Will He or wont He? Will She or Wont She? Will They or...

doodude · Post by **doodude** » Wed Jun 04, 2008 3:34 pm

Are we ready for President Obamma & Vice President Clinton?

indstr · Post by **indstr** » Wed Jun 04, 2008 3:43 pm

Yesh, I'm voting for them like whuttt

Ed Oscuro · Post by **Ed Oscuro** » Wed Jun 04, 2008 5:00 pm

needs moar infoz

jpj · Post by **jpj** » Wed Jun 04, 2008 5:15 pm

"look what happened to bobby kennedy..."

doodude · Post by **doodude** » Wed Jun 04, 2008 6:31 pm

Im really interested if Barrak will ask Hillary, in the name of Party unity, to be on the ticket with him.

Some strategist say he wont & it will cause him some problems with Clintons supporters.

Some say if he does hell be totally overshadowed by the Clintons. If not Hillary then Bubba.

Others say he will not want a co-presidency which is what an Obamma/Clinton ticket would really be.

Still others say Clinton now wants McCain to win, setting Hillary up for a 2012 run.

As the Presidential Election Turns...

Post by **BulletMagnet** » Wed Jun 04, 2008 6:56 pm

If memory serves, at some previous point, when asked whether she'd consider a joint ticket, she said no (Obama said the same when asked that question) - now, supposedly, she's reversed her stance on that, so if she did end up on the ticket she'd be grilled to heck and back for it...I honestly doubt that Obama would take her as a running mate, the press and the "experts" have had it in for her (and Bubba) for way too long (seriously, she kept the race close enough to keep it going this long, and there have still been demands for her to exit for ages already). Whatever good will he'd win from the "disenchanted" Clinton supporters would be canceled out with interest by the ire he'd draw in terms of coverage and commentary. It's the same reason Al Gore can never run for anything again, despite a supposed resurgence in popularity - plain and simple, he and she have been blacklisted. Generally, the establishment likes Obama (though not as much as McCain) - she, they hate, for some legitimate reasons and many illegitimate ones. She's just too much of a liability, and not entirely via her own faults.

it290 · Post by **it290** » Wed Jun 04, 2008 8:16 pm

Edwards for Attorney General!

doodude · Post by **doodude** » Wed Jun 04, 2008 9:25 pm

Jesse Jackson for Secretary of State. Then we could Boycot our way thru this ding dang oil crisis!

sven666 · Post by **sven666** » Wed Jun 04, 2008 10:59 pm

as someone not living in the country what are the odds in Mccain Vs Obama?

havent heard anything about mccain really over here, its all been about the democrate race and how wacky everyone thinks your voting system is

Phil12 · Post by **Phil12** » Wed Jun 04, 2008 11:03 pm

Hilary = The Kitchen

haha nah just kiddin.

indstr · Post by **indstr** » Wed Jun 04, 2008 11:05 pm

sven666 wrote:as someone not living in the country what are the odds in Mccain Vs Obama?

Not sure, I haven't seen any official polls or anything but I'm thinking about 50/50. I hope to hell that Obama wins though. Mccain actually wouldn't be bad, being a moderate, but he's still for the "war" which is shittay

Ed Oscuro · Post by **Ed Oscuro** » Wed Jun 04, 2008 11:07 pm

If Obama can stick to this message throughout the campaign, he just might pull it off against McCain.

McCain, of course, is jonesing for regular debates to save on money. It could be the case that Obama's money trumps any considerations over his inexperience, but I think it would do us all a favor to hear more about Obama's specific plans, strategies, and opinions.

That, and Mrs. Clinton is really the only choice for a running mate at this time.

BulletMagnet: I'd seen the question asked by many of the papers back when Clinton and Obama were clearly ill at ease with each other, and the editorial take was "they clearly wouldn't work well together," but if she'd said that I would've expected to see it reported.

Obviously, she wasn't saying that recently.

Turrican · Post by **Turrican** » Wed Jun 04, 2008 11:22 pm

BulletMagnet wrote:If memory serves, at some previous point, when asked whether she'd consider a joint ticket, she said no (Obama said the same when asked that question) - now, supposedly, she's reversed her stance on that, so if she did end up on the ticket she'd be grilled to heck and back for it...I honestly doubt that Obama would take her as a running mate, the press and the "experts" have had it in for her (and Bubba) for way too long (seriously, she kept the race close enough to keep it going this long, and there have still been demands for her to exit for ages already). Whatever good will he'd win from the "disenchanted" Clinton supporters would be canceled out with interest by the ire he'd draw in terms of coverage and commentary. It's the same reason Al Gore can never run for anything again, despite a supposed resurgence in popularity - plain and simple, he and she have been blacklisted. Generally, the establishment likes Obama (though not as much as McCain) - she, they hate, for some legitimate reasons and many illegitimate ones. She's just too much of a liability, and not entirely via her own faults.

Some opinion maker over here suggested that he can't really role out her; because she would actively make a pro-McCain campaign (although not esplicit of course) to her supporters in the party. If Obama had been a clear winner since the beginning, then he could do without, but now, it would be dangerous to not have her in the team since she won in many important states after all.

Of course, said journalist (Vittorio Zucconi, btw) was also "afraid" that to have her as vice-president would mean to have someone convinced he's the real power in the White House.

Ed Oscuro wrote:If Obama can stick to this message throughout the campaign, he just might pull it off against McCain.

Didn't pass one day since his victory and he already sounds worse than before.

The n00b · Post by **The n00b** » Wed Jun 04, 2008 11:28 pm

I'm still holding out for an American Empire led by Zombie Reagan but I suppose Obama will do for you dirty liberals.

In all seriousness, I don't think Hillary should get anywhere near the white house. She just rankles all the old tyme konservatives. To them not only is she a woman in power...but she's a Clinton: A name every fervent Bushite has nightmares about. Thus these guys will do anything to spite her and then Obama will get nothing done during his term.

Post by **BulletMagnet** » Thu Jun 05, 2008 12:31 am

Ed Oscuro wrote:I'd seen the question asked by many of the papers back when Clinton and Obama were clearly ill at ease with each other, and the editorial take was "they clearly wouldn't work well together," but if she'd said that I would've expected to see it reported.

Perhaps I was thinking of this, when Obama was asked if he'd be willing to settle for VP and he said he wouldn't, but I'm almost positive that Hill gave the same response to the same question at some point. A quick Google search didn't find it for me though.

Some opinion maker over here suggested that he can't really role out her; because she would actively make a pro-McCain campaign (although not esplicit of course) to her supporters in the party.

I really hope that the whole "if Clinton's not an option, we'll vote for McCain!" threat is just hot air, and these people take the time to have a good look at what they're really saying here...especially considering that...

Mccain actually wouldn't be bad, being a moderate

I know I've mentioned this before, but here it is again - an 80-plus percent lifetime rating by the ACU, and perhaps even higher via other measurements. Yeah, he's opposed a handful of high-profile (or at least high-coverage) Bush stances, but eternally-repeated tagline notwithstanding, he's no "moderate," let alone "maverick."

its all been about the democrate race and how wacky everyone thinks your voting system is

I might argue that "the system" itself isn't a whole lot wackier than anyone else's (though it's definitely wacky), but rather that we don't put nearly enough effort into ensuring that the people put in charge of the process don't put their thumb on the scale for their candidate of choice. Off the top of my head, I recall hearing that the woman who bungled (read: fixed) the Florida count in 2000 still had that job in '04, and later on ran for Republican office. Seriously, almost nobody batted an eye at it (or, more to the point, ever even knew about it, thanks to our wonderful "liberal" press corps).

Zombie Reagan

I'm honestly surprised they haven't nominated him yet. Then again, there's always the next-best thing.

Turrican · Post by **Turrican** » Thu Jun 05, 2008 12:37 am

I still think you won't ever get a better president than George Sears.

antron · Post by **antron** » Thu Jun 05, 2008 12:47 am

he will offer and she will take it.

jpj · Post by **jpj** » Thu Jun 05, 2008 1:05 am

where's fighter17 when you need it?

StoofooEsq · Post by **StoofooEsq** » Thu Jun 05, 2008 1:25 am

Turrican wrote:I still think you won't ever get a better president than George Sears.

Michael Wilson, Metal Wolf Chaos.

Turrican · Post by **Turrican** » Thu Jun 05, 2008 1:38 am

Vincent Draconis wrote:
Turrican wrote:I still think you won't ever get a better president than George Sears.
Michael Wilson, Metal Wolf Chaos.

That looks damn essential. I wonder if he, too, will enter history as an exon.

Now I must play Metal Wolf Chaos.

Neon · Post by **Neon** » Thu Jun 05, 2008 4:34 am

indstr wrote:
sven666 wrote:as someone not living in the country what are the odds in Mccain Vs Obama?
Not sure, I haven't seen any official polls or anything but I'm thinking about 50/50. I hope to hell that Obama wins though. Mccain actually wouldn't be bad, being a moderate, but he's still for the "war" which is shittay

Nah, J Mac will have to pull a rabbit out of his hat to beat Barry O.

www.electoral-vote.com , good site for keeping up with 'the race'

ED-057 · Post by **ED-057** » Thu Jun 05, 2008 5:29 am

two parties = lame. I'm voting for Ralph Nader or Bob Barr. (Yes I will consider both, even though according to the meaningless left vs. right classification they might seem to be opposite extremes.)

doodude · Post by **doodude** » Thu Jun 05, 2008 8:48 am

ED-057 wrote:two parties = lame. I'm voting for Ralph Nader or Bob Barr. (Yes I will consider both, even though according to the meaningless left vs. right classification they might seem to be opposite extremes.)

Bob Barr sounds like the best alternative to me as he is not as "party" specific (IMO).

I think the Rs & the Ds are just too concerned about the party & the power & not what WE as a majority really want.

Whatever that might be!?

Ex-Cyber · Post by **Ex-Cyber** » Thu Jun 05, 2008 1:52 pm

ED-057 wrote:two parties = lame.

I don't think it's an accident; American political parties, in effect, exploit security holes in the Constitution. Their positions are cemented by the spoiler effect (unless a new party usurps one of the top spots, and I think even that has only happened once), and they consolidate power across the separation of powers that is meant to check abuse.

Acid King · Post by **Acid King** » Thu Jun 05, 2008 2:15 pm

Whether Republican or Democrat, it's the same scumbag government, with scumbag ways of runnin' shit.

Truer words were never spoke, Ill Bill.

Ed Oscuro · Post by **Ed Oscuro** » Thu Jun 05, 2008 2:36 pm

ED-057 wrote:two parties = lame.

On the other hand, both parties have changed positions many times. They rarely are right with the times, but that's the price of politics.

doodude wrote:I think the Rs & the Ds are just too concerned about the party & the power & not what WE as a majority really want.

Whatever that might be!?

That's a good question!

If the blogs are any indication, the people paying attention to politics are spending all their time obsessing about grr Clinton fatigue or grr Obama the queue jumper or grr McCain the fuddy-duddy, rather than actually thinking about the issues...

I don't know who to believe here - Democrats who say that a timetable will force Iraqi politicians to get moving on compromises confounded by sectarian and money issues, or Republicans who seem to want to keep us over there forever aka until the pressure gets too hot to handle

ALSO: Nixon has a secret plan to end the war!

doodude · Post by **doodude** » Thu Jun 05, 2008 8:13 pm

I heard a statement by Nancy Pelosi today.

Paraphrasing: "We need to elect a Dem for Prez cuz we have a plan in place to fix the gasoline crisis."
Well, WTF are you waiting for!? Lets hear it now!!!

Both parties are guilty of this kind of thing.

If you elect us, THEN we will fix everything!

The Rep's had congressional control & didnt do anything.

The Dem's have congressional control & havent done anything & wont do anything.

I literally have never felt so unsure about the what the future holds for the US.

The Dems are too far left & the Reps are too far right & here I am & many like me, sitting in the middle wondering WTF to do because no one hears us at all.
We're just regular folks going to work, going to school, trying to save a little money, live in a good neighborhood, drive a decent car & live peacefully with our neighbors.

And all the while our elected ass wipes, on both sides, are selling favors to special interest groups for every dime they can get & spending every penny of my tax $'s on pork projects. Oh yeah, & the war...

I say we ban congress & elect Richard Simmons King for Life!

jp · Post by jp » Thu Jun 05, 2008 8:43 pm

doodude wrote:I heard a statement by Nancy Pelosi today.

Paraphrasing: "We need to elect a Dem for Prez cuz we have a plan in place to fix the gasoline crisis."
Well, WTF are you waiting for!? Lets hear it now!!!

Both parties are guilty of this kind of thing.

If you elect us, THEN we will fix everything!

The Rep's had congressional control & didnt do anything.

The Dem's have congressional control & havent done anything & wont do anything.

I literally have never felt so unsure about the what the future holds for the US.

The Dems are too far left & the Reps are too far right & here I am & many like me, sitting in the middle wondering WTF to do because no one hears us at all.
We're just regular folks going to work, going to school, trying to save a little money, live in a good neighborhood, drive a decent car & live peacefully with our neighbors.

And all the while our elected ass wipes, on both sides, are selling favors to special interest groups for every dime they can get & spending every penny of my tax $'s on pork projects. Oh yeah, & the war...

I say we ban congress & elect Richard Simmons King for Life!

What? A government that gives a shit about the people it governs? Surely sir you must be mad! Only in a fantasy land do such people come into power and support the freedom of the people.

Zebra Airforce · Post by **Zebra Airforce** » Thu Jun 05, 2008 8:45 pm

ALSO: Nixon has a secret plan to end the war!

Ed Oscuro · Post by **Ed Oscuro** » Thu Jun 05, 2008 8:53 pm

doodude wrote:I heard a statement by Nancy Pelosi today.

Paraphrasing: "We need to elect a Dem for Prez cuz we have a plan in place to fix the gasoline crisis."
Well, WTF are you waiting for!? Lets hear it now!!!

I think they were fooling themselves about something or other.

The plan is to further reduce the energy intensity of the economy, which is something industry will have to lead the way on, aided and abetted by timely legislation of the type even the Republicans will be happy to provide for the economy's sake

On that subject, Ben Bernanke addressed Harvard's graduating class yesterday and notes that the economy is about half as energy intensive as it was back in the 70s during the first fuel crisis. Everybody took note of the cost of that wasted power and took steps to lessen it.

Getting further off-topic, but the latest Discovery also has an interesting topic about how carbon dioxide absorption by the ocean is increasing the acidity of waters worldwide with far-reaching effects for aquatic life - just another reason to stop burning stuff.