MattZ Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 I think Clinton does bring in votes (probably substantially more than any other potential choice), but it still comes at a very large cost: Selecting her would undercut Obama's entire reason for running in the first place. I'd be shocked if Obama agrees to this particular political calculation rather than take his chances without her, even if they are slimmer chances. I hope Obama doesnt pick her for these exact reasons. You can't bring a new kind of politics to Washington if you hitch your ride to the Clinton truck. I say this as a recent Obama supporter that had once supported Hillary. I just think his whole platform will ring hollow if he picks her, and this might do more damage to him in the long run than not picking her will do. Link to post Share on other sites
mfwahl Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 The obvious choice for VP is Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN). Not happening. A black muslim who was sworn in on Thomas Jefferson's Qu'ran? I like him, but Obama would never go there. Link to post Share on other sites
fatheadfred Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 Chris Matthews was stoking the coals for Biden while revealing Obama camp's belief the HRC's will eventually come 'home'. I read some stuff on Webb. He seems good, he even told Bush to stuff it, but seems like he has some weird background stories. I say this in a PR frame, not what I believe. Wesley Clark, hmmm. Something weird about him, but could be a good choice. Link to post Share on other sites
Tweedling Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 Any particular reason you say that other than latent racism? Just wondering. Is it normal for you to make accusations when you don't know what the fuck you're talking about? Just wondering. Link to post Share on other sites
MattZ Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 Has anyone seen any sort of numbers on this Jim Johnson mortgage? What sort of "deal" did he get from Countrywide? Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 Is it normal for you to make accusations when you don't know what the fuck you're talking about? Just wondering. Yes. Link to post Share on other sites
fatheadfred Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 I wouldn't say this if it wasn't for the recent discussion of the murder of the Kennedys, the proposed similarity of the Kennedys to Obama...if Hillary gets the VP, she could conspire to assassinate Obama, then grab the helm even quicker than if she had to wait 4-8 years. Oh, and I'm sure you are all aware of the accusations of the Clintons and their past murder schemes. This was my thought yesterday, but today I am thinking the Clintons don't have the energy to pull off some shit like this. Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 Just curious, was your avatar picture taken yesterday, right before this thought occured to you perhaps? Link to post Share on other sites
Sweet Papa Crimbo Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 I wouldn't say this if it wasn't for the recent discussion of the murder of the Kennedys, the proposed similarity of the Kennedys to Obama...if Hillary gets the VP, she could conspire to assassinate Obama, then grab the helm even quicker than if she had to wait 4-8 years. Oh, and I'm sure you are all aware of the accusations of the Clintons and their past murder schemes. This was my thought yesterday, but today I am thinking the Clintons don't have the energy to pull off some shit like this. Link to post Share on other sites
Edie Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 Has anyone seen any sort of numbers on this Jim Johnson mortgage? What sort of "deal" did he get from Countrywide? I don't get how this impacts his ability or worthiness to pick a VP. Does anyone? I mean, if he didn't break any laws, and the loan itself wasn't improper, then what's the big deal just in general? Link to post Share on other sites
MattZ Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 I don't get how this impacts his ability or worthiness to pick a VP. Does anyone? I mean, if he didn't break any laws, and the loan itself wasn't improper, then what's the big deal just in general? Someone in a position of authority at Fannie Mae (chief executive) that is willing to accept the equivalent of kickbacks on a personal mortgage from Countrywide could be said to have bad judgment at the very least. But it's not even about whether he is, or isn't, in a position to select a good VP. It's about whether Obama wants to be connected to him in any way. The answer to that is a resounding No. Link to post Share on other sites
Edie Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 Someone in a position of authority at Fannie Mae (chief executive) that is willing to accept the equivalent of kickbacks on a personal mortgage from Countrywide could be said to have bad judgment at the very least. But it's not even about whether he is, or isn't, in a position to select a good VP. It's about whether Obama wants to be connected to him in any way. The answer to that is a resounding No. Ah, right. I certainly get that last part. Link to post Share on other sites
jakobnicholas Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 Interesting Pat Buchanan article: PJB: How Obama Won Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 I don't get how this impacts his ability or worthiness to pick a VP. Does anyone? I mean, if he didn't break any laws, and the loan itself wasn't improper, then what's the big deal just in general? For me, the issue is this - on numerous occasions Obama has spoken eloquently and aggressively about the greed of those in the housing industry in causing the sub-prime meltdown, calling by name Countrywide Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 Yet, national polls show McCain-Obama a close race, and the electoral map points to critical problems for Barack. He seeks, for example, to target Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico. But in all three the Hispanic vote may be decisive. And Barack was beaten by Hillary two to one among Hispanics, and between these two largest of America Link to post Share on other sites
fatheadfred Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 Just curious, was your avatar picture taken yesterday, right before this thought occured to you perhaps? Ha, awesome, I wish. Been kind of dry for awhile. Maybe it is residual. Link to post Share on other sites
fatheadfred Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 Yeah, Buchanan comes off as intelligent at times but if you were to read one of his books your realize that by page 50 or so he is spewing 1950's b.s. that has no relevance in today's world. Link to post Share on other sites
jakobnicholas Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 Except that Obama is destroying John McCain among Hispanic voters in a recent Wall Street Journal poll. Check it out, yo: Obama will win Pennsylvania. He may lose Michigan, but I don't think that's as critical as many are making it out to be because of his gains elsewhere (such as Virginia where he's doing very well). Obama will not win Texas, West Virginia or Kentucky anyway, so his showing in the primaries in those places is pretty irrelevent. Yes, West Virginians who were interviewed by the press around the time of that primary showed themselves to be woefully uninformed. These are people who wouldn't vote for Obama anyway though. Clinton wouldn't win there either. Resistence from whom? The party has rallied around him like crazy this month. This is pure malarkey from Buchanan. Sure, Republicans will try this tact, but what is the evidence that it will work, other than amongst racists who wouldn't vote for him anyway? Just because this is going to be a standard Republican attack line doesn't mean that it's really a problem for Obama. What evidence is there that America is apprehensive about this? Surely some are, but it seems as though the number of people who demand change far outnumber those who don't, right? Again, Buchanan makes an issue of something that isn't really one. How was he losing ground to Hillary at the end? Before the primaries began, she was the heavy favorite, and they ran neck and neck the whole time. Thanks for clearing this up for me. So damn typical. Post one freakin' article on this board from a smart, respectable Conservative, and your panties get in a bunch and you try to contradict every statement. Yeah, Buchanan ain't mister know-it-all, but he does raise some good points. Of course, we'll just have to wait til November to see what America really thinks of Obama. It WILL be a close race....will come down to one or two states. And it will be the biggest choke job in American history if Obama loses this election with Bush's 30 percent approval rating, a crappy economy, an unpopular war and ridiculouos gas prices. Where Buchanan makes a good point, and should scare Democrats, is people don't really know Obama....maybe that's a good thing because of his far left record. What happens when people learn MORE about Obama? We'll see, my friend, we'll see. Link to post Share on other sites
Mr. Kinsley Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 How was he losing ground to Hillary at the end? Before the primaries began, she was the heavy favorite, and they ran neck and neck the whole time.He racked-up a huge lead with the 11 wins in a row, then pretty much limped to the finish. He won the first half, she won the second half, but he had a bigger half. Someone on TV was talking the other day about how he piled up 200+ delegates in that beginning portion and ended up winning by about 200 delegates. Link to post Share on other sites
Gobias Industries Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 He racked-up a huge lead with the 11 wins in a row, then pretty much limped to the finish. He won the first half, she won the second half, but he had a bigger half. Someone on TV was talking the other day about how he piled up 200+ delegates in that beginning portion and ended up winning by about 200 delegates. Yeah, but the last half was really the half that belonged to Clinton (in terms of the states 'played' and their constituencies). His ability to keep the lead was pretty damn impressive. Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 It is impressive and perhaps a sign of things to come that all the preacher-gate nonsense hasn't derailed his campaign or seriously dented his char-razz-ma, but I suspect it's the kind of thing where most of those who got pissed about it wouldn't vote for him anyway. We shall see. Obama might win, but he ain't a shoo-in by any means. Link to post Share on other sites
Beltmann Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 So damn typical. Post one freakin' article on this board from a smart, respectable Conservative, and your panties get in a bunch and you try to contradict every statement.I'm confused. So when someone posts an entire article on a discussion board, readers shouldn't bother to respond? What's the point of posting the article on a discussion board if you don't believe discussion should follow? Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 I kinda like Pat Buchanan. He is a funny and often incisive commentator. Link to post Share on other sites
jakobnicholas Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 I'm confused. So when someone posts an entire article on a discussion board, readers shouldn't bother to respond? What's the point of posting the article on a discussion board if you don't believe discussion should follow? C'mon. You can't be serious. All these political boards turn into this crap, where we parcel every little phrase. It's great that the Buchanan article got responded to and disagreed to. I LOVE hearing the devil's advocate to anything....helps me form my own opinions. I just found it predictable and almost comical that SEVEN points were taken out of a small article and rebutted. And any Democrat who thinks Obama didn't hang on by his fingernails agains Hillary is fooling themselves. There's some serious doubt and apprehension starting to build with Obama when it comes to middle of the road voters. Like Buchanan said, he's charismatic enough and bright enought to PROBABLY get those middle voters. But he's got some red flags popping up also. Link to post Share on other sites
Beltmann Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 I just found it predictable and almost comical that SEVEN points were taken out of a small article and rebutted.Buchanan made multiple points, which justifies multiple rebuttals. If such careful reading and response is "typical" and "predictable," then we should all be grateful. Besides, wouldn't it be more constructive to actually respond to the rebuttals rather than avoid them by resorting to vague distractions about liberal panties and their bunches? Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts