would the vast majority of my political science, economics, and sociology colleagues.

2) Actually, I would argue that people aren't entitled to their own 'public' opinion, not when it affects other people.  But, again, you haven't addressed the issue here.  The fact is that it is numerically possible to win without the black vote, but it is numerically impossible to win without the white vote.  There is nothing intellectually dishonest about pointing that out.  And, historically, white working class voters have been relatively fickle, moreso than black voters.  Consider the whole "what's the matter with Kansas" thesis (which, by the way, is completely wrong in many, but not all ways).  All this is to say, again, that Clinton's statement was factually correct and logically arguable.  It wasn't intellectually dishonest.  People can disagree without one person being an underhanded, conniving opponent.


by slynch on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:29:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No (none / 0)

I'm pretty certain Black persons vote a higher turnout rate than any other demographic group in terms of persons able to vote.  Of course there is a high non-registered number too.

in 2004 Kerry lost Ohio in large part because Bush won 18% of the Black vote...while against Bush he only won 10%.  Bush did this via his ballot initiatives on Gay Marriage.  That 8% shift was enough to turn Ohio to Bush.


Matthew25Network.com
by cardboard 1 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:07:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No (none / 0)

demographic group was the wrong term there... was going for racial group


Matthew25Network.com
by cardboard 1 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:11:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No (none / 0)

black turnout for registered voters is about the same as for other groups (it changes election to election), but registration numbers are lower than for other groups.


by slynch on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:35:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No (none / 0)

One thing that he has not said is that McCain is more qualified to be president than she is.


by Brannon on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:41:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

What are you (1.33 / 3)

going to do when Hillary glowingly endorses Obama (as she undoubtedly will)?

Call "bullshit" on your candidate or realize your candidate is more mature than you are?


by responsible on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:30:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What are you (2.00 / 1)

I'm hide rating your post because you have no business discussing my maturity.  You don't know me, so take your comment and shove it.

I'm not talking about what I'm doing.  I'm talking about Hillary supporters in general.  Half won't vote for him.  I don't think it will matter whether she comes out and endorses him.  Her supporters aren't sheep.


by slynch on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:39:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What are you (none / 0)

dabbled a bit in immaturity with the shove it comment....


Like the nominee, don't like the nominee... Our nominee is still better than John McCain...
by JenKinFLA on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:17:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What are you (1.00 / 0)

no, I think that's an appropriate response.  


by slynch on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:22:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Supreme Court (none / 0)

Tell you what: Don't vote for Obama in the GE, because he "alienated" (whatever that means) Hillary supporters. When president McCain's Supreme Court justices are busy tearing up Roe vs. Wade before moving on to the Bill of Rights, "immature" will probably be the nicest thing people will be calling  you.


by SupremeCourt on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:39:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Supreme Court (2.00 / 1)

That argument is a canard. The Dems will have more than enough members to block anything McCain wants to do, and if they don't, then the Democratic Party is no longer worth supporting.


by SoCalHillMan on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:22:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Supreme Court (none / 0)

Congratulations, you get an HR. The site is MyDD. We're here to get democrats elected. If you're not here to get democrats elected, then kindly get lost. If you feel your bruised feelings are worth gambling the supreme court, kindly get lost. We're not here to make you feel better about backing a losing candidate, we're here to get democrats elected.

Read the name of the site, and get lost, troll.


by SupremeCourt on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:07:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Supreme Court (none / 0)

congratulations, you get an HR for abusing the rating system.  You TR'd my comment above, which had absolutely no reason for being TR'd at all, and you TR'd this comment, which again, you did simply because you didn't agree with it.  

Now, I suggest you either follow the rules or YOU get lost.


by slynch on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:19:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Supreme Court (none / 0)

if you don't know the word "alienated," look it up.  Or, better yet, take a look at your own comment here as well as those of other Obama supporters denigrating Clinton supporters.  Then you might understand it.


by slynch on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:23:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Supreme Court (none / 0)

I know what "alienated" means. I don't know on what basis the OP claims to be "alienated," nor do I much care. I also don't see where I denigrated Clinton supporters - but I did denigrate anyone stupid and immature enough to consider voting for McCain.

When your grandchildren ask you why you let the supreme court reverse Roe v. Wade, you tell them "Obama's campaign significantly alienated a large number of Hillary supporters!" I'm sure they'll understand. Or perhaps, you could find some maturity and vote for the Democrat in the GE. It's your choice.


by SupremeCourt on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:59:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Supreme Court (none / 0)

The fact that half of Clinton supporters say they won't vote for Obama in the GE, and some 15% or so will vote for McCain, is proof enough that they're alienated from Obama.  Now, the reasons vary, but I'm sure you're familiar with them.  For example, how about Obama's DIRECT statements that she will say and do anything to get elected.  How about his DIRECT statements that she's part of the problem in Washington (as if he's not part of the same system).  How about his DIRECT praise of Reagan and denigration of Bill Clinton, the most popular president in modern history--and I might add, the obvious misogyny involved in that statement; as if she's simply an extension of her husband.

You don't help matters--in fact, you're asking to be HR'd and even banned--for calling 15% of the Democrats in the electorate "immature."  That may be your opinion, but that's not addressing the concerns of Clinton supporters, and it certainly isn't helping "Democrats to get elected," which, as you point out, is the purpose of the site.  So, it's ironic that you expect to be able to TR individuals for pointing this out but think you're somehow not engaging in the same behavior.


by slynch on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:39:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What are you (none / 0)

If you are going off of Indiana exit polls, then be aware that 12% of her "supporters" wouldn't vote for her either. 12% of people who voted for her in Indiana said in exit polls that they would vote for McCain over her in the GE.

Both Clinton and Obama get 70% of the Indiana Dem primary voters in the GE, and 6% of the primary voters wouldn't vote for either of them in the GE. If we drop the not actually Dem 6%, we are left with roughly 75% of Dem primary voters saying they will vote for the Dem in the GE. For a hard fought primary, those aren't bad numbers, and they will improve substantially by the GE (they would for Clinton too, if she were to become the nominee).


by letterc on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:37:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

well, we know it will be just words (none / 0)

you know, what a politician has to do.

She'll support him, I have no doubt.  Just might not be as vocal as you want her to be about it.


by 4justice on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:41:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Do you care that HRC has alienated (none / 0)

African-Americans? We are the base of the party you know.


My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!
by RLMcCauley on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:49:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do you care that HRC has alienated (none / 0)

A/A, women, Latinos and working class voters. But if you want to represent the A/A as strictly the base, let's see if that 13% of the population gets Obama over the finish line all by themselves.

Didn't you remember there's no "I" in "team"?


by SoCalHillMan on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:25:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do you care that HRC has alienated (none / 0)

AA's aren't actually the base of the party.  More than 50% of registered voters are Democrat.  Less than 13% of the entire US population is AA.  Even if AA's were all Democrat (which they aren't), they would be a minority of Democrats.  

It is a mistake for either candidate to think they can win the election without the support of the other's support base.  The continued nastiness of Obama supporters will cost him this election.


by slynch on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:31:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No (none / 0)

Actually, just in the blogosphere.  Real world polls keep saying the contrary.  The country's bigger than a thread on Taylormarsh.


by mikeinsf on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:56:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No (2.00 / 1)

um, no they don't.  The exit polls in NC showed 50% of HRC supporters won't support Obama in the election.  Those aren't just blog folks.


by slynch on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:33:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No (2.00 / 1)

I believe that the sooner the inevitable is a done deal (Obama the nominee) the sooner we can start healing as a party.  Don't underestimate yourself or others in the Dem party.  We want victory too much to turn our back on our nominee.  We'll have about 5 months to lick our wounds and get over it.  Hopefully, some of us will have a turn of opinion and actually offer our service as well as our vote to the Dem nominee.  (FYI, I was an early voter in CA for Hillary).  But winning the WH back is far too important for me to have a hissy fit and stay home.
I hope others will have a "come to the Party" moment and do the same.

These blogs could help start the healing.  Rather than reading mopey diaries, I'd like to see Jerome and Taylor set the example and start leading our party to unity.  Then, maybe the main stream media will follow.  God knows, they can't take the initiative themselves.


by citizensane on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:11:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No (none / 0)

Sorry the party is not healing this year.  I am one of those that have voted republican before and I will be voting McCain this fall.


by kmr1964 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:25:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No (none / 0)

The dead and mutilated in iraq will thank you for your noble stand.
by mikeinsf on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:34:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No (none / 0)

and the problem is that the other part of the electorate - the over 60% that is not registered Democrat - overwhelmingly can't stand Hillary.

Get over it.

She lost.  Clinton is the past.  Obama is the future.  He needs to choose someone who is a break from the past and can help create a new future.  Hillary is just not that person.


Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. -- Martin Luther King, Jr.
by passionateprogressive on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:07:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No (2.00 / 1)

I don't have anything to get over.  I'm not a Hillary supporter, nor am I an Obama supporter.  So, enough with the "get over it." You certainly are among those who aren't helping matters.

The last poll showed that Obama and HRC were separated by 1 point in their negative ratings.  So, you're just making shit up here.


by slynch on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:34:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No (none / 0)

I'm sorry, kiss my what?


The universe is a casual place, not a suit-and-tie affair.
by mtnspirit on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:10:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Ah, Obama's unity. (2.00 / 2)

That will help unite the party.

Anyoo, time for Obama to do another unity speech.

That is his leadership.


by gotalife on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:40:03 PM EST

Re: Obama-Clinton Ticket Is Unlikely Option, Kenne (2.00 / 2)

people stated that JFK wouldn't pick LBJ.

but he did.  LBJ was given the flag for civil rights, and he ran with it; twisting his own party's arms to get that bill passed.  LBJ did that - against his own party's self-interest, but for the people of America

no matter what happened in Vietnam, you cannot take that away from LBJ.


by colebiancardi on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:40:30 PM EST

Re: Obama-Clinton Ticket Is Unlikely Option, Kenne (none / 0)

Direct historical comparisons are always silly. Far too many factors at play.


</