Page 1 of 3

The democratic joint ticket?

PostPosted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 8:17 am
by got tonkaed
something your probably hearing a little bit more about lately, the idea that no matter which way it goes, the number 2 in the race will end up being the VP on the others ticket.

Some people are claiming the clinton-obama ticket makes more sense like this than obama-clinton does and they have some good reasons why.

However this is starting to be contested by a number of different camps who claim clinton might be more willing to be a VP than some thought.

Anyway....good move for the dems?

PostPosted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 8:41 am
by muy_thaiguy
Considering how much they have been slandering each other, even if they do become one ticket, it will not be a very effective Executive Branch I think.

PostPosted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 10:25 am
by greenoaks
that would be the holy trinity of election's tickets

Hillary, Obama & Heavenly Bill

PostPosted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 10:30 am
by heavycola
Ron Paul/Marion Cotillard '08


/tired running gags


I have a feeling, rooted in FACT, damn you, that Hillary is going to win the nomination. She is a machine.
Although you know that Stevie W song - 'blah bah blah was a black man'? It would be cool if Obama got elected and Stevie updated his tune.

PostPosted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 10:35 am
by btownmeggy
Doesn't matter.

PostPosted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 10:36 am
by Guiscard
Luns/Paul would be a strong ticket - unite the foruMZ!

PostPosted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 11:07 am
by Iz Man
First, I don't think it will happen given the bad blood; however, I believe McCain beats either scenario.
This I believe is contingent on whomever McCain picks for his #2.
Hillary has HUGE negatives among the American public (last I saw ~49%), that cannot be discounted. People just plain don't like her.
Obama has no qualifications or experience. We're already seeing a bit of him cowering from tough questions now that the lib media has been called out on their love affair with him. I think in a head-to-head debate with McCain he loses. Especially when it comes to national security and Obama's socialist economic plan.
Combine these two and they go down in flames.

PostPosted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 11:10 am
by Colossus
I would lose any and all respect for Obama if he agreed to be on the same ticket as Billary, in any order. After all the talk about change, getting on the same ticket with Billary would be the ultimate slap in the face to all the people who have gotten behind him, in my opinion. I would be similarly disgusted with McCain choosing some uber-conservative like Huckabee as his running mate. I would love to see an Obama-Edwards ticket, maybe or McCain-Leiberman. These would both be middle fingers to the political establishment, and as such would give me a bit more faith in the system. Alas, I expect both nominees will choose a running mate based exclusively on who will win them votes that they otherwise wouldn't get.

PostPosted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 11:27 am
by Snorri1234
There is no chance Obama will be VP for Hilary. It would mean he would have very little power and almost no chance of reelection. If Obame loses the nomination he'd have another shot after 4 years, but if he joins up with hilarry anything bad that happened during her presidency would reflect upon him.

Not to mention that Obama can actually unite democrats and republicans (McCain might do that too) as he is generally well liked by the people more in the center. Many conservatives are voting for him while there is no chance they'd vote for hilary.

PostPosted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 11:38 am
by Frigidus
Snorri1234 wrote:There is no chance Obama will be VP for Hilary. It would mean he would have very little power and almost no chance of reelection. If Obame loses the nomination he'd have another shot after 4 years, but if he joins up with hilarry anything bad that happened during her presidency would reflect upon him.

Not to mention that Obama can actually unite democrats and republicans (McCain might do that too) as he is generally well liked by the people more in the center. Many conservatives are voting for him while there is no chance they'd vote for hilary.


And I doubt that Clinton could swallow her pride to the point where she'd accept a VP role, so it just won't happen. At this point I'm more interested in who gets the running mate role than the candidacy itself.

PostPosted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 11:59 am
by reminisco
Snorri1234 wrote: Many conservatives are voting for him while there is no chance they'd vote for hilary.



i think you're right on with this, Snorri. I know a good deal of ABC voters in this election... Anyone But Clinton.

and while i wish they were supporting Obama because they believe in him as much as I do, we gotta take it where we can get it...

PostPosted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 12:46 pm
by Iz Man
If you listen to Obama followers (he has followers, not supporters), they'll say conservatives are voting for him. This is just not true. Many conservatives now are crossing over in the primaries (where allowed) and voting for Clinton to throw the Dem primary into a tizzy. Which is working, BTW.
Obama is regarded as the most liberal member of the senate. His economic philosophy of high taxes, big controlling government, and a weak stance in fighting terrorism are about as far away (politically) as one can get from a conservative standpoint.

PostPosted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 12:53 pm
by heavycola
Iz Man wrote:His economic philosophy of high taxes, big controlling government, and a weak stance in fighting terrorism are about as far away (politically) as one can get from a conservative standpoint.


I don't think they are his economic policies, but rather your opinion of them...

Are US politics in a rut? Could Obama be the person to cause a shift?

PostPosted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 12:54 pm
by Snorri1234
Iz Man wrote:If you listen to Obama followers (he has followers, not supporters), they'll say conservatives are voting for him. This is just not true.

Actually, I know a guy on another forum who is very much a conservative, but still supports Obama.

By conservatives we mean people who have voted conservative in the last few elections ofcourse. I don't think anyone believes Obama is a conservative.

Many conservatives now are crossing over in the primaries (where allowed) and voting for Clinton to throw the Dem primary into a tizzy. Which is working, BTW.


Yeah I know. And the reason they're doing it is because McCain stands much more of a chance against her than against Obama.

PostPosted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 12:55 pm
by got tonkaed
although i dont know how it worked in every state, i was under the impression from the telecast i heard (i cant remember which one it was, i think msnbc) that obama actually got the majority of the republican voters in the Texas race.

PostPosted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 1:03 pm
by reminisco
Iz Man wrote:If you listen to Obama followers (he has followers, not supporters),



um, exactly where the f*ck do you get that semantic distinction.

see, here in the USA, we support candidates, because we VOTE for them.

religious leaders have followers. cult leaders have followers.

but candidates for President have supporters. Artists, bands, writers -- all have supporters. because we support their activities. don't try and twist shit.

PostPosted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 1:09 pm
by got tonkaed
reminisco wrote:
Iz Man wrote:If you listen to Obama followers (he has followers, not supporters),



um, exactly where the f*ck do you get that semantic distinction.

see, here in the USA, we support candidates, because we VOTE for them.

religious leaders have followers. cult leaders have followers.

but candidates for President have supporters. Artists, bands, writers -- all have supporters. because we support their activities. don't try and twist shit.


watch for the brillance....

I believe our good friend IZ is remarking on the fact that Obama's main message of Change and Yes We Can has taken on something of a religious fervor, and that it may be lacking in substance.

Hence the clever play on semantics.

PostPosted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 1:34 pm
by spurgistan
No way in hell it's happening (imbalanced ticket, anybody?) but I'd support it over McCain any day. It would be a nice way to quell the bickering over delegates, but yeah, they're both spending a lot of money to be the next Democratic candidate for President, and neither is going to willingly forgo that chance to be the Vice-President. It'd be too easy, for one thing (remember, we're Democrats - we find beauty in making s@#t complicated) but also Obama doesn't need Clinton to win New York, and Clinton doesn't need Obama for Illinois. Both side's base will grudgingly vote for the other candidate, they both know this and will pick a veep who will help that.

Also, both Hillary and Obama will want to be the president by themselves, they don't want another high-profile candidate to steal the spotlight.

PostPosted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:29 pm
by Iz Man
reminisco wrote:
Iz Man wrote:If you listen to Obama followers (he has followers, not supporters),
um, exactly where the f*ck do you get that semantic distinction.
see, here in the USA, we support candidates, because we VOTE for them.
religious leaders have followers. cult leaders have followers.
but candidates for President have supporters. Artists, bands, writers -- all have supporters. because we support their activities. don't try and twist shit.
oooooo.... touchy touchy, and vulgar too...excellent.... Did I hit a nerve?:lol:
So as a loyal Obama follower, can you enlighten us all by naming specific experiences and accomplishments that qualify him for the highest executive office? One caveat, you can't use the word "change" in your answer......
got tonkaed wrote:watch for the brillance....

I believe our good friend IZ is remarking on the fact that Obama's main message of Change and Yes We Can has taken on something of a religious fervor, and that it may be lacking in substance.

Hence the clever play on semantics.
Quite clever, I might add. 8)

PostPosted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:39 pm
by reminisco
Iz Man wrote:oooooo.... touchy touchy, and vulgar too...excellent.... Did I hit a nerve?:lol:
So as a loyal Obama follower, can you enlighten us all by naming specific experiences and accomplishments that qualify him for the highest executive office? One caveat, you can't use the word "change" in your answer......



well, first of all, i am not a follower. having read his book, The Audacity of Hope, i was swayed to support his bid for the highest office. i have followed his career since he first ran for Senate.

i will not respond to you until you address me as a supporter, not a follower, because the condescension coming from you is not conducive to actual discourse. it is called trolling.

PostPosted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:48 pm
by reminisco
got tonkaed wrote:I believe our good friend IZ is remarking on the fact that Obama's main message of Change and Yes We Can has taken on something of a religious fervor, and that it may be lacking in substance.


and i believe that anyone who claims that the advertisements that throw out such a simplified version of Obama's message are actually indicative of the whole substance of Obama's message are, with all due respect, complete fucking morons.

PostPosted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 3:00 pm
by Iz Man
If you can't answer the question...... then one can only assume you follow, and not support; but for the sake of argument I guess I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you support Obama.
So far his qualifications are:

1) He wrote a book.

Care to list some more? (remember....... can't use the word change) 8)

PostPosted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 3:05 pm
by reminisco
Iz Man wrote:1) He wrote a book.


he's written two, actually, and unlike Hillary Rodham Clinton, he doesn't hire a ghostwriter.

Audacity of Hope, which you should read, outlines his worldview and his ideas of what it means to be the President. in fact, you cannot glibly dismiss it (as you do in what i've quoted) unless you HAVE read it. because it is not the fact of writing the book, but what is contained therein, that matters.

he doesn't lay out detailed plans for healthcare the way Hillary does, because that is not the job of the Executive. it is the legislators that introduce bills, the Executive makes suggestions and has the veto power. it is indeed hubris for Hillary to assume she could enact any plan she has laid out, when as President that would not be her job. With that in mind, it underscores how little Hillary would actually DO in office, when she has built such a complete and thorough mirage of 'experience'. where then, is the bill she's introduced for universal healthcare?

actually, i think the Obama camp has released a detailed healthcare plan recently. i have not yet had the chance to look it over in detail. however, healthcare is not my primary concern for the next president.

He served for 7 years in the Illinois State Senate, where he earned a well deserved reputation for representing his constituents' interests in earnest and not bowing to the kinds of financial and political pressures often found among representatives in that office. it is, in fact, the greatest point of interest to me, and why i have been supporting Obama from very early in this campaign, that he has resisted the corrupting influences of public office.

to that end, I was very impressed with his involvement (and the amount of time he spent) on the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (introduced by Coburn, with Obama's name attached -- and, notably, John McCain's).

I have also been impressed and happy with his involvement with CTR -- Cooperative Threat Reduction. and that's all part of a larger concern -- that of diplomatic relations with Russia and other nations. our next President MUST be very good with foreign relations, and given Obama's background and his record for the short time he has been in FEDERAL office, i believe he will do well -- looking out for both the interests of the USA and reaching mutually beneficial compromises with other nations.

His work in the state legislature is exemplary of the kinds of challenges in compromise all public officials face, and i can sympathize with his frustration, especially over issues like abortion legislation, and the inability for either side of the debate to reach a compromise.

I also like how he's been managing his campaign. So often, candidates try to change who they really are to pander to voters and get those votes. Al Gore did it in 2000. John McCain is doing it now... talking about tax cuts when we all know that's not even a viable option... and DOES NOT sound like the John McCain i once admired. Obama has taken more of a "take me or leave me" stance. he is who he is, and essentially asks us voters to support him if we agree with him. instead of saying to us voters, "hey, i agree with whatever it is you want me to agree with!"

there's more, but since i doubt you're going to give any serious consideration to what i've already written, i'm going to go ahead and busy myself with something more productive than an interweb argument that is not likely to change anyone's mind.

PostPosted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 3:11 pm
by Snorri1234
Iz Man wrote:If you can't answer the question...... then one can only assume you follow, and not support; but for the sake of argument I guess I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you support Obama.
So far his qualifications are:

1) He wrote a book.

Care to list some more? (remember....... can't use the word change) 8)


What I don't get is that people with retarded ideas but with experience are always more qualified for the job than people with good ideas but not a lot of experience.

Have you actually looked at Obama's ideas?

PostPosted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 4:02 pm
by spurgistan
I suppose Iz is a bit right, at least as far as I am concerned. Personally, I would prefer Clinton's platform to Obama's (naturally, McCain's is anathema, so I'm just talking about Democrats). Clinton has a more comprehensive medical care plan, and her plans in general seem a bit more concrete than Obama's "empowerment", etc. However, I like the idea of Obama so much more I'm willing to overlook slightly more conservative views on healthcare and foreign policy to nominate a man who simply seems to represent what I want to believe. So, while I might like Hillary's ideas more, the slightly cultish Obamania (woah, my spellcheck didn't catch that) has got me hooked into pulling for him to get the nomination.

btw, I find the concept of a democratic joint rather appetizing. Aren't they all, though?