Not signed in (Sign In)
This discussion has been inactive for longer than 5 days, and doesn't want to be resurrected.
  1.  (67.1)
    There's no way Richardson gets to be VP under either Obama or Hillary, as neither of them are stupid enough to cut White Males completely out of the ticket. Richardson could be VP under Edwards, but if Edwards gets the nomination the GOP takes the election anyway, so that hardly matters.

    I agree with Warren that Bayh is an obvious and likely pick for either Clinton or Obama, but I wouldn't discount Clark either. He has a lot of affection from the left and a distinguished military record. He would balance out both Hillary's conservatism and Barack's inexperience. Hillary may go with Clark instead of Bayh to consolidate power in her part of the Democratic Party (Clark is a Clinton man, from way back), and I could see Barack being forced to go with a Clinton VP pick in order to keep her from sitting out the general after she loses.
  2.  (67.2)
    Jason, which Republicans do you think beat Edwards outright in a general election? Huckabee would thrash him, obviously, but Edwards is a stronger candidate than Romney or Thompson, and certainly not a gimme against McCain or Giuliani.

    Good insights on Clark, though. I was surprised to see him sit this election out - I would have put money on Clinton riding high as a top-dog senator and letting Clark run for President. I think Clinton/Clark is almost inevitable, if she gets the nomination. They had to offer him something decent to get him to stop the pseudo-campaign he'd been running since 2004, which had been gaining steam in 2005 and the first part of '06.

    --d
    •  
      CommentAuthorJohn Smith
    • CommentTimeDec 3rd 2007
     (67.3)
    @ dansolomon

    I'd forgotten about Clark's lapdog status with the Clintons. Still, I'm honestly skeptical that he's got much pull. He certainly wouldn't harm the ticket, and I'd much rather vote for him than her. Might make her a little harder to criticize on foreign policy decisions, but I don't see him adding much more than that.
  3.  (67.4)
    Hillary may go with Clark instead of Bayh to consolidate power in her part of the Democratic Party

    Yeah, but she needs to consolidate power across the entire Democratic Party, and for that, you need the guy whose dad wrote the ERA and saved Ted Kennedy's life.
  4.  (67.5)
    Warren: I agree that Hillary needs Bayh. I'm just not sure that, after a hard-fought primary, a combination of bloodlust and hubris might not push her towards a scorched-earth power-grab. Instead of working to consolidate the party, simply demanding the party line up behind her because she's the "strongest".

    Dan: Edwards may compete on paper, but put him on a stage next to any of the GOP candidates and he just looks and sounds like a little boy. The voters who swing the election will view him as the weak pretty boy who didn't win last time either. Even next to Romney, the closest parallel on the GOP side, Romney looks sculpted, Edwards looks coiffed.
  5.  (67.6)
    •  
      CommentAuthorAlan Tyson
    • CommentTimeDec 4th 2007 edited
     (67.7)
    Very nice, meat.

    I'd like Obama vs. McCain, as those are the only two candidates who I really think believe what they say. I definitely like that they are both moderates for their parties, because frankly I'm getting sick of one party screwing another over for votes or PR, while screwing the very voters over as well. But to be honest, I guess I'll be OK with anybody but Mitt Romney.

    Seriously. Who names their kid "Mitt?"

    Edit: Never mind, I guess his real name is Willard. I now have an image of the White House swarming with millions of tiny rats, gnawing on aides and spokespersons. It will not leave my mind.
  6.  (67.8)
    you want to see the real thing that damns Ron Paul in my eyes?

    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-4379

    here's the wikipedia translation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_the_People_Act

    read section 3 - basically it says that a state can make a law regarding things like religious tests for office, and so on. It's a pretty slippery slope from here to total statewide bans on gay marriage, mandatory postings of religious texts in public spaces, etc. Why does Ron Paul want this, and I mean want this as he has introduced it 3 times? He's almost as crazy for this as he is for the gold standard.
  7.  (67.9)
    Apologies for the frivilous nature of the last post.
  8.  (67.10)
    Maybe I've been wrong, and Romney really isn't up to playing at this level.
    • CommentAuthorshansen
    • CommentTimeDec 5th 2007
     (67.11)
    It's hard to read the Dems but the GOP seems pretty straight forward- McCain will never hold public office past the US Senate ever and either Romney or Giuliani will get the VP slot to Huckabee. It's hard to see which one is more of a liability though.

    -SH.
    •  
      CommentAuthorZachary Cole
    • CommentTimeDec 5th 2007 edited
     (67.12)
  9.  (67.13)
    Turns out it may take a strong political stomach to hand any gig to Huckabee. Fraction sent me this link overnight:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/05/exclusive-the-complete-h_n_75373.html
  10.  (67.14)
    Huckabee not only got Chuck Norris's support, but now ancient dog meat wrestler Ric Flair.

    This is real life. He's trying to be president.

    And I'm waiting from two GOP candidates to drop out before any serious numbers can be taken. Right now, its looking like trying to choose who the least disappointing is.

    Did anyone see Kuchinich say he wanted Paul as his running mate?
  11.  (67.15)
    No, but that's the sort of flaky shit I expect from Kuchinich.
  12.  (67.16)
    An article from 2005 about the Huckabee Dumond thing.

    If you search for Wayne Dumond on wikipedia it forwards you to Huckabee's page. Here is the section about it.

    It's all pretty damning.
  13.  (67.17)
    Here's an interesting exercise:

    Ask yourself, have you ever met a Hillary supporter? This is different from a democrat who is going to elect the presumptive nominee. I'm talking about someone who brings up Hillary's platform at dinner, and wants to talk about it. I don't think i've ever seen a Hillary 08 sticker on a car (but then again I live in manhattan and don't own a car). I don't think Hillary has any actual supporters - she's "Not Bush", or "Not Republican". I don't know what that means, but it reminds me of John Kerry. I hope Obama gets the nom.
    • CommentAuthorkmcleod
    • CommentTimeDec 5th 2007
     (67.18)
    I thought that Ellis meant Evan Bayh rather than Birch. There are blacks who also back the anti-immigrant Tancredo, just because he was the only one to show up at a Republican debate sponsored by the NAACP. I wish there was time to talk to all of my people at once.
    Huckabee's a great name for a 19th century president.
    Has anyone mentioned the Ron Paul Liberty dollars?

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/16/AR2007111602267_pf.html
  14.  (67.19)
    Here's more Ron Paul fun, basically a breakdown of every bill he's introduced to congress:

    http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/ron-pauls-record-in-congress.html

    Sorry to post so much anti Ron Paul crap, I know his major support network is "Arrogant Nerd" and "Rich White People With Victim Complex"
  15.  (67.20)
    Can I ask the democrats here why you are not supporting Kucinich. Or everyone in general, what is it that makes him an unattractive candidate?

This discussion has been inactive for longer than 5 days, and doesn't want to be resurrected.