Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

_jonny_5_ — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 21:20:30 GMT

One can see the desperation…

If Billary were STEAL the nomination Obama is her only real choice for VP. The ONLY chance to reunite(at least somewhat) the party.

It could round out her ticket with the Positives that it is lacking. It LIFTS her chances of winning the presidency. It also doesn’t fly in the face of Obama’s canditacy, with a simple statement of bringing change from the VP role. Also setting him up for 2016. I don’t see her beating McCain otherwise.

That said, with Billary on the top of the ticket, Repubs are handed their UNITED base. A Down-ticket nightmare.

With the shoe on the other(legitimate nomination)foot,

Obama CAN NOT choose Billary. This does not round His ticket what so ever, nor does it hand him a state that he isn’t otherwise going to win (NY is true blue, I concede MAYBE Arkansas may flip if Huckabee is NOT on the repub ticket). Gov. Richarson is a good choice, although Secretary of State seems Ideal for him(and the country) Sen Biden would round out the foriegn policy end of things, although again Secretary of State seems appropriate as well. Tim Kaine of VA would be a great pick bringing VA into the blue column. 2 Young up-and-coming dems(one Sen., one Gov.) worked well in 1992. Robert Reich, Sec. of Treasury during Bill Clinton might be prudent given the economy issues, but not so well known. Any of these choices is better for down ticket Dems.

I’d like to think that Billary sees the writing on the wall. I’d like to think she is doing Dem’s a favor by bringing up Repub style attacks against Obama to help strengthen his operation as well as making lines of attack, “Old News”. I know they are true dem’s and they see the AGED makeup of the Supreme Court, and the tenuous hold on congressional majorities that are apparent to anyone paying attention I can’t allow myself to think otherwise.

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

SarahsDad — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 22:09:47 GMT

Romano - you are a gifted writer.

Why aren't more of the mainstream media calling out Hillary on this "dream ticket" shenanigan? Would the media have been as quiet if Edwards in 2004 (then #2) had offered Kerry the vice-presidency?? Or Bill Bradley in 2000 (then #2) offering the same to Al Gore?

I'm afraid Obama's reluctance to go negative legitimizes the acceptance of this scenario. I agree he needs to remain vocal on this issue, but it should be the media who points out how ludicrous this offer is, not Obama.

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

Stavy — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 22:35:58 GMT

Yeah, the more the Clintons throw this out there, the more desperate they look. Why can't she stand on her own and run as her own person, she is always trying to align with her husband, Mcacin or even Obama. She should run the course of her campaign and see who will be the nominee at the end. The politics of the old is really getting old.

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

ALLEAS — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 22:38:54 GMT

THIS IS JUST ANOTHER CAMPAIGN TACTIC ON THE PART OF THE CLINTONS

TO TRY TO GARNER VOTES. BARACK OBAMA IS MUCH TOO BRIGHT AND

TALENTED TO ACCEPT ANYTHING SO IDIOTIC AS TO EVEN CONSIDER

BEING ON THE SAME TICKET WITH A CLINTON. OBAMA IS A RISING POLITICIAN

WHO CAN BRING REAL HOPE TO THIS COUNTRY RATHER THAN SOMEONE

LIKE CLINTON WHO WILL STOOP TO UNBELIEVEABLE DIRTY TRICKS TO WIN.

SHE HAS RUN THE SLEAZIEST CAMPAIGN I HAVE EVER WITNESSED FROM

SOMEONE WHO CALLS HERSELF A DEMOCRAT. THESE TACTICS COMING FROM

THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN SEEM LIKE DEJA VU FROM THE KARL ROVE PLAYBOOK

OF DIRTY POLITICS. DO DEMOCRATS REALLY WANT TO STOOP TO THIS LEVEL?

I CERTAINLY HOPE THAT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY WILL WAKE UP BEFORE IT'S

TOO LATE.

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

highlighter — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 22:49:24 GMT

Current Popular vote (w/ FL and MI)

13,611,000 Clinton versus 13,576,869 Obama

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

sh0519 — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 22:50:32 GMT

Is trying to please the majority of Americans desperate???? It is obvious that the democratic people are almost split between Clinton and Obama. If Obama is so much about "unity"...why not consider a joint ticket????? Otherwise this is going to split the democratic party. I keep reading that people are going to vote for Mccain if their favorite does not win....this could be a win- win. And please stop with the "Billary" and name calling....It is SO childish. I was not against Obama to begin with, but the nasty, hateful remarks of his followers are turning me right off... this is not the "change" I am looking forward to!

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

FRANCES DRAKES — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 22:57:17 GMT

Hillary Rodham Clinton and her husband have been suspected of murder, on several counts, especially in Arkansas. I should say that the cases are well documented: see The Clinton Chronicles.

These people will stop at nothing.

When they realize they cannot win the Presidency; Dear Barack, please watch your back MOST ESPECIALLY if you go along with her being the Vice President.

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

tired and old — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 22:59:53 GMT

Hillary Clinton has lied to the public and the media so often it is astonishing.

Hillary Clinton probably wants to be a man; thus, pantsuits attire.

She probably would neuter Bill if she could, this cause I would totally champion.

Hilliary may want to see if Bill belongs to a prostitution ring like New York Gov.Spitzer. I wonder if the ring had young girls dressed up as whitehouse interns.

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

nsanders — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 23:00:50 GMT

sorry, but Hillary knows that the huge majority of Obama supporters like myself will not support her as president, under any circumstances. So she's belitting him, she's holding out hope to his supporters that he can be a part of the ticket..

I say this one's going to backfire, bigtime. First, it flies in the face of what she said..he's not ready to take the red phone call. Clearly he is, if she's considering him for veep.

come on Hillary, do you have such a low opinion of the electorate that you think they won't notice the contradiction?

that is the problem actually...she has a low opinion of us.

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

tired and old — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 23:04:42 GMT

Governor Spitzer has had state police investigate opponents.

Hillary Clinton had FBI investigate people while she was in whitehouse, She had a slimball exbouncer submit requests to FBI??????

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

ALLEAS — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 23:08:22 GMT

BARACK OBAMA'S NAME DID NOT APPEAR ON THE MICHIGAN BALLOT

SINCE THIS WOULD HAVE VIOLATED PARTY RULES. HE DID NOT CAMPAIGN

IN FLORIDA IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AGREEMENT WITH THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL

COMMITTEE RULES WHICH WERE AGREED TO BY ALL OF THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEES.. SHE IS AHEAD IN THE POPULAR VOTE ONLY BECAUSE SHE CONSIDERS THE VOTE IN

MICHIGAN AND FLORIDA TO BE HERS NO MATTER WHAT THE RULES WERE.

SHE VIOLATED THE RULES. OBAMA IS NOW AHEAD IN THE DELEGATE COUNT,

THE NUMBER OF STATES WON AND BY THE POPULAR VOTE EXCLUDING FLORIDA

AND MICHIGAN.

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

Emile Mervin — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 23:09:43 GMT

Ronald Reagan during the 1980 Republican campaign for the nomination once described competitor George H.W. Bush's economic proposals as 'voodoo economics', yet turned around and slecetd Bush as his vice president. He did not use Bush's 'trickle down economics' plan, but he still chose Bush. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, made it clear that she and John McCain are the only two more qualified than Obama to be commander-in-chief. If Hillary were an employment officer and Obama was an applicant and she said Obama was not qualified for the post, yet turned around and hired him for the post anyway, it means one or two things: Hillary is lying or Obama has potential. Only thing is, Obama is doing a much better job than Hillary in their own race.

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

Johnsonium — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 23:10:39 GMT

Hillary's "experience" charge is undermined by both logic and her husband's own sound reasoning. See Bill Clinton rebut her here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMlrSG1xb5k

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

Johnsonium — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 23:13:12 GMT

Emile, you have it backwards. Reagen was the one pushing supply-side, trickle-down economics which Bush called "Voodoo Economics".

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

stev — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 23:15:46 GMT

IT WILL BE GREAT FOR THIS COUNTRY WHEN OBAMA'S HOT AIR AND EMPTY PROMISES OF "CHANGE" ARE NO LONGER BELEIVED BY SO MANY WHO HAVE BEEN BRAINWASHED.

AND ANDREW ROMANO YOUR BIAS COMMENTS ARE AS IMATURE AS YOU ARE, WHAT ARE YOU 12?-lOOKS THAT WAY IN YOUR PICTURE.

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

grammagram — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 23:16:07 GMT

Is ANYONE getting tired of the Clinton spin machine? The leading candidate for VP, caucus votes are illegal, FL and MI should count as they are, (even though Obama and Edwards followed the rules and removed their names from the ballot! Obama doesnt have the experience, but as VP, he would suddenly have the experience should something happen to her! How about her infamous 3:00 ad that she 'borrowed' and the cute little sleeping girl didn't give permission to use! What about her great supporter Elliott Spitzer? Suddenly she just doesn't know him. Stop the spin before the nation depletes the inventory of dramamine!

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

Johnsonium — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 23:17:00 GMT

"The Clinton Chronicles" is a smear piece funded by Richard Mellon Scaife. It's full of lies and unsupported allegations. Only a conservative would cite as a source of information. I support Obama, but the Clintons haven't murdered anyone. Nor were they cocaine dealers, as is often postulated by the extreme psychotic right.

My main beef with Hillary is two-fold. She's likely to turn off independent voters in the general election, which are required to win. Additionally, she represents the establishment candidate in a change year. It's time for the boomers to pass the mantle down to a new generation that isn't tainted by the flower power 60's that so tarred the fine progressive tradition.

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

Johnsonium — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 23:18:08 GMT

Hey Stev. At least he knows how to use the caps lock key. There was no bias in the article. It was sound analysis.

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

jtvt1211 — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 23:19:54 GMT

It appears that Hillary Clinton is the one who is not ready to run this country. Does she think we're all stupid? She might be able to fool some of the people with her double-sided rhetoric but not all of us.

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

Vincent Truman — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 23:24:50 GMT

Perhaps I have missed some key proclamations, but I have only heard Senator Clinton mention a possible 'dream team' because she has been approached on the topic so often since her wins in Texas and Ohio (both quotes in the articles come from interviews I have seen in which Clinton is responding, not suggesting). For the Obamanables (a fair counter to Clintonista, yes?) to be getting snarky on a non-story illustrates the tunnel vision that Clinton is often accused of.

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

stev — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 23:26:27 GMT

Let's all stop the insulys and name calling including the author of this article (Romano) Let's look at the facts: Hillary is ahead with th epopular vote and the super delegates. She has the most experience, Obama is a first term Junior senator who ranks 99th in the senate as far as senority, it is a joke to think he has the knoledge and experience to be President, Hillary will eb ready on day one and she can get us out of the mess Bush has created. In recent poll eHillary has also been proven to be the one that can beat Mccain NOT Obama. Obama just wants to be President but Hillary wants to make America a better place and she has the ability to do it. If Obama obtains the dem nomination we will see the greates Voter remorse ever for this country. Please America don't be brainwashed by this man who's "star Power" will soon fade away and people will be wondering what on earth they were thinking when they supported him!!!

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

VoteResponsibly08 — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 23:29:14 GMT

Who ever votes for Obama is probably loony themselves. His association with Wright, Farrahkan a jew and white hater and worse than all William Ayers a radical terrorist. He need to do some explaining, we do not know who he is and as VP, we can really see what he is capable of doing.

If he thinks this is loony idea, well we think him being president is even loonier!

By the way, the rules of Florida and Michigan were that the candidates not campaign, Hillary did not campaign and she won. If it would have been the other way around, we would not be thinking about a re-vote!!! Obama has been getting the free pass enough!!! Florida should be Hillary's

Also Michigan same rules apply, no campaigning and neither of them campaigned, If Obama choose to deleat his name from the ballot, it really shows how inexperience he is and that was his choice... The bottom line neither candidate can be president till they get 12025 and neither of them will..Florida and Michigan need to be counted to elect our Candidate and that should be Hillary becasue she followed the rules and she won!!! LETS STOP GIVING OBMA THE FREE PASS... CAUCUS' Older people can't get to these caucus', are we all clrying this is not fair? People with Children and work can't caucus' maybe not enough money for babysitter...Why did Obama win most of the Caucu's??? No one is crying not fair!! FLORIDA AND MICHIGAN BELONG TO HILLARY AND IT IS NOT FAIR TO TAKE THESE AWAY!!! Hillary supporters, start blogging and start sending your protest letters>>. We would certainly be hearing it if it was Obama... We can not keep getting intimidated..Obama gets the free pass from the media, from the press..How about a little fairness for Hillary!!!

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

sstansbe — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 23:31:26 GMT

I don't know that a country that was dumb enough to elect Bush twice would go for a black man and a woman on the same ticket. But I think an Obama-Hillary ticket would be a dream come true (even though I am slowly losing respect for Hillary). It would only make sense that he would be at the top because a leader has to inspire and unite. She could assume the role that Cheney has in his VP spot, which is to manage. Obama can be likened to a CEO. The job of the CEO is to come up with the big picture idea and to rally the company around a common cause. It is the duty of managers to worry about the day-to-day implementation of those ideas. So Hillary is the manager, i.e., vice president. Obama is the CEO, i.e., president. Alas, it probably will never happen.

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

stev — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 23:35:23 GMT

VOTERESPONSIBLY, YOU ARE EXACTLY RIGHT!

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

sueadams — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 23:36:47 GMT

This "Hillary ready on day one" is getting way beyond tiresome. If Rush hadn't campaigned to get his minions to vote for her -- because, of course, they KNOW they can load up the Clinton haters by the bus loads for the general election -- she might not have won anything last week.

The only thing she is ready for on "day one" is getting ready for the next round of special prosecutor investigations. In reality, this woman has a lot of experience with a lot of things this country does not need again!

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

stev — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 23:37:49 GMT

DOES ANYONE CARE THAT OBAMA IS A BLACK SUPREMIST HE ATTENDS A CHURCH THAT IS VERY VOCAL ABOUT THIS. HOW IS THIS PREJUDICE MAN GOING TO BE A FAIR PRESIDENT?

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

Johnsonium — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 23:37:55 GMT

Stev, good to see that you've found the caps-lock key.

The experience canard isn't working. People know that judgment is far more important. Hillary has shown that she doesn't have good judgment both with her Iraq vote and the recent Kyle-Liebermann Iran sabre rattling. And you should know that Hillary has not won the popular vote. She's behind in that statistic as well.

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

Johnsonium — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 23:40:29 GMT

Obama hasn't associated with Farrahkan. Is your candidate so weak that you have to lie about Obama in a pathetic attempt to score points? Is the political version of a hail mary? Next thing you will tell us is that he's a muslim who was sworn in on a Koran. After all, you probably read that in the untrue smear emails that also lie about Obama and Farrahkan.

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

stev — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 23:40:54 GMT

HILLARY READY ON DAY ONE IS A FACT! TO VOTE FOR OBAMA IS ABOUT THE SAME AS VOTING FOR THE GARBAGE MAN, THEY BOTH HAVE ABOUT THE SAME AMOUNT OF EXPERIENCE! AND YOU KNOW THAT IS THE TRUTH!

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

Johnsonium — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 23:45:15 GMT

Stev, shouting lies about Obama doesn't make them any more true. Turn off Fox News and get some education, please.

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

stev — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 23:45:47 GMT

JOHNSONIUM, YOU ARE VERY WRONG ABOUT THAT. AND THE FACT IS OBAMA WASN'T IN OFFICE WHEN THERE WAS A VOTE FOR IRAQ. SO NOW THAT IT IS GOING BAD HE CAN SAY ANYTHING THAT MAKES HIM LOOK GOOD. THE FACT THAT HE WAS NOT IN OFFICE DURING THE IRAQ WAR VOTE ONCE AGAIN SHOWS HOW HE LACKS EXPERIENCE AND IS TO NEW TO POLITICS TO KNOW HOW TO LEAD THIS COUNTRY! HE HAS NO EXPERIENCE. DO YOU REALLY WANT TO JEPORDIZE THIS COUNTRY ANY MORE THAT IT ALREADY HAS BEEN UNDER GEORGE BUSH?

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

Johnsonium — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 23:46:28 GMT

Stev, you are showing your ignorance more and more with every post. If this is the intellectual capacity of Hillary supporters out there, then she is in bigger trouble than we thought.

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

rrayblue — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 23:47:05 GMT

I think that the Clintons are pretty smart and not just doing some of the things that make us all go OH MY GOD.I have to give a hand to them they are playing some pretty hard cards.But on the same note they know what they are doing.and believe me they are very smart and that is why she should be president.She has the solid plan and the motivation to get it done.And would be best choice and if Obama knows whats good for him he should take her offer or its do or die for his campaign.McCain will chew Obama up and spit him out as he takes over the Presidency and by by democrats

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

zivo24 — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 23:48:21 GMT

Hey Stev,

Newsflash!

The fact is that Obama is ahead in the popular vote almost 600,000 votes.

Oh, and another fact. If the superdelegates override the will of the majority of voters, it will cost the democrats the White House. They will lose the independent and republican cross over votes.

And one last fact, Clinton would need to win ALL of the last 11 contests by DOUBLE DIGIT margins (in the 20's at least) to have any chance of surpassing Obama's pledged delegate and popular vote lead.

And that is not going to happen.

Obama will have the lead going into the convention in both delegates and popular votes and he will be the nominee.

For the record, I respect Senator Clinton for her a great many things and will vote for her should she end up on the top of the ticket by winning the nomination LEGITIMATELY.

But as long as I have a choice between her and Obama, I am going to take my chances with the one who hasn't given me cause to doubt their words or distrust them, and that would be Senator Obama.

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

stev — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 23:49:04 GMT

JOHNSONIUM, I ASSURE YOU I AM FAR MORE EDUCATED THAN YOU. THE PERSON YOU SUPPORT IS PROOF OF THAT.

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

stev — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 23:49:04 GMT

JOHNSONIUM, I ASSURE YOU I AM FAR MORE EDUCATED THAN YOU. THE PERSON YOU SUPPORT IS PROOF OF THAT.

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

Johnsonium — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 23:50:31 GMT

Stev. Right. That's why you don't know where the caps-lock key is. They didn't have a keyboarding class in Yale law school?

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

Nins — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 23:52:34 GMT

When will the media finally ask Hillary Clinton "WHAT EXPERIENCE?"

Clinton is making a baseless assertion that she has "35 years" of relevant political experience. She must be counting the 16 years she spent at Rose law firm (1977-1993), specializing in representing mega-corporations such as Wal-Mart and Tyson Foods. Wal-Mart, famous or it's union busting and sexism, paid Clinton $18,000 per year for serving on it's Board of Directors, plus $1,500 per meeting and gave her $100,000 worth of Wal-Mart stock. And how could Hillary have been involved in foreign policy matters if she never had a security clearance, never attended a single NSA briefing, or received any of Bill's foreign policy briefings? The truth is that after she tried to force her health care plan down people's throats and it blew up in her face, Hillary was a relegated to relatively traditional role for the First Lady: showing her smiling face at events relating to women and children, and occasionally traveling on "good will missions" to other countries. She doesn't want to release the records of her schedule as First Lady, because people would see that she spent 8 years giving tea parties. For the facts that back up these assertions, see these websites:

http://www.slate.com/id/2182073/

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18391632

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18335120

When will people notice that Hillary has only 8 years in elected office, compared to Obama's 12 years? But, even if it were true that she had "35 years" of relevant experience, democracy is not a quid pro quo. Americans aren't interested in being told by ANY candidate that they are "entitled" to be their party's nominee. The last thing Americans want is another "inevitable" president put in place by political elites because of who they know, just like "W" Bush, who arguably may be the worst president in history. Puppet leaders of the United States, not elected by the people but engineered by a political machine? Elections where your ballots are meaningless? Is that what you want, America? If we let this happen, how can we call ourselves "the land of the free?"

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

stev — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 23:52:43 GMT

JOHNSONUIUM, YOUR ATTITUDE TELLS ME EXACTLY WHAT KIND OF PERSON YOU ARE SO TAKE YOUR THIRD GRADE EDUCATION, AND I WILL TAKE MY PHd ( THAT MEANS DOCTORATE DEGREE -THOUGHT I SHOULD EXPLAIN THAT TO YOU) AND WE WILL SEE WHO WINS THIS RACE.

DONE WITH YOU NO MORE COMMENTS YOU ARE TOO IGNORANT.

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

Johnsonium — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 23:53:10 GMT

Hillary: Ready On Day One

-Ready to cave to special interests and PACs

-Ready to once again divide this country

-Ready to antagonize Iran

-Ready to perpetuate this war

-Ready to triangulate

-Ready to manipulate

-Ready to cost Democrats seats, and the majority in Congress

She's ready all right.

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

Johnsonium — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 23:53:23 GMT

Hillary: Ready On Day One

-Ready to cave to special interests and PACs

-Ready to once again divide this country

-Ready to antagonize Iran

-Ready to perpetuate this war

-Ready to triangulate

-Ready to manipulate

-Ready to cost Democrats seats, and the majority in Congress

She's ready all right.

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

cogitohopper — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 23:53:30 GMT

One more example of Clinton Logic...She thinks she has one...If you say it enough times you they will believe it and it will become reality. I am surprised she didn't hang up a sign on Super Tuesday proclaiming Mission Accomplished and announce her cabinet. She won't answer the phone at 3:00 A.M. She will just let it ring and say it's not ringing, it's not ringing, it's not ringing until it quits ringing. When she wakes up in the morning and Alaska is gone she will say, "What do you mean Alaska is gone? I didn't see their delegates in my column. I such a state did exist they couldn't have mattered anyway."

Word of the day: CLIDIOTS

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

vtcallan — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 23:57:07 GMT

I was at first going to shout about Hillary being an arrogant shrew for suggesting that Obama take the veep slot. I was going to write about how you could just imagine the response that Hillary and her supporters would have been giving had Obama had the AUDACITY to suggest she take veep if she were ahead in pledged delegates, popular votes and states won. Just imagine the affront to womanhood they would be shouting right now. But then I realized that she couldn't possibly be serious about this. You have to remember that EVERYTHING the Clinton's do is done as political strategy. All this does is keep Obama from talking about his message and it keeps Hillary's name and image out there. In other words, this is another way of her saying "yoo-hoo America, I'm over here, don't forget about me, it's spelled H-I-L-L-A-R-Y!"

Of course she is calculating to the extreme and don't be tempted to think otherwise. But...you know...as far as the big picture is concerned, she does think that being president is her birthright and anyone (certainly this BOY named Obama) should step aside and let the Queen assume her rightful place at the throne of American politics. At least this is what many of her female supporters think after reading many of their posts.

I now understand what it is/was about Hillary that makes/made the Republicans find her so revolting. How can anyone with good conscience support this woman.

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

Johnsonium — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 23:57:19 GMT

A doctorate? Another child left behind. If this is the quality of the people we are giving doctorates, then surely our higher education system is broken. No fear. Obama has a plan on eduction. Yes We Can prevent idiots from achieving doctorates or at least pretending they did in all-caps. Yes We Can.

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

domenica — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 23:59:11 GMT

I don't know which is worse....Clinton(s) trying to BS public with their voodoo poliitcs, or the Clintons' actually believing their own BS. Oy.

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

stev — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 00:00:05 GMT

MY APOLOGIZES TO JOHNSONIUM, I DO NOT LIKE TO INSULT OTHER PEOPLE WE SHOULD SIMPLY RESPECT EACH OTHERS RIGHT TO SUPPORT WHOM EVER WE CHOSE. NO POINT IN INSULTING EACH OTHER. THAT IS WRONG. HOPE YOU CAN ACCEPT MY APOLOGY.

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

Johnsonium — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 00:04:35 GMT

I don't need your apology. My feelings weren't hurt. I have to respect someone before I care about their opinion of me.

Your posts are not helping Hillary. In fact, they stink of desperation. Come up with sound logic why your candidate is better, if such logic exists, and go with that. If Obama is as qualified as a garbage man, you must have some seriously over-qualified garbagemen in your area. Do they discuss Nietzsche as they toss the contents of your can into the compactor?

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

ToadTreeHugger — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 00:07:55 GMT

Obama has undermined any hopes of a dream ticket. And he calls himself a uniter?

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

dizzle2 — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 00:09:56 GMT

This may eventually and hopefully backfire on Hillary. Just as I begin to think that I could be comfortable with her as the nominee if Barack is not, she does something to remind us of the things we disliked about the Clintons. They will do anything to get elected at any cost.

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

icfrighelis — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 00:10:17 GMT

Why shouldn't Obama be flattered by this possibility? Obviously having received a "scrutiny-free-ride" so far from he media, he may believe his message resonates sigbificantly more than the reality indicates.

Just stop for a moment and look at the nubers (thus far Obama;s campaign claim ot glory) and things begin to look slightly different.

Take a look at the way the Democratic party allocates delegates. Point in case Nevada. Take a close look at all the delegate allocation to date!!!!!

Take a close look at the actual and real hard-numebrs of the General Election. How many electoral votes are allocated to each state and how. What is the rational behind them? How come Clinton wins Texas and Ohio and barely nets any delegates.

How come when the mdia (particulalry your group) examines numbesr it chooses to conveniently overllok delaget allocation - or at least to thoroughly and honestly explain it?

Take a close look at some of the States Obama won.

Take a close look AT THE REAL NUMBERS, percentages based on race and then dissect tose numbers instead of attempting to assimilate all numbers.

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

stev — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 00:12:31 GMT

TOAD TREE HUGGER , YOU ARE EXACTLY RIGHT. OBAMA DOES NOT PRACTICE WHAT HE PREACHES AND THAT IS SCARY. JUST LIKE HIS "WINK-WINK" TO THE CANADIANS OVER NAFTA. THIS SHOWS EXACTLY WHAT KIND OF A PERSON HE IS. HE DOES NOT STAND FOR CHANGE. HE IS TERRIBLY CROOKED AND DISHONEST.

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

Johnsonium — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 00:14:03 GMT

Clinton-Obama wouldn't be a dream ticket. Obama needs to find someone from the South that will give racists an excuse to put aside their bigotry and vote for him. Hillary doesn't bring that voter as misogyny is sometimes stronger in this demographic then the racism we associate with them.

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

zivo24 — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 00:14:30 GMT

I have to say that this campaign has been a very interesting dichotomy for me and probably many democrats and independents.

I think Bill Clinton was a great president who could have done so much more if he hadn't been straddled with the constant mudslinging from the GOP for his entire presidency.

I also think that Hillary Clinton set a new and welcome standard for first ladies. She was the most dynamic and admirable first lady other than Eleanor Roosevelt.

Despite the scandals and mudslinging, I loved and miss the Clinton years. They were dynamic upstarts who had the audicity to really effect change.

But now, they are no longer the Davids against the GOP Goliath. They are now a Goliath all on their own. Their political machine has become a mighty force to be reckoned with. But power like that always seems to come with a lack of honest and openess and even corruption.

The love affair that liberal America had with the Clintons is coming to a slow and bitter end and it's sad to see.

They've become the sniping first wife that you once loved but would like to move on from.

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

Johnsonium — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 00:17:12 GMT

There was nothing to the NAFTA "scandal". In fact, there is evidence that it was actually dirty tricks hatched by the Clinton campaign.

Stev, you need to find a more honest and logical way of expressing your belief in your candidate. Unsubstantiated claims like Obama's "....IS TERRIBLY CROOKED AND DISHONEST." isn't going to cut it.

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

Johnsonium — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 00:21:37 GMT

Ziv, you are exactly correct. I voted for and admired Bill Clinton. However, Hillary's campaign strategy is antithetical to what the Clintons stood for. Her disrespectful dismissal of the hope envisioned by Obama supporters is disgraceful. Here's an example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1ckrEeHDRY

She's proven that she will take down the Democratic party unless it bends to her will. Thankfully, I don't believe she will succeed.

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

SFFS — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 00:21:47 GMT

Why has Obama "undermined" any hopes of a dream ticket? I don't think he has been the one on the offensive in this race. Yah, Barack, how dare you appeal to people's hope...

And Johnsonium, thank you for your comments to Stev. Quite amusing. Or should I say QUITE AMUSING.

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

clarence3935 — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 00:24:08 GMT

"Billary" is not a word invented by Obama supporters. It has been around since shortly after the Clinton impeachment and has been widely used by commentators and columnists who like shortcuts. It's a common abbreviation form for any celebrity relationship or marraige. Sometimes in this life you don't get to pick your nickname, sometimes you just have to...get used to it.

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

timrogers — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 00:25:40 GMT

We all know who will be the vice president if Hillary manages to scam the nomination. Trust me, nobody knows how to put the Vice into the role of vice president better than Bill. Come to think of it , wouldn't president of vice be a better job title?

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

Johnsonium — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 00:28:45 GMT

I'll leave with this. Here's my impression of Stev, coming from the other side:

"OBAMA IS BETTER THAN CLINTON. IT'S A FACT! CLINTON IS NO GOOD. THE DOORMAN AT MY APARTMENT BUILDING IS MORE QUALIFIED THAN HER. SHE'S CORRUPT. SHE'S DISHONEST. SHE HAS NO SUBSTANCE."

Note the lack of facts or even an attempt at logic. I can enumerate, dispassionately, various reasons that Hillary Clinton should not be supported. I can also enumerate many reasons why Obama is the right one. Not once have I thought that one mind can be changed by simple, unsupported declarations about the other candidate. Stev needs to take a different tact. Otherwise, he will continue to be outmatched and won't be doing his candidate justice.

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

Drew Rocker — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 00:32:34 GMT

Enter Your Comment

It's about time Obama put Hillary Clinton in her place.

Touche.

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

Buzz Man — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 00:34:10 GMT

Andrew,

Youmust have been drinking Kool Aid. To think she is the more likely nominee with 149 delegates behind and nearly 30 states behind, is a display of outrageous and willful ignorance. You are apparently a hard core Hillary supporter, and you really don't deserve the job of Newsweek.

Hillary cannot and should not win the nomination by deceiving voters, or else she is the next President Bush. This woman is in no way different from Bush -- arrogant, and having flawed judgment (look at how her campaign is managed, and look at the policies Bush has so far supported and Hillary went along with).

Andrew is more likely being bribed into writing like he does. He needs to write in a balanced, unbiased manner.

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

pasteeater — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 00:34:57 GMT

Well it could have been an olive branch.. I wouldnt expect HRC to say she would be VP while she is stilll running for President... And I sure wouldnt expect BHO to say sure I will be VP even though he ahead and more than likely will win the nomination.. I think it is true that a Clinton/Obama ticket is unbeatable it will not happen because Obama is going to win. I'm not so sure if an Obama/Clinton ticket will work as well, but even so that deal may be brokered. I would rather see Obama/Edwards but we do have a ways to go before we have to worry about VP.

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

trailing — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 00:41:40 GMT

Does anybody think it is unreasonable to expect that Hillary Clinton cannot catch up with Barack Obama ? Assuming FL and MI have a redo, she probably will win PA AND FL rather easily. She should win MI but with a lesser margin. She should emerge from just these three primaries with a +70 to a +90 delegates. Puerto Rico, WV AND IN look like sure winners for her after that. The other minor primaries will probably be a wash. No, I don't think it is unreasonable. In fact, many others see this as the most likely scenario. An interesting few months ahead. The winner will have earned it !

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

ALLEAS — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 00:42:59 GMT

I AM AN OBAMA SUPPORTER AND I CAN ASSURE EVERYONE THAT I

AM NOT "LOONEY". I AM A DEMOCRAT WHO HAS BEEN A DEMOCRAT FOR

OVER 40 YRS AND I HAVE BEEN A CRITICAL CARE NURSE FOR OVER

20 YRS. I HAVE VOTED IN MORE ELECTIONS THAN I CARE TO RECALL.

I FIND HILLARY CLINTON TO BE THE SLEAZIEST DEMOCRATIC

CANDIDATE THAT I CAN EVER REMEMBER IN ALL OF MY YEARS.

I WISH I COULD FIND THE WORDS TO WAKE UP FELLOW DEMOCRATS

BUT I CANNOT. I JUST HOPE THAT DEMOCRATS WAKE UP IN TIME TO

SEE THE LIGHT AND SUPPORT BARACK OBAMA.

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

ALLEAS — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 00:44:00 GMT

I AM AN OBAMA SUPPORTER AND I CAN ASSURE EVERYONE THAT I

AM NOT "LOONEY". I AM A DEMOCRAT WHO HAS BEEN A DEMOCRAT FOR

OVER 40 YRS AND I HAVE BEEN A CRITICAL CARE NURSE FOR OVER

20 YRS. I HAVE VOTED IN MORE ELECTIONS THAN I CARE TO RECALL.

I FIND HILLARY CLINTON TO BE THE SLEAZIEST DEMOCRATIC

CANDIDATE THAT I CAN EVER REMEMBER IN ALL OF MY YEARS.

I WISH I COULD FIND THE WORDS TO WAKE UP FELLOW DEMOCRATS

BUT I CANNOT. I JUST HOPE THAT DEMOCRATS WAKE UP IN TIME TO

SEE THE LIGHT AND SUPPORT BARACK OBAMA.

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

jona1220 — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 00:47:49 GMT

I think that was an excellent move by the Clintons.Offering the VP positions to Senator Obama.

If this had been done by a male candidate that's the way it would have been perceived. I admire Hillary for going up against the males. What I see is The White House is the ultimate boys club no women are allowed.Hillary is a remarkable woman that has entered an arena dominated by males.

Why is everyone being so hard on her, how many women out there can say they would do what she is doing. Very few if any. Change will only come if the Presidentcy is given to the opposite gender. What have all this wonderful ex presidents have in common? Our hopes and dreams should be for a change we CAN believe in, our dreams for a better tomorrow. Her Presidentcy should be welcome by all. She has shown she's has the courage to lead this country.

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

bobfloodeen — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 00:55:12 GMT

Sure, Hillary could pay of the National Debt by trading cattle futures .... she made $100,000 in one day. ....duh !

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

WestCoastMessenger — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 00:55:45 GMT

With all due respect, this takes a bit of logic to understand. 1) Clinton will win Pennsylvania, 2) Clinton will prevail in the Florida do-over, 3) SuperDelegates will have ample basis to move, in a wave, into Clinton's corner based on a) momentum, and b) popular votes (this is for the Good of the Nation for the Good of the States, at which time 4) The Competitor will a) be offered a VP opportunity, which, if he's wise, he will accept, or b) he will become a footnote in the history of elections. If I were him I'd take the deal. The push back is healthy though.

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

Rawlsfan — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 01:03:27 GMT

Obama/Edwards '08. I'm starting to see this all over the net... I think voters may be moving past Sen. Clinton's last-ditch efforts.

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

faramade — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 01:06:40 GMT

jona1220, I

think a person should not be voted mainly because she is a woman, I am not for HIllary and I am also not against women,I would love to see a woman in the whitehouse some day but not this woman.

Just look at it , one day we were told Obama is not ready to be commander in chief and the next he will be a good VP , if you know what that means you will know that the Clintons actually think we are fools . I don't blame them they have succeeded with their lies in the past who is to think they will fail now.

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

Amabo — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 01:15:33 GMT

Can you also explain the logic of the Florida/Michigan revote? If the voters' should not be disenfranchised in one instance , then they shouldn't not be disenfranchised in any instance. Its seems like the Clinton campaign hopes to enfranchise one group in order to disenfranchise another via superdelegates.

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

billyray22 — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 01:15:35 GMT

The red phone is ringing at 3:00AM

Hillary answers

"WHY ARE YOU ALWAYS CALLING ON ME FIRST...I'LL TAKE THE CALL, BUT IT IS VERY CURIOUS THAT YOU ALWAYS CALL ME FIRST, I MEAN WHY DONT YOU CALL OBAMA"

Hopefully, he will be the one who answers the phone

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

mjno — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 01:18:21 GMT

Do you know how many men say, I really want a woman in the white house but NOT this one? Why? She has the same platform as OBAMA but better in terms of health care and the economy. OBAMA has said it every chance he gets, "I agree with Senator Clinton." I keep hearing about Clinton lies, is that assuming none of the other candidates are lying????

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

mjno — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 01:19:30 GMT

This is why I wouldn't want OBAMA answering the phone.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuB_W8o_UsU

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

revjmike — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 01:21:10 GMT

WestCoastMessenger ,

I am so glad to see you are able to predict the future results of elections. With this great ability, I am sure that Clinton will win BIG nn Pennsylvania. What you don't say is that if there is a Florida revote, then there must also be a Michigan revote. Obama will win in Michigan and get about 45% of the votes in Florida. Even if that doesn't happen Hillary will still be losing because there is NO reason to vote again (unless you're for Hillary's waffling on rules).

The woman knows no shame. She keeps trying to change rules and reality to give herself an advantage because SHE IS LOSING and she believes she DESERVES to be president, not just is capable of being president. (I don't agree that she is necessarily capable of being president, especially should Bill's heart give out while she's president if by some miracle she wins.)

She lost in Texas and won Ohio. She and Obama both won smaller states that same day.

Obama is ahead today. After tomorrow's Mississippi vote, which she has already conceded, Clinton will be even further behind Obama.

So she wins Pennsylvania? Who cares. Obama will already be so far ahead she can't overtake him UNLESS SHE REALLY DOES INTEND TO DIVIDE THE PARTY so that she can run for the presidency as a Democrat, then lose to the Republicans whom she seems to want to win.

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

CLA123 — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 01:22:58 GMT

Obama complains that Clinton is using the idea that he could be her VP to belittle him and lower his standing in the campaign. Obama does the same. He belittles Clinton as a candidate by looking beyond the priamry as if it is inconsequential and compaigning against McCain.

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

Pappa Roberto — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 01:28:09 GMT

A few weeks ago we were told of Hillary’s boldness in putting up $5,000,000 of her own money toward her campaign. How on earth did she and her husband come up with that much money? Senator Clinton, let’s stop stonewalling with showing your tax returns. It’s not rocket science. Just call your accountant and get a copy, for gosh sakes.

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

revjmike — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 01:28:58 GMT

One more thought about Obama and Clinton offering (almost) the VP position to Obama.

She realizes she cannot win the nomination so she's hoping to keep Obama supporters from voting against her after she steals the election.

I, too, am a long-term Democrat who becomes more liberal with each right wing destruction of my/our freedoms and possibilities as well as the middle class.

She believes that Obama will pull her enough votes to win in the fall. I don't think anyone else can help her because she has so many negatives. I have Republican friends who would vote for Obama over McCain, but wouldn't vote for Hillary for dog catcher.

So get over yourself, Hillary. You're going down; and I, for one, will not cry for you nor Argentina.

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

rcurtis505 — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 01:32:16 GMT

Read what she said. She is positioning HERSELF for the VP job! C'mon, nobody ever accused Hillary of being stupid. She can see the way the tide is running.

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

barrameister — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 01:35:12 GMT

I'm one of those who would love a woman President, but not this one. It's right Obama's platform is not much different than Clinton's. The difference is that Clinton will bring scandal after scandal. No tax returns made public? There will be scandals. Bill's library fundraising not made public? More scandals. Hill's papers during Bill's term not public? Still more scandals. It will be the 90's all over again. Dems losing Congress. Bill/Hill taking our time, energy, money to save their skins and leaving us holding the bag. Another wasted term. None of the possibilities realized. And this is assuming stained dresses won't come flying out of closets all across North America. Why take this baggage, when, as you say, their platforms aren't that different?

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

tlpatan — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 01:40:03 GMT

I would not vote for OBAMA if he were the only one running!

Get this I am going to vote McCain if OBAMA is on the democratic.

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

spindr — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 01:44:16 GMT

Their logic is looney all right, but the Clinton campaign continues to spin away because they figure most voters won't be able to tell the difference. They got that one wrong too...

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

hillarybill — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 01:47:49 GMT

Hillary did not offer Obama VP. She said she would be open to both names on the ticket. He should have responded the same. Instead he became defensive as always, whining he wouldn't be number 2. Hillary was trying to reassure democrats. He is not a team player.

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

LindsayCarlson — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 01:50:05 GMT

The Clinton campaign managers are schizophrenic and delusional. With all the remaining races put together and even with revotes in Florida and Michigan Hillary Clinton will continue to slide in both the popular vote race and the delegate race. She will get crushed in Mississippi and North Carolina, will win narrowly in Pennsylvania, will win somewhat narrowly in Florida (8 points or so) and lose in Michigan. She'll have big victories in West Virginia and Kentucky, but that will be offset by enormous victories by Obama in Oregon, Montana, and South Dakota and a narrower victory in Indiana. Anyone who honestly thinks Hillary has a shot at states like Oregon, North Carolina, and Indiana clearly has no idea what he or she is talking about.

Does anyone out there honestly believe that the Democratic Party is going to overrule the candidate with the most votes (will be 700,000 by June) and the most delegates (will be +180 in pledged delegates by June) just to satisfy the Clintons' obsessive and dangerous lust for power? It would destroy the Democratic Party FOR DECADES. It's time to get behind the REAL nominee. Wake up America! The race is over! HILLARY CLINTON LOST!!

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

CLA123 — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 01:55:02 GMT

About the re-vote. I have read the bylaws of the DNC and cannot find anywhere that it provides for punishing anyone by taking away votes and delegates for violations of the rules. If you can find it, please post it. The DNC site is democrats.org. Also, Obama chose to take his name off the ballot while Clinton chose to leave hers on. The DNC DID NOT tell or pressure anyone to remove their name. And there was a ground campaign for uncommitted where it was made perfectly clear that to vote for Obama or Edwards, check uncommittted. The workers at the polls also told people this.

In Florida it wasn't even the democrats who changed the date - it was the republicans. Not to mention the fact that tv ads did run in Florida for Obama - whether they were a part of a national ad or not - they did run. That all being said it is time to work together and end this crisis for the sake of the democratic party.

I have been so against a do-over election because but believe that everyone involved needs to make concessions because this is tearing the democratic party apart. I am more against taking away even one vote because it sets a precent that the DNC can at any time for any rule violation suppress votes. That is not democracy.

But the following are facts:

There were voters who exercised their right to vote and voters who did not because they were told the votes would not count. The voters in both states were the innocent victims in this.. They had no say in when the election would be. If the DNC wanted to punish - they should have punished the state committess with fines, or whatever is in keeping with the DNC bylaws. But it wasn't even the state Democratic committees who made the change

So here is my suggestion:

1. The Democratic voters who did NOT vote in either state will receive ballots in the mail which are numbered and correspond to their name. Independants and republican voters who did not vote are able to pick up ballots and complete them.

2. The voters who did vote in either state are not permitted to have a second vote - they are stuck with their original vote. This has to be this way or there will be an even bigger battle as people who have voted in earlier elections from other states say that they should also have the opportunity to vote again if they want to. So the voters who voted in Michigan and Florida have to keep with their vote - but they will be counted because anything less makes a mockery of democracy.

3. Florida's delegates are divied according to the total results after the mail-ins are completed. This will include early voting along with mail in voting.

4. Michigan has a unique situation with the uncommitted column. 75% of those uncommitted go to Obama. This is more than fair considering the majority of the delegates were still on the ballot even at the time that Michigan would have originally voted. Edwards was strong in Michigan.

The remaining 25% remain uncommitted delegates along with delegates from all other states who voted for candidates who are no longer in the race. (This amount can be negotiated) The delegates are then added into those received by the mail-in campaign.

Obama has been calling for a redo election, Clinton has wanted to count the delegates as voted. This would be a concession on both of their parts and would get the DNC out of the doghouse. Each candidate gets a portion of what they want and the voters get to exercise their fundamental tenet of democracy and have their vote count.

The DNC can sponsor a fundraiser specifically for the re-election. If enough is raised to pay it all, great. If not, the additional cost is shared by the DNC, the State committes and the States. The Candidates however, are not permiited to contribute one dime. Otherwise there will be all kinds of issues concerning contribution violations and buying votes. Many had a part in this and are responsible for the mess we now have. The voters are the only victims in this. If there is excess monies after all expenses it will go to the warchest for the general election.

Michigan and Florida has forced recognition of a problem that has existed for years. Even now the media and Obama urge Clinton to get out of the race even though 12 states have yet to vote. Those states and more rarely have a choice between two candidates let alone a vote on the full slate. This is wrong. All citizens in all states should have right to vote on the full slate. Maybe this will make Americans stand up and notice the inequity in the Democratic primary system. This clearly addresses the issue that election reform must be not only investigated but completed. There should be a single primary election date (or within one week) with the results by popular vote so that ALL states have an equal voice based on the exact same information at the same time in the campaign. Pony express is no longer needed to deliver the wishes of voters via delegates. The system of delegates and the electoral college has been used and abused in almost every recent presidential primary and general election. It is time to get rid of it and go by popular vote.

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

ALLEAS — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 01:57:24 GMT

IT ISN'T POSSIBLE FOR CLINTON TO CATCH UP IN THE RACE FOR THE

PLEDGED DELEGATES, EVEN IF SHE WINS ALL OF THE REMAINING PRIMARIES.

SHE WILL BE RESORTED TO STEALING THE NOMINATION FROM OBAMA.

IT APPEARS THAT DEMOCRATS ARE NOT CONCERNED BY THIS, SO WHY SHOULD

I KEEP BLOGGING AGAINST WHAT IS OBVIOUSLY A BLANKET DEMOCRATIC

COMA? BECAUSE I LOVE THIS COUNTRY AND I BELIEVE THAT WE AS DEMOCRATS

CAN DO BETTER THAN HANDING THE ELECTION TO JOHN MCCAIN AND THUS A THIRD TERM TO GEORGE W. BUSH. PLEASE, IF YOU AS DEMOCRATS WANT TO WIN THIS

ELECTION AS YOU CLAIM TO VOTE FOR AND SUPPORT BARACK OBAMA.

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

ALLEAS — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 01:57:25 GMT

IT ISN'T POSSIBLE FOR CLINTON TO CATCH UP IN THE RACE FOR THE

PLEDGED DELEGATES, EVEN IF SHE WINS ALL OF THE REMAINING PRIMARIES.

SHE WILL BE RESORTED TO STEALING THE NOMINATION FROM OBAMA.

IT APPEARS THAT DEMOCRATS ARE NOT CONCERNED BY THIS, SO WHY SHOULD

I KEEP BLOGGING AGAINST WHAT IS OBVIOUSLY A BLANKET DEMOCRATIC

COMA? BECAUSE I LOVE THIS COUNTRY AND I BELIEVE THAT WE AS DEMOCRATS

CAN DO BETTER THAN HANDING THE ELECTION TO JOHN MCCAIN AND THUS A THIRD TERM TO GEORGE W. BUSH. PLEASE, IF YOU AS DEMOCRATS WANT TO WIN THIS

ELECTION AS YOU CLAIM TO VOTE FOR AND SUPPORT BARACK OBAMA.

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

Pappa Roberto — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 01:57:28 GMT

In the last Clinton Presidential election, the mantra was “It’s the economy, Stupid.” Well, Senator Clinton, now the mantra is, “The economy is the War, Stupid.” For this, we can give you thanks.

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

lily818 — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 01:58:34 GMT

Hillary Clinton is as delusional as she is arrogant...not to mention a power-hungry *&^%$.

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

CLA123 — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 02:05:14 GMT

The shame is that this has become a battleground between supporters of Obama and the supporters of Clinton. It is becoming vicious and hateful. The accusations are horrible on both parts. Neither candidate is innocent.

Obama says Clinton is trying to lessen his presidential appeal by referring to him as VP yet he makes an obvious attempt to do the same to Clinton by campaigning against McCain as if she does not exist.

He also accuses her of trying to take his delegates yet there are super-delegates who have stood on tv and stated that they have been approached by insiders in the Obama camp to change their support to Obama or candidates will be run for their seats. This is nuts.

Clinton has said that she will not rule out Obama as a VP - she never said that he was her top choice. Bill Clinton has said from day one that he thought they would be dynamic together - so what if he feels it should be Clinton/Obama. There are many who feel it should be Obama/Clinton.

As for the super-delegates. When the count begins at the convention the Super-delegates have one vote that is equal to any other vote of any other delegate. what separates them is that they do not have to commit to either candidate until they actually cast their vote at the convention. They are free to change their mind right up to that point. That is the way it has always been. they are not obligated to vote as their constituency did - they are uncommitted delegates - like the delegates of the candidates who have dropped out.

For either candidate to win the nomination they must have the most votes from ALL of the delegates - this includes the super-delegates. It is not a matter of overthrowing the voice of the people or who has the most state delegates - They are only one vote each and they are permitted to cast it anyway they decide. When all delegates are considered the campaign is extremely close and neither candidate will have the required number of delegates that mandates their nomination. If this happens I believe there is a re-vote where all delegates are able to change their vote - I am not sure on this though.

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

NEW AMERICA — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 02:14:54 GMT

She just keeps going lower and lower. She is a disgrace to the democratic party, and she has put womens EQUAL RIGHTS back to the 1950's. This is NOT how a professional women makes it in a mans world. She is teaching our daughters all the wrong things. Mothers is this what you want your daughters to learn....that it is ok to lie and cheat, and to be unethical?????? to get what you want.

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

CLA123 — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 02:15:23 GMT

Barrameister - do you have any idea what Bill Clinton's fundraising is? If he brings it up it will be used not only to ridicule him but to say that Hillary cannot run on what Bil does.

Here it is though. President Clinton has raised over $31,000,000 through his foundation and that money has all gone to Africa and 71 other countries to fight AIDS and HIV and to bring medical care and medication to people who are dying. He has been to these countries many, many times where he has rolled up his shirtsleeves and worked, yes worked without cameras to capture the moment to help ease the pain of children and adults. He does not make money off of it.

I am sure wil will find fault with this but you should at least admit that this is one of the most worthiest cauces being done. He has held and comforted children who are dying and consoled AIDs infected adults. Would you - could you do the same? It is a rate person who is able to do this.

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

CLA123 — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 02:15:25 GMT

Barrameister - do you have any idea what Bill Clinton's fundraising is? If he brings it up it will be used not only to ridicule him but to say that Hillary cannot run on what Bil does.

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

cantstandthehypocrisy — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 02:17:24 GMT

As for this week's bizarre assertion that she would accept Barack on the ticket as veep when he has most of the popular vote, most of the delegate count, and has won more states is well....daft.

The rules before the primaries began (even though FLA and MICH were counted out because of GOP strategy) were accepted by every candidate. To claim that now, this far along in the primary, that those delegates should be seated is UN-democratic wreaks of desperation because Hillary is behind. There's no doubt that it's a last ditch effort to win the nomination but at what cost? It's destroying the unity of our party.

Why?

Because you can't keep moving the goal-posts. Particularly by the DNC when the other candidate is an African-American. Changing the rules is why people of color distrust the process of government and are often left baffled and angered when the rules are a prodigy for only white people.

Race is politics. Gender is politics. Age is politics. Clearly.

Take the Hispanic voters for instance. Immigration is an issue that all races in this country care about. But most of the Hispanic voters fall on one side of the immigration issue than most white people. And understandably so, since the immigration issue affects Hispanic families differently than non-Hispanics.

There's not going to be a do-over in Florida and Michigan. The physics of the problem won't allow it. There's not enough time or money or consensus. No "force" or "mass" or "acceleration" so to speak.

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

jramray — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 02:26:38 GMT

Samantha Power was right! Billary would stoop to anything and say anything, acting under the color of "former First Lady." While we all wait for the closing act, when the almost dead Hillary springs out of the bathtub with a loaded gun but accidentally gets shot by Bill, I hope Obama's surrogates start dredging the old skelitons out of the closet: the secrecy about their tax returns, the multi-milloon Dollar clendestine donations and business dealings, the sale of White House pardons in the last few days before leaving the White House, the arrogent stonewalling of the White Water inquiry,

JRR

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

Jon of Northern Califia — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 02:30:25 GMT

so is that a threat or a promise, tlpatan?

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

knobrocker — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 02:39:11 GMT

WHY WON'T CLINTON RELEASE HER TAX DOCUMENTS LIKE EVERY OTHER CANDIDATE? WHAT IS SHE HIDING????

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

knobrocker — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 02:39:15 GMT

WHY WON'T CLINTON RELEASE HER TAX DOCUMENTS LIKE EVERY OTHER CANDIDATE? WHAT IS SHE HIDING????

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

knobrocker — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 02:39:18 GMT

WHY WON'T CLINTON RELEASE HER TAX DOCUMENTS LIKE EVERY OTHER CANDIDATE? WHAT IS SHE HIDING????

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

tkjer — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 02:47:30 GMT

What is wrong with US media that they continue to neglect important stories staring them right in the face, and instead waste our time with this horse race nonsense? Our ambassador to Canada has gone on record that the Canadian government is interfering in the US primary election. The Canadian media is full of the allegations that are being made against the conservative government, calling their government shills for Bush. The Canadians absolutely love Obama and do not care for Hillary. The Canadians have their own Fox news network that is a mouthpiece for their very conservative Prime Minister. But American media ignores these facts. American media ignores the evidence of the Limbaugh-Clinton alliance that committed voter fraud in Ohio and Texas. Once again our media is out to lunch. Where are the weapons of mass destruction?Answer: Newsweek, Time, Washington Post, NYTimes, MSNBC, ABC, CNN, CBS and so on.

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

Dems2008 — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 02:48:50 GMT

Is it just me, or is it obvious to everyone that Hillary knows she cannot possibly win without the support Obama would bring as the veep candidate? I know it; Obama knows it; a lot of us know it.

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

ALLEAS — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 02:56:13 GMT

I FOR ONE, AM A GRANDMOTHER OF NINE. THREE OF MY GRANDAUGHTERS WILL

BE VOTING FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THIS PRESENTIAL ELECTION. I HAVE TAUGHT THEM THAT THEIR VOTE SHOULD BE FOR THE BEST CANDIDATE. I HAVE BEEN A VERY

POSITIVE ROLE MODEL IN THEIR LIVES. I HAVE INSTILLED IN THEM A SENSE OF

FAIRNESS AND COMMON SENSE, AND TO MY THRILLING AMAZEMENT, THEY

SEE THAT HILLARY CLINTON IS NOT THE BEST CANDIDATE. SOMETIMES, WE DON'T

REALIZE WHAT A POSITIVE EFFECT WE HAVE ON THE LIVES OF OUR CHILDREN.

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

newsguy73 — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 03:01:18 GMT

For many months, I was okay with a Clinton-Obama or an Obama-Clinton ticket as I was very proud of the Democratic party and both Hillary and Barack for the civil way they were conducting themselves. But ever since Hillary got up and starting screaming, "Shame on you Barack!" I have been just apalled at her negativity. I hope she loses and loses bad! Barack Obama shouldn't even consider Clinton for a running mate. She would stab him in the back to take him down. That's just who she is. She will try to win this election at any cost. I can't believe she's comparing herself to, of all people, John McCain when it comes to "experience!" How absurd! Obama has no more or less experience than Bill Clinton had, and his presidency turned out just fine. Obama will make a fine president. Hillary Clinton will make neither a fine president or vice president. She's ripping our party apart for her own advancement. Her divisive, self-serving tactics are appalling. If she wins the nomination (God forbid) I will vote Green!

Obama all the way!!

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

barrameister — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 03:02:01 GMT

CLA123

I do admire the positive things that Bill and Hill have done. I supported them throughout the battles of the 90's. I was so happy and full of hope in 1992. It was the "year of the woman" because so many women won election to office that year. Anything seemed possible. In the end, however, very little of meaning was accomplished. The biggest victory of the Clinton years was the survival of Clinton in office -- not health care, not any of the progressive agenda. The Republicans took Congress for the first time in 40 years and Gore was denied the White House. I don't wish Bill or Hillary ill, but I just don't want to waste another term going from one scandal to another. If Obama's agenda is the same, I'm for the new guy.

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

Rational Poster — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 03:07:26 GMT

Neither Hillary nor Barack are electable. Why can't the DEMs put forth an electable candidate when the GOP is trying to hand them the White House?

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

barrameister — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 03:13:44 GMT

Rational Poster -- If Hillary and Barack are both unelectable, we will be in a real pickle a year from now since McCain can't possibly win!

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

Jammetrymon — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 03:19:46 GMT

Maybe not Hillary, but Obama is definately electable. There was never so much evidence of Republicans crossing over in 04, 00, nor when Bill won in 92. Besides, it's a moot point anyway.

Obama/Boxer 08

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

Vinette — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 03:22:20 GMT

Isn't it just so absolutely downright COMICAL that today, Bill and Hill now want to actively promote the idea of a dream ticket?...dream ticket? More like NIGHTMARE ticket!!! It would be like partnering with Satan himself for Barack Obama to pair up with Hillary Clinton! She knows that the only way she'll ever spend any time in that Oval Office is if she gets there by hanging on to Barack's coat tail! And, why have they sent Bill to deliver the 'arranged marriage' message? Is this Junior High? 'Send a note to that boy and tell him, circle yes or no if he likes me?' Is that what this is? Is Hillary trying to save face and concede this race quietly with this preposterous, facety suggestion?

What I would like to know is this...How in the world can you call somebody every name in the book: unqualified, inexperienced ...and the other names Hillary can't say on camera; how do you throw everything including the kitchen sink at someone, and then in the same breath say...oh, by the way, I love you, will you marry me? If all those things Hillary says about Obama are her true feelings, why in the world would she want to partner with him on the same ticket?

This takes duplicity to an all new level!!! It's yet another clear example of this woman being willing to do whatever it takes to get elected. That's DIRTY politics at it's finest!

It will be tempting for Barack to do, but he absolutely should resist! They're not suggesting she become his VP, they're suggesting Barack being her VP! Bill Clinton is absolutely right - it would be a clean sweep getting to the White House. But even if Barack were on top, and Hillary was the Vice President, it would still be a hot mess!!! There would be no way this controlling couple would accept the subservient role of, "second in charge" to this black man - especially, having been in the driver's seat themselves, once before. The staff would regard the Clintons as the first couple, and if you think there's war in Iraq, it would pale in comparison to the psychological warfare inside that divided White House!

Barack Obama should trust what the country has been saying, which is, we want YOU! We choose YOU! There are no other cards left to play. Hillary has played the crying game, the ring the doorbell and run game, she's bordered on playing the ever dangerous race card, the gender card…you name it, she's tried it!

My children are sometimes very competitive. They race to see who will be the rotten egg as they buckle up in the car, they race to be the first in line, sometimes, I can even trick them into competing at being the first to fall asleep, or being the winner at being quiet the longest ( I love that one!), they almost compete at everything! But almost every day, my daughter, the youngest, when she realizes she stands no chance of winning, will toward the end of the race declare, I'm not playing!! Sometimes, she'll even wait until she actually comes in dead last and adamantly declare, I did NOT lose, I wasn't playing, so there!!!! That's the game Hillary's playing now. She realizes she can't win, so she's saying, 'hey, I have a good idea, how's about we team up, oh, and by the way, I could be on top, and you could be on the bottom, the bottom is the best spot, you know!!', as she crosses her grubby fingers behind her back! Are you kidding me??? I don't think so Hill!!! We're going to Pennsylvania Avenue without you, Sweetie!!

So, we're not hiring for VP positions right at the moment, Bill. But if Hillary just must join the White house staff, and she insists on answering the phone at 3:00am, I'm sure there might be an opening as White House Third-Shift Receptionist!! As a bonus, and out of consideration for her obvious affection for them, we just might even make those phones, what else, -- RED!!!

I'm Vinette D, and that's my opinion!

vinettesopinion@blogspot.com

(BTW, don't look for 'facety' in the English dictionary -- it's Jamaican colloquialism, meaning: rude, having a significant amount of nerve, offensively cheeky or insolently bold)

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

Dems2008 — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 03:22:42 GMT

Rational Poster (yeah right) - are you freaking kidding me? Do you think McCain is electable? The man can't spit out a sentence without putting himself - and the rest of us - to sleep.

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

mdenhof — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 03:25:13 GMT

Since when was HIllary not "Looney", She has been inconsistent in her words and expressions during this campaign. And the only way to make sense of her inconsistencies is to interpret them as an example of "say anything, do anything to win" campaign tactics.

She does not represent America well. Even if Barack Obama is a young presidential candidate, why not give him a shot. Hillary has proven herself dirty and as an "establishmnent" candidate. With Obama, we at least have a chance at a president with integrity and a true role model for our young people.

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

paul962 — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 03:28:50 GMT

Hillary Clinton & her campaign take all of the fun out of being dysfunctional.

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

mdenhof — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 03:31:59 GMT

People seem to make the mistake of expecting the Clintons to make sense. They are much more interested in winning the nomination (anyway they can) than being logical. People who are "stumped" by their recent remarks have certainly not been paying too close of attention over the course of this campaign season.

The Clintons (this time) are just trying to pander to Obama supporters and make Hillary's chances at winning the nomination seem greater than they are. She is far behind in delegates and there is no escaping the fact that it is almost a statistical impossability for her to catch up in light of the way delegates are split up.

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

Rational Poster — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 03:41:55 GMT

Dems2008: No, I am not kidding. Don't let what you wish for cloud your reality. Just read the posts on this board. Consider how many men are saying, I am ready for a woman president - BUT NOT THIS WOMAN! Hillary is VERY polarizing.

Barack has two strikes against him - one maybe fair, one not fair. The not fair is all of those bigots in this country that can't bring themselves to vote for a man of color and certainly not for one with the name Hussein. I did not say it was fair - I am just an observer of the world around me. The maybe fair criticism whether real or perceived is his lack of experience. Look at the data for those undecided voters that are making up their minds in the last 24 hours before they vote. The data is heavily lopsided to Hillary. Even with his momentum and his rock star appeal, folks have doubts and the data shows it.

Political pundits say whoever wins "the guys with guns and boats" will win. That would be western PA, Ohio, KY, TN, IN, MO, OK, TX. Neither Barack nor Hillary can win "the guys with guns and boats."

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

barrameister — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 03:53:27 GMT

Rational Poster: I think the guys with guns and boats need jobs and health care -- and probably have kids of draftable age. McCain's promises of years of war, tax cuts for the rich, and I-don't-know-nuthin-about-stinkin-economics will be REAL appealing to those guys.

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

Jammetrymon — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 04:02:58 GMT

The notion that Obama would lower himself to even consider Hillary's ridiculous suggestion is like the last place Miami Heat courting Koby Bryant from the Lakers to bolster their bench in an effort to salvage a .500 season. Heck, Hillary would be lucky just to be get a seat in Obama's cabinet. I could live with that, (just as long as she's denied access to the red phone)

Obama/Boxer08

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

drickard — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 04:18:49 GMT

Just wondering... Does Hillary think this is 'Presidential Behavior'?

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

drickard — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 04:24:46 GMT

Does anyone find it interesting that Bill & Hill had no White House/Presidential experience in 1992 when Bill was first elected? If I remember correctly, Bill was President, not Hill. So maybe Hill doesn't quite have the experience she thinks/claims she does?

I'd rather see an honest - difference of opinion campaign rather than a smear campaign. The smear nonsense plays right into the Republican's hands. You'd think Howard Dean would know this and suggest different tactics to the candidates. Who knows, maybe the Democrats haven't lost enough elections yet to pay attention to what 'We, the people' want from our public servants.

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

PhillyAtty — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 04:26:09 GMT

What exactly is ridiculous about a Clinton/Obama ticket.. and who, other than the media is saying that Hilllary is "polarizing"? If she's that polarizing how has she come this far and how did she do so well last Tuesday? It would seem that Obama and his supporters are the major polarizing force here, as is evidenced by their unwillingness to consider a combined ticket.

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

Chapalody — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 04:35:15 GMT

Check this out. Hillary wasn't counting on Obama catching and responding so fast to that ridiculous offer she says she would consider. It was just another one of those rabbits Hillary keeps on pulling out of that hat of hers. Only this time, Obama is ready to make stew out of those rabbits. The red phone ad was really a ridiculous one because there's no way any candidate Democrat or Republican can get the necessary experience to handle what the red phone ad suggest by election time. I guess Obama doesn't know his place when it comes to Hillary. Hillary sure can't accept what place she's in when it comes to Obama either. Did Hillary really think people were going to vote for her, thinking it was a vote for Obama as vice president. Give the voters more credit Hillary.

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

StandsInTheLight — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 05:48:51 GMT

it's obviously a fair game political ploy to undermine her opponent's electability ... no more loony than the Obama surrogates' constant demand that she concede such a phenomenally close race... such tactics go with the territory of presidential politics

get over it. move on

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

cpsamuel — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 10:57:27 GMT

To the comments from PhillyAtty:

The dream ticket is not ridiculous, however, the Clinton/Obama ticket is: why would someone who is leading in pledge delegates, popular votes and number of states won can be in the ticket as a vice president? If Clinton and her campaign can be little bit more clear and gracious and admit to Obama's frontrunner position and announce the dream ticket could happen in an Obama/Clinton ticket, then Clinton’s statement about a dream ticket is justified.

The only excuse that Clinton team can give as to why she should be the nominee is the fact she has won big states. I am not sure when we had a nominee that was chosen because on the merit that he or she has won big states, when her opponent has more pledged delegates, more popular votes and has won more states. Also, let's be frank: if Obama was the nominee, California, New York and New Jersey would still vote for a democratic president in November. Those states will not vote for John McCain.

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

The harsh reality — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 11:19:30 GMT

HEY OBAMBI'S , realize this, Quit your whining and crying about Hillary. The republicans will DESTROY Obama come November if he gets the nod. Your articulate well-spoken rookie will look like a fool and so will the Democratic party for not picking a candidate that can stand up and fight. The 30 second attack ads will pick him apart for the favors he received from Rezko, his half brother in Kenya who's tribe is committing genocide, and his dumb wife who has only been proud to be an American once and is telling people they shouldn't work for corporations. You Obambi's must never have paid attention to politics before in your lives. The republicans are ruthless and do what it takes to win, nothing is off limits. They managed to ruin John Kerry's purple hearts, Obama will be meat for the republican war machine. Good luck, then all of you who voted for him can blame yourselves for 4 more years of a republican president.

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

NE PHILLY — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 11:43:13 GMT

Totally disagree.BO claims to be a unifier but his ranting and raving proves he wants it his way or no way.That is not some one who is a unifier but a divider,certainly not a leader for a major world country.Hope the DNC is paying attention to this fact.Atleast Hillary was not trying to dash the hopes of millions of Democrats who would like this scenario.If you follow his past his end goal has always been what is good for BO.

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

mayshays — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 11:49:36 GMT

Shame on you, Hillary Clinton, for employing the same Karl Rovian tactics you so vehemently denounce...err...reject. Reject and denounce.

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

YouCannotTrickMe — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 11:55:34 GMT

I don't want the presidency turned into a MONSTERS BALL so leave the monster at home.

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

wylyam — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 12:42:27 GMT

Thank you very much for writing this article. It is obvious that you haven't fallen prey to the Clinton team's dirty politics. Hopefully this tactic will somehow be recognized by her "voter base" of the ignorant and the very old.

I can't believe that someone actually posted that Obama is not being a unifier because he recognized this obvious demeaning dirty trick for what it was. As HRC would say: "Shame on you." I wonder if that is how SHE would respond to that 3AM call after a terrorist attack. I can see it now..."Shame on you, you bad, bad terrorist people."

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

hotstuff — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 13:26:58 GMT

To Stev, CLA123, StandsInTheLight & Co!

It´s totally OK to be dumb.(It shows in your warped logic! And Johnsonium pointed that out

earlier). I mean we can´t all be smart! When a guy like Stev claims he has a doctorate, it just

goes to highlight the fact that these guys need help badly! But they shouldn´t lose hope. They

can rectify their situation during an Obama presidency! The only problem though is these guys,

just like Hillary, don´t believe in hope underlined with sound policies!

On top of that, you don´t seem to have any conscience. Because if you still advocate Hillary after all her shameful, unethical machinations that culminated in her "kitchen sink", then you should ask yourselves whatever happened to your conscience! Something must have gone wrong somewhere!

But then, those are exactly the 2 characteristics that Hillary has demonstrated so far with much expertise:

WARPED LOGIC

LACK OF CONSCIENCE.

Billary should be prevented from re-entering the White House. There must be some decency left in America!!

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

jayarr — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 13:57:17 GMT

There is no telling the Machiavellian Motive behind this tactic by Clinton. The game is in the late innings and she threw a curveball at Obama-he got the whole bat on it- just a long out or a homerun ? Won't know until after Penn, at the earliest, One thing for sure-the fans are very much involved and nobody's leaving the park. Will the battle for the"league" championship by the Dems tire them too much for the "world series" against the GOP ?

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

lamm01 — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 14:01:38 GMT

I think it's a moot point. Obama will be named in the Renzko indictment and that will be the end of him. He stand next to Gov. Spitzer and they both can resign together.

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

Saltydog_0 — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 14:41:21 GMT

Ugh. Hillary's tactics are becoming so tired. She talks down to the voters. She takes us for granted. She patronizes us. Over and over, she treats us all like we're a bunch of idiots.

We get it Hillary. We dumb. . .you smart. Please tell us what to think.

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

hotstuff — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 15:11:47 GMT

To Stev, CLA123, StandsInTheLight & Co.

_____________________________________

It´s totally OK to be dumb. ( It shows in your warped logic! And Johnsonium poited that out earlier).

I mean we can´t all be smart! When a guy like Stev claims he has a doctorate, it just goes to highlight the fact that these guys need help badly! But they shouldn´t lose hope. They can rectify

their situation during an Obama presidency! The only problem though is these guys, just like Hillary, don´t believe in hope, underlined with sound policies!

On top of that, you don´t seem to have any conscience! Because, if you still advocate Hillary, after all her shameful, unethical machinations that culminated in her "kitchen sink", then you should ask yourselves whatever happened to your conscience! Something must have gone wrong somewhere!

But then, those are exactly the 2 characteristics that Hillary has demonstrated so far with much expertise:

WARPED LOGIC

LACK OF CONSCIENCE

Billary should be prevented from re-entering the White House. There must be some decency

left in America!

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

wyl5326 — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 15:48:26 GMT

The current primary battle is like trying to fill-up a soon to be vacated position for the head coach of a sporting team. The protagonists happens to be a wife of a retired white head coach and a young but talented aspirant who happens to of mixed race. The wife had never been a coach of any sport teams but have been always at the side of her husband during his coaching years, while the young aspirant have been a good study in sports and with a lot of energy and passion to inspire. The wife decided to join a sporting league on her own after her husband retired from coaching, while the young aspirant soon followed her into the same big league after he have played in the minor league. In the hiring process, they were required to organized their own team and finance it and have a real face-off on the actual arena. The wife have been able to recruit top talents and players based on her husbands past achievement and raised the highest funds also. The young aspirant was also able to raised more than sufficient funds and recruited some old but mostly new, young talents to his team. The audience and the media have ordained the wife's team as the ultimate winner before the match began and will ultimately get her the job. After the initial skirmish where the young talents emerged ahead of their more experienced rivals, the audience and media's sentiment began to shift to them. After halftime, the 2 teams are practically still tied in score. However, the older talents have found themselves to be running out of gas and funds while the young talents continue to appear so fresh with energy and is slowly accumulating more points in their scores and having a widening lead now as the face-off continues. At this point, the wife decided to let the team play rough and uses every means necessary to win, which allowed them to temporarily stop the momentum of the young team. Her team even accuses the referees (media) of bias against her and started to trash talk her way to cast doubt on the young aspiring coach in the hope that the hiring team will override the result of the face-off and give her the job ! Then she tried to charm the hiring team by offering the young candidate to serve as her water boy first, because she can always rely on her husband to assist her when the going gets rough and don't need him as assistant coach. Of course the young aspirant cried foul at this insidious kind of influence peddling from these couple. Will the hiring team see these couple for the kind of tricks they have played and continues to play ?

The wife's offer is actually like how an FOB described Bill is capable of patting your back at the same time he urinates on your legs ! Remember in a debate where Hill said "she's proud to be with Barack", Bill made a little word twisting to say that she said "she's proud to run with Barack". This is how the joint team they are now peddling comes about slowly !

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

cjgnew — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 17:04:08 GMT

tlpatan--

Bigotry is not a rational endeavor. We understand that you are still under the influence of brainwashing. Yet, we recognize your constitutional right to vote for whomever you feel is the best candidate, even if your candidate is as irrational as you are.

cjgnew

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

provguy — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 21:24:17 GMT

Barack should plan to offer the vice presidency to Bill Clinton!

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

r.helms — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 21:57:48 GMT

Obama obviously doesn't understand the way this goes. He is not, by any way, shape, form, number, way going to get the nomination. He is not ready and anyone who has half an incling how this works knows it to be true. The campaign has to continue and money has to be earned but Hillary Clinton is going to be the next President of the United States. If Obama has any sense, he will consider the offer of veep very seriously, it may not be available after Pennsylvania. Obama may end up regretting turning away from the offer.

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

ObamaMama — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 00:13:51 GMT

Perhaps Senator Obama will consider someone else with the courage of his convictions, Admiral Fallon? There are some GREAT vice presidential candidates out there, and the superdelegates will wisely award their votes NO STRINGS ATTACHED!!! Senator McCain WILL NOT WIN after planning to keep the very lifeblood and the progeny of our lifeblood, some of whom will never see the parent they lost in Iraq or Afghanistan, over there for ten or a hundred years! Mediation and a sound exit strategy are absolutely called for!

Maybe the woman from New York wants to run for Lt. Governor?

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

joanna38 — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 03:19:36 GMT

This thing about "same ticket" just is not right and just is not so. Hillary was asked the question and trying to simply get on with what she was talking about, she DID say what she is being accused of BUT, she finsihed it with "But right now I need your vote". I think she simply said what she did because she did not want to offend the dreamer (yeah smokedreams) and get on with why she was there...to encourage the crowd and ask for, and hopefully secure their promises of a vote for her.

Obama should make sure he has the whole story before he goes off on a rampage. Instead he found something else to bellyache about. I wish the Clinton camp would just simply get a copy of tnhat tape and replay it as often as possible....the whole incident, not just what Obama needs.

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

joanna38 — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 03:24:26 GMT

Responding to r.helms: I do not know where anyone gets the idea that Hillary, (hopefully) should she win the nomination, would ever offer the position of vice president to Barack Hussein Obama. She knows who she has in mind and already has discussed everything with that person...and my bet is, it is NOT Obama.

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

live the truth — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 04:58:41 GMT

Senator Clinton cannot even run her campaign without goof-ups. As she has said, she has experience, and she is ready to go on day one. The way her campaign is being run does not show wisdom or enough organization. Hillary is alot of confusing and misleading talk. We do not need the Clintons back in the White House. If she cannot run a strong and organized presidential campaing what makes you think she could run a nation. Senator Obama has more class and intelligence than Mrs Clinton and he uses it in an effective manner. The Billaries have had a very poor marriage, and have been involved in enough " gates" to make it clear to any logical thinker that we cannot afford to put them back in the White House. American needs strong leadership, but it must also have integrity, and wisdom. With that in mind, Barack Obama is the logical choice. The Billaries need to go home. We are all tired of the Drama. They need to let the United States heal from all the injustices and embarrasing situations that the Old Political Machine (of which they are apart } heaped upon us in front of the whole world. This country does not owe them anything and they need to stop acting like it does. To put it bluntly, We cannot trust the Clintons.

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

hotstuff — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 11:44:39 GMT

To "live the truth":

You´re so right.......And those folks who stll want Billary after all their evil machinations,

are suffering from an ailment, I have now dubbed

"THE HILLARY DISEASE": Warped logic + Lack of conscience

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

TheBrain — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 21:56:20 GMT

The Color Purple

Or why a Hillary/Obama ticket is not only possible, but inevitable.

First, let’s get rid of the illusions about the uncommitted “super-delegates”. Neither Hillary, nor Obama, can win the nomination without them. Thanks to proportional delegates, it will be impossible for either candidate to amass sufficient pledged delegates from those remaining to win the nomination, even when added to the “super-delegates” who have already committed to each of them. Therefore, the remaining races, and all the money that will be spent on them, is to convince the remaining “super-delegates” whom to support.

And that is as it should be. That is the role of the “super-delegates”, to look beyond the immediacy of the moment, and make individual judgments of what ticket has the best chance of defeating the Republican candidate in the general election. And why should the “super-delegates” play that role? Not only because that’s the way the rules are, and we are being told constantly that everyone should play by the rules, but also because they are uniquely qualified to make that judgment. The vast majority have participated in dozens of elections (or hundreds); their own and others. They have a deeper and vastly more informed perspective on what it takes to win general elections than does the average voter. Their expertise is an invaluable aid to making sure a Democratic candidate actually gets to be President. They are mostly elected officials who will have to go back and face their constituents and explain in detail why they made the judgment they did. They, unlike any of the other delegates, are truly accountable for their votes to more than just their favorite candidate.

So why will the uncommitted ‘super-delegates” ultimately support a Hillary/Obama ticket? The color Purple. Much as we may crave it, we do not live in a democracy. If we did then each person would have one vote in every issue, and that vote would count as much as any other. But we don’t. If you participated in a caucus, your vote counted about ten times as much as someone who voted in a primary. In the general election, what ultimately matters is the votes in the Electoral College, not the popular vote, as we re-learned so painfully in 2000. So the question facing the uncommitted “super-delegates” is how do we run the best campaign with the highest probability of defeating John McCain in November, and win the majority of Electoral College votes.

The majority of states are firmly planted in either “Red” or “Blue” territory. Because of their demographics, party registration, or culture, each is overwhelmingly likely to vote the same way they have for decades, for either the Republican or the Democratic candidate, no matter what name is on the ballot. In the general election, there is no proportional allocation of Electoral College votes. It’s winner-take-all. It is highly unlikely that any Democrat can win states such as Wyoming, Idaho, Utah, Kansas, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Alaska, South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi and others that carried Barack to this point in the primary contest.

Only a handful, either because of their almost equal balance between Republican and Democratic registrations, or the changing demographics, make the Electoral College votes for that state competitive. Those are the “Purple” states; those which are neither definitively Red nor definitively Blue. And those states are what this race, and the next one are actually all about.

“Purple” states are those where, for example, the Presidential vote in 2004 was separated by about 6% or less. Those include Ohio, Florida, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Nevada, and New Mexico which Hillary either already won or is leading. These are the states that the Democratic Party must win in November. It is critically important that the Democratic candidate be the one who draws most strongly in those key states. To believe that the candidate who did not attract a majority of Democratic voters in the primaries there, will somehow get not only most of those Democratic voters but also draw similar voters from outside the Democratic Party is naïve and dangerous if your ultimate goal is to not have a Republican in the White House this time next year.

As for Obama as the vice-presidential nominee, that’s a no-brainer. Hillary has every reason to include Barack. He brings with him a large contingent of new, younger voters who would probably not participate if he is not on the ticket. He is an energetic and competent campaigner who can represent the ticket well throughout the country. He is inspiring and charismatic. Their positions on issues are virtually identical. His position on the ballot as Vice President would quiet the critics who say he isn’t yet quite ready for the top job, but they still like him.

And he would accept the second place on the ticket. All spin aside, if the nomination went to Hillary, he can either join the ticket, become the first black Vice President, grow in his knowledge and experience in national and world affairs, and be in line for the Presidency in eight years. Or, he can tell his millions of supporters that since he can’t have the #1 slot, he’s going to pout, pick up his marbles and not play. I think not.

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

Not stupid in Alabama — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 23:09:26 GMT

So Hotstuff, is that the Obama message of unity, possiblity and positive outlook?

I suspect you are a republican trying to forment conflict among democrats, parroting what right wing radio mouths continue to say. It hasn't worked. If any of it was true, Bill would have been impeached and both of them would be in jail.

Hillary is clearly the most qualified to be the Pres. nominee. Obama could learn a lot about how things are done in an executive office from her. No one ever talks about her accomplishments.

The following facts are taken from http://www.millionbabyboomers.com/baby_boomers_blog/2008/03/hillary-clinton.html

The first lady plays an important role in international affairs. Clinton made the position even more important, being the first First Lady to have had her own carreer. She moved the First Lady's office from the East Wing to the West Wing, and in 1997, while she was First Lady, she helped establish the State Children's Health Insurance Program and the Adoption and Safe Families Act.

Even before she became first lady, Clinton was involved with legislation and executive issues. During her post-graduate study, sheserved as staff attorney for the newly founded Children's Defense Fund in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and as a consultant to the Carnegie Council on Children. During 1974 she was a member of the impeachment inquiry staff in Washington, D.C., advising the House Committee on the Judiciary during the Watergate scandal.

Children have always been important to her, and after she married Bill and moved to Arkansas, she continued to do pro bono work in child advocacy, and published the scholarly articles "Children's Policies: Abandonment and Neglect" in 1977 and "Children's Rights: A Legal Perspective" in 1979.

She co-founded the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, a state-level alliance with the Children's Defense Fund, in 1977, and served on the boards of the Arkansas Children's Hospital, and the Children's Defense Fund (as chair, 1986–1992).

In late 1977, President Jimmy Carter (for whom Rodham had done 1976 campaign coordination work in Indiana) appointed her to the board of directors of the Legal Services Corporation and she served in that capacity from 1978 until the end of 1981. For those who are too young to know what that was, Legal Services were often the only way poor people could get legal services for things like getting a divorce or representation when landlords tried to throw them out. She served on the board of directors for Legal Services from 1988–1992.

As First Lady of Arkansas in January 1979, her title for a total of twelve years (1979–1981, 1983–1992), she served as the chair of the Rural Health Advisory Committee, where she successfully obtained federal funds to expand medical facilities in Arkansas' poorest areas without affecting doctors' fees.

She chaired the Arkansas Educational Standards Committee from 1982 to 1992 where she sought to bring about reform in the state's court-sanctioned public education system. She introduced Arkansas' Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youth in 1985, a program that helps parents work with their children in preschool preparedness and literacy

Clinton has also worked relentlessly for women's rights. She was named Arkansas Woman of the Year in 1983 and Arkansas Mother of the Year in 1984. From 1987 to 1991 she chaired the American Bar Association's Commission on Women in the Profession, which addressed gender bias in the law profession and induced the association to adopt measures to combat it She was twice named by the National Law Journal as one of the 100 most influential lawyers in America, in 1988 and in 1991.

From the time she came to Washington, she also found refuge in a prayer group of The Fellowship that featured many wives of conservative Washington figures. Triggered in part by the death of her father in April 1993, she publicly sought to find a synthesis of Methodist teachings, liberal religious political philosophy, and Tikkun editor Michael Lerner's "politics of meaning" to overcome what she saw as America's "sleeping sickness of the soul" and that would lead to a willingness "to remold society by redefining what it means to be a human being in the twentieth century, moving into a new millennium."

Along with Senator Ted Kennedy, she was the major force behind the State Children's Health Insurance Program in 1997, a federal effort that provided state support for children whose parents were unable to provide them with health coverage. She promoted nationwide immunization against childhood illnesses and encouraged older women to seek a mammogram to detect breast cancer, with coverage provided by Medicare. She successfully sought to increase research funding for prostate cancer and childhood asthma at the National Institutes of Health.The First Lady worked to investigate reports of an illness that affected veterans of the Gulf War, which became known as the Gulf War syndrome. Together with Attorney General Janet Reno, Clinton helped create the Office on Violence Against Women at the Department of Justice. In 1997, she initiated and shepherded the Adoption and Safe Families Act, which she regarded as her greatest accomplishment as First Lady. n Child Care (1997), Early Childhood Development and Learning (1997),[145] and Children and Adolescents (2000), and the first-ever White House Conferences on Teenagers (2000) and Philanthropy (1999).

As First Lady, Hillary Clinton traveled to 79 countries. In a September 1995 speech before the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, Clinton argued very forcefully against practices that abused women around the world and in the People's Republic of China itself, declaring "that it is no longer acceptable to discuss women's rights as separate from human rights" and resisting Chinese pressure to soften her remarks. She was one of the most prominent international figures at the time to speak out against the treatment of Afghan women by the Islamist fundamentalist Taliban that had seized control of Afghanistan. She helped create Vital Voices, an international initiative sponsored by the United States to promote the participation of women in the political processes of their countries.

Clinton initiated and was Founding Chair of the Save America's Treasures program, a national effort that matched federal funds to private donations for the purpose of preserving and restoring historic items and sites, including the flag that inspired the Star Spangled Banner and the First Ladies Historic Site in Canton, Ohio. She was head of the White House Millennium Council, and initiated the Millennium Project with monthly lectures that discuss futures studies, one of which became the first live simultaneous webcast from the White House. Clinton also created the first Sculpture Garden there, which displayed large contemporary American works of art loaned from museums in the Jacqueline Kennedy Garden.

In the White House, Clinton placed donated handicrafts of contemporary American artisans, such as pottery and glassware, on rotating display in the state rooms She oversaw the restoration of the Blue Room to be historically authentic to the period of James Monroe, the redecoration of the Treaty Room into the presidential study along nineteenth century lines, and the redecoration of the Map Room to how it looked during World War II. Clinton hosted many large-scale events at the White House, such as a St. Patrick's Day reception, a state dinner for visiting Chinese dignitaries, a contemporary music concert that raised funds for music education in public schools, a New Year's Eve celebration at the turn of the twenty-first century, and a state dinner honoring the bicentennial of the White House in November of 2000.

Unlike Obama, who has nurtured his "superstar" status and began campaigning for president almost as soon as he arrived in D.C., upon entering the United States Senate, Clinton maintained a low public profile, built relationships with senators from both parties and forged alliances. She has served on five Senate committees: Committee on Budget (2001–2002),[207] Committee on Armed Services (since 2003), Committee on Environment and Public Works (since 2001), Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (since 2001) and Special Committee on Aging.[209] She is also a Commissioner of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe(since 2001).

Looking to establish a "progressive infrastructure" to rival that of American conservatism, Clinton played a formative role in conversations that led to the 2003 founding of former Clinton administration chief of staff John Podesta's Center for American Progress; shared aides with Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, founded in 2003; advised and nurtured the Clintons' former antagonist David Brock's Media Matters for America, created in 2004; ] and following the 2004 Senate elections, successfully pushed new Democratic Senate leader Harry Reid to create a Senate war room to handle daily political messaging.

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

Nins — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 01:16:39 GMT

A blogger named Edson writes "Did the word Democrat really come from democracy?"

Here is a derivation of the words "Democrat" and "Republican."

The United States of America is a republic, that is to say, a Federal government in which the people are represented by elected officials from the various states. Before we were a republic, we were a democracy made up of 13 individual states that were not united. A democracy is a form of government where the individual citizens have the right to speak their minds and influence the political discourse. Democracy was named after Demosthenes, a citizen of ancient Greece with a speech impediment who practiced talking with his mouth full of pebbles to overcome his disability. Demosthenes later became a great political orator. This is where the Democrats derive their name.

The original Republicans were in favor of the states joining to form a republic (which is how that party got it's name). The original Democrats were opposed to this idea, they represented the individual states and were worried that the republic could gain too much power over the states, and through the exercise of tyranny, deny individuals their freedom. Trust me, people were pretty passionate about their liberty in those days, having just fought for independence from England. The Declaration of Independence, the Federalist Papers, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were all hammered out by serious-minded men who sought to balance the need for individual freedom with our shared common cause, the needs for united strength and social order. Balancing the rights of the individual against the rights of the whole society is what America is all about. This is not only a great achievement for our nation, it is one of the greatest achievements of mankind. And we have, by and large, been true to our ideals over the past 227 years. The system of government we initially established, although needing occasional revisions, has stood the test of time.

Let's not forget where we started from, that impulse towards equality and freedom.

America is, with all it's faults, a meritocracy. Most of our founding fathers would never have had a voice in the 18th century English government they rebelled against, a monarchy where you had to be born into power. In America it was different. If you had intelligence, passion, ambition, drive, talent and a little luck, you could change the world.

This is the real secret to Obama's popularity, his ability to touch this archetype in our souls. This is why a white, conservative middle-aged female Republican like me wants to vote for him. He's got that blend of intelligence, passion, ambition, drive and talent. I'm giving him my vote to proffer him the last ingredient, a little luck, so I can watch our Republican Democracy in action, and once again change the world.

IN GOD WE TRUST

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

sugarbooger62 — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 15:34:53 GMT

You have to forgive the author of this article as we all know he's biased and writes all of his articles subjectively. If you don't believe me read his Bio. Clink on the Bio link under his name up in the left-hand corner. He's "profiled the Howard Dean alums in charge of John Edwards' and Barack Obama's Internet campaigns," but nothing about Clinton. Oh, and let's not forget that "he tracked down and interviewed 30 of John Kerry's high-school classmates for a probing 2004 cover profile of the Democratic presidential nominee." Did he do any reporting during the 2004 Dem. presidential race, on any other candidates? If he did it was probably as slanted as all his articles on Hillary. He's a one-sided person. That's the new journalism today. This author is not credible. Who is this kid anyway?

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

skywoman03 — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 13:22:36 GMT

To Not Stupid in Alabama, are you some sort of Hilary fanatic or a relative? WOW with the knowledge of the duration of different postitions she held! She was the First Lady while her husband was Governor of Arkansas and the US, that does not qualify her to be the next President, unless the rest of were right, and she was actually the one in charge during the Clinton years. Don't get me wrong, the economy was in a much different state then and the country was going in a better direction, but is that because we were so used to the first Prez Bush, that anything was an improvement, or was there actual change? Just as is the case with the next president of the '08 election, will we be so happy that Bush is out, that anyone will look good. I think not, Mr. Obama has my vote, because, he has actually motivated me to want to pitch in and change for the good. OH, and Not stupid in Alabama, do you realize that while Mr. Obama has not had the opportunity to gain experience as the First Lady, he also has plenty of experience as an attorney also, go ahead and check his credentials, I you will be impressed.

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

kcengg@hotmail.com — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 14:33:34 GMT

Well each candidate has strenths & weaknesses of his/her own.No one can be expected to be perfect.If it is the criteria of history making then clearly Madame Clinton has more justified claim than Mr. Obama because USAQ/ The land of the mother of democracy/ the land of liberty till now has not selected a female as president while this female gender has 50% of the human society evrywhere including USA . Mr Obama has been represented in the history of the presidency of USA till now with total monopoly. Even if we are to consider on the basis of the color or the minority then you have 19 % of afro asian community clearly less than 50% female gender basis. Further if it is because of the color then there are latino america, a\sian american with different colors & so on........ when will the turn of the half of the society/ the female gender come. Thank God at last one female has emergedd as close as is possible to get the nomination of the democratic party & i because of the above reasons am convinced that she shpould be given the oppurtunity along with Mr. Obama being given the nomination for VP. He sure will get the oppurtunity to become president of USA in the next term for which the democratic party can give assurance on good faith which Mr. Obama should accept gracefully. Er. Ram Bahadur K.C./ Kathmandu, Nepal. The land of Mt. Everest & the land of Lord Buddha. kcengg@hotmail.com March 15, 2008. Boston time 09:50 am

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

Nins — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 19:07:25 GMT

I want a female President too. Many women share this desire, but in attaining it let's remember that we have to be careful in our selection of female candidates. Here's a lesson from history: Geraldine Ferraro's cheating on her taxes KILLED women's political chances at the Presidency until now, 25 years later.

And oh, yeah, Hillary hasn't released her tax returns yet.

Are you old enough to recall what happened to Ferraro's candidacy after she released her tax returns? She got flushed down the toilet, and with her went the dreams of millions of American women. I don't want to give away the next 25 years to Hillary Clinton's mistakes.

The issues of character that Hillary's dirty campaigning raise are real issues, and have alienated millions of voters, including me. Is she blind to the fact that people observe her behavior and come to the conclusion that she is not to be trusted?

Looks like that dream of a female president will end up being put on hold again. Maybe if I'm lucky, I'll still be alive in 25 years, when Obama's daughter will run for President.

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

Jim from Marina California — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 02:05:42 GMT

As usual-the Clinton machine will stop at nothing to get back into the White House. did they not steal enough items the first time? the american people will NEVER allow another Clinton to live in our house! If HRC continues in this attempt to gain re-entry to our white house, she will damage the Democratic Party beyond repair. A vote for shrillary is only helping insure McCains victory! HRC shoud drop out NOW. She does not want to disclose her tax records-why? How did she acquire 5 million dollars in spendable dollars? HRC is a disgrace to the Democratic party!

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

Not stupid in Alabama — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 19:50:18 GMT

All this stuff about Obama's minister may be insurmountable. What do you think the Republicans will do with it in Nov? Our country doesn't need that kind of racist issue in a Presidential campaign. I don't think Obama will be suitable as VP for Hillary. Maybe if she selected someone else Obama would approve of, maybe Congressman Artur Davis, who is thinking of resigning to run for Governor anyway, we could reunite the Democratic party.

Davis would be an awesome VP candidate.

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

Not stupid in Alabama — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 19:55:49 GMT

What do you folks think about Artur Davis as a VP for Hillary? Check it out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artur_Davis

http://www.thirdway.org/leadership/house_chairs/artur_davis

Davis is as smart as Obama, if not smarter, and has A LOT OF EXPERIENCE under his belt already, unlike OBAMA.

And he is a uniter, not a divider. A leader in congress on issues related to housing, education, and health care, he led the successful fight to reverse funding cuts for minority land grant colleges including Tuskegee, and he won a floor fight to restore funding to the HOPE VI program for renovating public housing, persuading over sixty Republicans to vote with Democrats.

He even has an answer for the NAFTA problem to get the union folks solidly behind the ticket.

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/04-02-2007/00045579

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

Not stupid in Alabama — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 20:20:48 GMT

I should have been clear that democrats of both races IN ALABAMA have supported Artur Davis for years.

If Hillary were to get the nomination, and were to ask Davis to be her running mate, would all those disappointed Obama supporters still stay home?

re: Clinton's Loony Veepstakes Logic

Northcarolinian — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 23:53:23 GMT

Trailing Sen. Obama in every respect, crafty Sen. Hillary Clinton now talks of Clinton-Obama ticket. I think she knows she has lost the nomination, but now she is trying to be Obama's VP!!