Not interested in their opinion.
*

Nothings going to get accomplished watching this crap.

Trittydi @ 1:

Not interested in their opinion.
*

ditto

How about Ron Paul for Obama's running mate? I think he would be a perfect compliment to the ticket.

Vince Vaughan for Veep!!!

Veep....veep

Since Fox has taken over all the local news content in many towns and cities...

Hey even the sports fans are concerned..
They want to get the truth out there...

At all of the baseball games breaks... and at local sports halftimes...

Schedule a traveling news troupe of journalists that were fired for reporting the truth
along with professors, police, whistleblowers

It would be just a matter of time..

Week 1 - Rove would be in jail.
Week 2 - McCain would have to resign
Week 3 - The republican party criminals would be exposed
Week 4 - The Bush Cheney evil plan would be thwarted
Week 5 - Bush and Cheney would be in handcuffs

Week 6 - The republic would be saved.

Of course Jay might be some freeper wing nut I forgot to mention that possibility.

"Aint' no we gonna' have a black person as Preznit in this Country fella!"

Please refrain from using the word "vetted" in the future.

If Obama is stupid enough add Hillary to his ticket- that will send a message to America, that yet again we have been duped. I wonder how long it would take for a Clinton henchman to take him out? SHe wants the presidency so badly that I believe she would make sure he got whacked.

We have all been hearing the clinton race card rhetoric. I could McCain winning simply because Hillary is on the Obama ticket. I really hope people will wake up.

Barack Obama and Bill Clinton on the same ticket?

Wouldnt that be the dream team, Bill agreeing to help tutor Barack on his job yet knowing that as VP he cannot overrule the decision of his commander?

Hillary would divorce him, and its win-win.

Fox News has been pushing hard to get Hillary into the White House. The evil Reagan-Bush-CLinton-Bush-Clinton Globalist want Obama to have a babysitter.

Well for one thing Bill Clinton is the only person I know of who is a natural born citizen, over the age of 35, and is not eligible to be Vice President. He served his two terms and the qualifications of being the Vice President are the same for being President.

Darrell Kern @ 17:

If Obama is stupid enough add Hillary to his ticket- that will send a message to America, that yet again we have been duped. I wonder how long it would take for a Clinton henchman to take him out? SHe wants the presidency so badly that I believe she would make sure he got whacked.

We have all been hearing the clinton race card rhetoric. I could McCain winning simply because Hillary is on the Obama ticket. I really hope people will wake up.

Roveinian spin at it's finest.

OBAMA/ GORE!!!!!!!!

Michael @ 27:

OBAMA/ GORE!!!!!!!!

Gore isn't interested, and neither is Edwards.

Anyone who can't see that the Republicans are purposefully creating a fight between Hillary and Obama supporters (from day one when they dropped the race bomb on Bill) really needs to take the next 30 days off and go out into the desert and let the pollution clear from their heads.

Nancy Pelosi for VP!!!

Leslie [Hussein] @ 33:

Nancy Pelosi for VP!!!

You can't be serious.

L.A. Confidential @ 35:

Leslie [Hussein] @ 33:

Nancy Pelosi for VP!!!

You can't be serious.

Go suck lemons.

Obama should NOT ask Hillary Clinton to be on the ticket, for all the reasons listed above.

Frankly, while I still think the Clinton's were unfairly attacked by the right wing machine, Mrs. Clinton's behavior in this campaign has changed my opinion of both she and Mr. Clinton. I very much appreciate what they did for our country, but putting your own agenda ahead of the party/country when three months ago the race was already over is not only selfish, but damaging to goal of capturing the executive and gaining a veto proof majority in the legislative.

This selfishness leaves a lasting impression upon some and smacks of old school, politics as usual. As such, Obama and the party need to further project a "new kind of politics" as a brand for the upcoming general election - and that doesn't include Hillary given she and her husband's abhorrent behavior.

Regarding the Pelosi comment, I wish both she and Reid would be stripped of their positions, given they have done little or nothing to protect our constitution during these past two years. Truly do nothings.

37 Leslie [Hussein] Says: L.A. Confidential @ 35:

Leslie [Hussein] @ 33:

Nancy Pelosi for VP!!!

You can’t be serious.

Go suck lemons.
_________________________________________________________

That causes sphincter face.

41 Sheesh Says: Regarding the Pelosi comment, I wish both she and Reid would be stripped of their positions...
___________________________________________________________

Won't we need some raunchy nasty jazz accompaniment?

First of all, as far as doing without 'those' votes regarding people who support the Clintons, if they'd stop being so arrogant and have Hillary drop out they could both work to be formidable supporters of Obama and rally those voters and put all those issues to bed. But that is ONLY if they care more about the good of their party than themselves.

Secondly, do you want to imagine a scenario 2 years from now when VP Clinton wants to start some new initiative thats important to her and for his own reasons, Prez Obama says no? * SHUDDER* Can you imagine Bill Clinton always around with nothing to do in the WH? *SHUDDER*

L.A. Confidential @ 10:

Jay @ 8:

Shooot, even Bill Wingnut Kristol can get one right every once in a while. This may be his first.

The Clinton's have done nothing but show their ass this entire campaign. Their day is over. Time to move on.

Clinton has no place on the ticket.

Like it or not Clinton left office with the highest approval rating of any President in U.S. History.

Now, what you going to do without those votes?

Think Now. Think Hard.

I voted for Bill twice. I never, ever considered voting for Hillary. His high ratings don't automatically transfer to her. They aren't the same person, remember? People are now judging Hillary on what they are seeing of her now, not what the warm fuzzy feelings they might still have about Bill. Although those might be waning in light of his recent outbursts and statements in this campaign.

If your theory is even remotely correct, she should have won be now and she hasn't.

Barrett D @ 48:

or he'll get another brother to let america knows he means biznazz

Obama/Sam Jackson '08. "That's right, I'm the VeePEE MUTHAFUCKA!!!"

Darrell Kern @ 17:

If Obama is stupid enough add Hillary to his ticket- that will send a message to America, that yet again we have been duped. I wonder how long it would take for a Clinton henchman to take him out? SHe wants the presidency so badly that I believe she would make sure he got whacked.

We have all been hearing the clinton race card rhetoric. I could McCain winning simply because Hillary is on the Obama ticket. I really hope people will wake up.

Putting sHillary on the ticket would make just as much sense as putting Lieberman on the ticket with Al Gore, or LBJ with JFK - a great insurance policy for the Corporatists if their Main Man loses the general election.

Just one magic bullet and *poof* ..

James Webb would be a MUCH better choice - for unifying the party, for providing effective leadership (his military background complements Obama's domestic experience), and providing "assassination insurance" (a very real consideration).

Couldn't have a more irrelevant story source, could we?

What about all those "I miss Bill" bumper stickers out there?
Or the "Clinton lied - NO ONE DIED" bumper stickers????

Bill remains one of the most beloved past US presidents.

I say JIMMY CARTER for VP - And this time he won't be torpedoed by the Secret Goverment (neo-Con) involvement with Enimies of this country. Another 'False Flag' event in our history...
Ollie North and his bosses talked the Iranians into KEEPING the American hostiges long enough to killl his campagn - Later this was the root of the ARMS for HOSTIGE deal and the illeagal war of TERROR we waged in Central America.

We have such a rich history of 'being the enemy'...
Makes you wonder about some of the bigger events that put the power in the current administrations rise to world domination...

Biggus Diggus @ 38:

I think the Clintons have revealed themselves to be ruthless and those are not the kinds of people you want as your Veep. Hillary, wishing she were presidents, would go into Cheney mode and try to do her own thing. Bill would be out of control. Barack is a fresh start and needs to pick a VP with unimpeachable integrity and qualifications. But not Hillary. Oh, lord no.

I disagree Biggus.
Would the Obama voters not vote for Obama if HRC was on the ticket ?
Highly unlikely.
Would the Clinton voters not vote for Clinton is she was the #2.
Highly unlikely.
To me, It's all about unifying the Party, and taking back the White House.
We also need to gain more seats in both houses. I think alot of people are saying one thing, but when push comes to shove, It's a huge plus for the Democratic Party. There is no way the GOP could beat that ticket. As much as some people don't like it, I believe this to be the best way forward. Then, we can start to fix all the wrongs the GOP have created. As I said, alot of people won't like it, at first. Maybe never. But we need to throw out the GOP for along time to come. I think this is the best way forward at this point and time.

Obama-Alan Keyes '08

mudshark @ 56:

Biggus Diggus @ 38:

I think the Clintons have revealed themselves to be ruthless and those are not the kinds of people you want as your Veep. Hillary, wishing she were presidents, would go into Cheney mode and try to do her own thing. Bill would be out of control. Barack is a fresh start and needs to pick a VP with unimpeachable integrity and qualifications. But not Hillary. Oh, lord no.

I disagree Biggus.
Would the Obama voters not vote for Obama if HRC was on the ticket ?
Highly unlikely.
Would the Clinton voters not vote for Clinton is she was the #2.
Highly unlikely.
To me, It's all about unifying the Party, and taking back the White House.
We also need to gain more seats in both houses. I think alot of people are saying one thing, but when push comes to shove, It's a huge plus for the Democratic Party. There is no way the GOP could beat that ticket. As much as some people don't like it, I believe this to be the best way forward. Then, we can start to fix all the wrongs the GOP have created. As I said, alot of people won't like it, at first. Maybe never. But we need to throw out the GOP for along time to come. I think this is the best way forward at this point and time.

McSame would be unbeatable if he chose Hillary for VP.

If Obama chooses Clinton, he's lost the vote I already gave him here in Ohio. I'll just stay home.

Leslie [Hussein] @ 60:

mudshark @ 56:

Biggus Diggus @ 38:

I think the Clintons have revealed themselves to be ruthless and those are not the kinds of people you want as your Veep. Hillary, wishing she were presidents, would go into Cheney mode and try to do her own thing. Bill would be out of control. Barack is a fresh start and needs to pick a VP with unimpeachable integrity and qualifications. But not Hillary. Oh, lord no.

I disagree Biggus.
Would the Obama voters not vote for Obama if HRC was on the ticket ?
Highly unlikely.
Would the Clinton voters not vote for Clinton is she was the #2.
Highly unlikely.
To me, It's all about unifying the Party, and taking back the White House.
We also need to gain more seats in both houses. I think alot of people are saying one thing, but when push comes to shove, It's a huge plus for the Democratic Party. There is no way the GOP could beat that ticket. As much as some people don't like it, I believe this to be the best way forward. Then, we can start to fix all the wrongs the GOP have created. As I said, alot of people won't like it, at first. Maybe never. But we need to throw out the GOP for along time to come. I think this is the best way forward at this point and time.

McSame would be unbeatable if he chose Hillary for VP.

Respectfully, I thoroughly disagree. Just look at the turnout numbers . Unified, this would be an unbeatable ticket.

ysbaddaden @ 30:

23 RayC

Actually, I think Bill Clinton could be allowed as Vice President.

Look at LBJ, he finished JFK's second term which he barely started, had a term of his own, and was considering running for reelection, but decided against it. If he had that would be bordering on three terms.

The only thing is if anything happened to the president, Bill Clinton couldn't take over (I think), and the office would have to pass to the next in line which if I remember correnctly would be the Secretary of State and then the House Speaker.

Just to keep the record straight, LBJ finished out JFK's 1st term. I also think LBJ's health entered into his decision along with the war.

mudshark @ 64:

Leslie [Hussein] @ 60:

mudshark @ 56:

Biggus Diggus @ 38:
I disagree Biggus.
Would the Obama voters not vote for Obama if HRC was on the ticket ?
Highly unlikely.
Would the Clinton voters not vote for Clinton is she was the #2.
Highly unlikely.
To me, It's all about unifying the Party, and taking back the White House.
We also need to gain more seats in both houses. I think alot of people are saying one thing, but when push comes to shove, It's a huge plus for the Democratic Party. There is no way the GOP could beat that ticket. As much as some people don't like it, I believe this to be the best way forward. Then, we can start to fix all the wrongs the GOP have created. As I said, alot of people won't like it, at first. Maybe never. But we need to throw out the GOP for along time to come. I think this is the best way forward at this point and time.

McSame would be unbeatable if he chose Hillary for VP.

Respectfully, I thoroughly disagree. Just look at the turnout numbers . Unified, this would be an unbeatable ticket.

But I don't think McCain will choose HRC as his running mate. : )

L.A. Confidential @ 59:

FilthyHarry @ 47:

First of all, as far as doing without 'those' votes regarding people who support the Clintons, if they'd stop being so arrogant and have Hillary drop out they could both work to be formidable supporters of Obama and rally those voters and put all those issues to bed. But that is ONLY if they care more about the good of their party than themselves.

I don't understand your logic. Your saying people need to blindly jump on board the Obama Values bandwagon like he's some kind of Messiah with a magic wand or something?

I like Obama. I think it would be truly cool if he were President. But I'm going to be honest and say his base is beginning to really turn me off with their childish, idealistic, ignorant attacks and superficial and uniformed and media shaped perspectives on what people are about.

No, I'm saying if the race is down to Obama v. McCain, the Clintons, Hill and Bill need to be out their campaigning for and supporting Obama, urging their people to support him against McCain. You don't see that they'd have a responsibility to do that IF they truly have any sincere beliefs in their ideals?

I'm saying that the argument that the voters of the Dem loser won't support the winner is greatly lessened if the Dem loser can be counted on to support the Dem winner. I think that is the next real dramatic dynamic in the race will be if and when Hill loses or drops out, to what degree and with how much sincere enthusiasm they support Barrack. In fact I think Hill's future career and Bill's long term legacy rest on it.

L.A. Confidential @ 59:

I don't understand your logic. Your saying people need to blindly jump on board the Obama Values bandwagon like he's some kind of Messiah with a magic wand or something?

I like Obama. I think it would be truly cool if he were President. But I'm going to be honest and say his base is beginning to really turn me off with their childish, idealistic, ignorant attacks and superficial and uniformed and media shaped perspectives on what people are about.

I mean come on. What would you think if someone said to you Vote for my guy or your a racist, untrustworthy, no better then a con, worthy of contempt and ridicule, and should go jump off the nearest cliff.

Is this the George Orwell version of how to win friends and influence people or something?

Christy Hannity @ 44:

Obama-Dean "08

I like this idea the best. Most of the party finally respects Dean. The downside would be the right leaning MSM calling it a double dose of liberalism and showing wall to wall Dean screams and Rev Wright.

mudshark @ 64:

Leslie [Hussein] @ 60:

mudshark @ 56:

Biggus Diggus @ 38:
I disagree Biggus.
Would the Obama voters not vote for Obama if HRC was on the ticket ?
Highly unlikely.
Would the Clinton voters not vote for Clinton is she was the #2.
Highly unlikely.
To me, It's all about unifying the Party, and taking back the White House.
We also need to gain more seats in both houses. I think alot of people are saying one thing, but when push comes to shove, It's a huge plus for the Democratic Party. There is no way the GOP could beat that ticket. As much as some people don't like it, I believe this to be the best way forward. Then, we can start to fix all the wrongs the GOP have created. As I said, alot of people won't like it, at first. Maybe never. But we need to throw out the GOP for along time to come. I think this is the best way forward at this point and time.

McSame would be unbeatable if he chose Hillary for VP.

Respectfully, I thoroughly disagree. Just look at the turnout numbers . Unified, this would be an unbeatable ticket.

I don't necessarily disagree they could win, I just don't think it would be a good idea in the long run. I have difficulty seeing Hillary quietly letting Obama do his job, and having Bill around but not be the First Husband sounds like a prescription for the kind of media drama that could also hinder Obama from doing his job successfully. You know the MSM would make it hell for all of them.

I want to add the only people who seem to think Obama/Clinton or McCain/Clinton are good ideas, are Clinton supporters. Hillary has always been despised by Republicans and would only hurt his chances. She can't pull a Lieberman and get away with it. She's done nothing but alienate Obama supporters her whole campaign. Bill hasn't been helping in that regard, either.

FilthyHarry @ 76:

mudshark @ 64:

Leslie [Hussein] @ 60:

mudshark @ 56:
McSame would be unbeatable if he chose Hillary for VP.

Respectfully, I thoroughly disagree. Just look at the turnout numbers . Unified, this would be an unbeatable ticket.

I don't necessarily disagree they could win, I just don't think it would be a good idea in the long run. I have difficulty seeing Hillary quietly letting Obama do his job, and having Bill around but not be the First Husband sounds like a prescription for the kind of media drama that could also hinder Obama from doing his job successfully. You know the MSM would make it hell for all of them.

The msm will do that no matter who gets in. But you could be right about Bubba. That could present itself as a problem, but then again, I don't see HRC allowing or tolerating that.

L.A. Confidential @ 20:

.. one of the first things Clinton did when he realized Bush Sr had lied about the debts and deficits he and Reagan dropped on him was assemble the largest economic task force EVER to address the problem to keep the U.S. from going over the economic cliff. Thats not A Bill Clinton Dictatorship thats a team effort where people left their EGOS AT THE DOOR.

The economic boom during Bill Clinton's presidency came from two sources -
(1) the "dot-com" boom
(2) NAFTA.

Clinton did nothing to cause the "dot-com" boom. It simply happened during his watch.

Clinton championed and passed NAFTA, which was - for almost 10 years - a great boon to the American economy (consumers & investors alike) because it flooded the US with high quality imports at very low prices as it DESTROYED the economies of numerous other nations.

But in the process NAFTA slowly hollowed out the American economy for precisely the reasons it destroyed the economies of so many other nations.

And we're reaping the bitter harvest of NAFTA now.

To praise Bill Clinton for those wonderful years of Reagan-esque Rampant Consumerism is to ignore the devastation that followed as a natural consequence.

Only the investors are pleased.

This Obama/Clinton talk just seems like more CO2 spewing. It just seems like it is so not in the interest of either one. From Clinton's perspective, if she stays a senator she can be one of the leaders of the Democratic side, she can spearhead legislation, receive prestigious committee appointments, and all the other perks a Senior senator can have. If she is VP she can open a lot of supermarkets and try and keep out of the way for fear of overshadowing Obama. Basicly it is the government position most equivalent to that of the first lady, and she has been that already. I realize that Cheney has opened up the job description of Veep a great deal, but I don't think Obama intends to be an empty suit and let his VP pull the strings.

Asking William Kristol to comment on a potential Democratic nominee is a bit like asking the president of Tyson Foods about toxic waste.

ysbaddaden @ 30:

23 RayC

Actually, I think Bill Clinton could be allowed as Vice President.

Look at LBJ, he finished JFK's second term which he barely started, had a term of his own, and was considering running for reelection, but decided against it. If he had that would be bordering on three terms.

The only thing is if anything happened to the president, Bill Clinton couldn't take over (I think), and the office would have to pass to the next in line which if I remember correnctly would be the Secretary of State and then the House Speaker.

Bill Clinton cannot be VP:

Amendment 22 - Presidential Term Limits. Ratified 2/27/1951.
1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. [additional language pertaining to officeholders at time of ratification]

Here is the order of succession.

VP
Speaker of the House
President Pro Temp of the Senate
Secretary of State
Secretary of Treasury
etc.

Kennedy was assassinated in the third year of his first term. In 1967 the 25th amendment provided for filling a vacancy in the office of VP.

Sheesh @ 41:

Regarding the Pelosi comment, I wish both she and Reid would be stripped of their positions, given they have done little or nothing to protect our constitution during these past two years. Truly do nothings.

Absolutly correct. I seem to recall that they were promising
"change" in 2006. I don't know about you but I'm still waiting.

I'm not buying change this time around no matter who is peddeling it. I am insisting on improvment and nothing less.

Right now it doesn't look too promising.

MountainMan23 @ 91:

McCain Convention Manager Resigns After NEWSWEEK Reveals Burma Ties

Whoops! Hadn't McSame just promoted him to that position too? Newsweek is such a spoiler.

FilthyHarry @ 89:

mudshark @ 85:

FilthyHarry @ 83:

mudshark @ 80:

I'll grant you my idea that Hill would be disruptive in the number two spot is pure speculative opinion on my part, but as to the MSM making hell for whoever it is, I really do think that with the previous presidential baggage the Clintons will bring with them, Obama's presidency will be turned into a sitcom.

As far has Hill not allowing or tolerating Bill's behaviour, I've seen nothing in the primaries that would show that is true. Bill has screwed up so much, I have to wonder if subconsciously or maybe even consciously he doesn't want Hill to win because he also does not want to be second fiddle. I can't imagine he'd like to be second fiddle to the second fiddle much either.

You could very well be right about that Filthy, But the way I see it, He's trying to get her elected. Campaigning has always been an ugly contact sport(if you will). I think Bubba is smart enough to take a back seat .

I'm just saying I see Hillary as more of a Cheney than a Gore, vice-presidentially speaking. I mean couldn't you just see her setting up her own private intel group to provide her with the info she can use to get what she wants if Prez Obama didn't support it?.

And even if Bill try to behaved, the fuckin MSM would be ALL over him, pushing and pushing until he did or said something stupid and whatever Obama would be working on would be ignored while the country and MSM babbled incessantly about the latest (imagined/concocted) gaffe of Bill. It would just be too easy.

No, I don't see HRC being anything remotely like Dead Eye. You're underestimating Sen Obama.

As far as Bubba is concerned, Until recently, The MSM has had a favorable view of him. He has been an ambassador of good will around the world. The world still likes and respects him. Why do you think that is? It is reason for concern though. But I still think Bubba is smart enough to take a back seat when this is all over. Again, I like both candidates and will support whom ever wins the nomination. For Me? It's all about taking back this country. We need to put aside our petty differences( no insult intended) And go about the biz of getting this country back on track. Just my 2 Cents.

Alice (Surfing for Serfs United) @ 88:

ysbaddaden @ 30:

23 RayC

Actually, I think Bill Clinton could be allowed as Vice President.

Look at LBJ, he finished JFK's second term which he barely started, had a term of his own, and was considering running for reelection, but decided against it. If he had that would be bordering on three terms.

The only thing is if anything happened to the president, Bill Clinton couldn't take over (I think), and the office would have to pass to the next in line which if I remember correnctly would be the Secretary of State and then the House Speaker.

Bill Clinton cannot be VP:

Amendment 22 - Presidential Term Limits. Ratified 2/27/1951.
1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. [additional language pertaining to officeholders at time of ratification]

Here is the order of succession.

VP
Speaker of the House
President Pro Temp of the Senate
Secretary of State
Secretary of Treasury
etc.

Kennedy was assassinated in the third year of his first term. In 1967 the 25th amendment provided for filling a vacancy in the office of VP.

Correct, Alice.

Under the rules, the most anyone could serve as president works out to be 10 years -- by filling in for the last two years of a president, and then serving two of your own terms.

However, if you have already served two terms -- either eight years of your own administration, or four years of your own plus more than two of your predecessor's -- you are ineligible to be president again, and thus ineligible to be vice president.

unemployed @ 99:

I'll be Obama's VP!

I will also serve anywhere in, on, around, or even under, Obama's cabinet. I'm probably not really qualified for any particular position, but considering what we've had the last eight years, is that really a problem. Plus, I need a job.

Hillary as Obama's VP? Puh-lease! The Clinton's, for better or worse are still better known names than Obama, not more liked obviously but better known. When you are running to be president, you better be the better known name on the ticket. In other words, you need to be the star and the one with the limelight shining on you. Hill&Bill are limelight stealers. It doesn't have to even be on purpose. The get the attention and that would NOT be good for Obama. I've heard wiser pundits (ie, those not on FOX) say it would be a good idea for Obama to choose a high profile Clinton supporter like Rendell or Clark. Not the worst ideas I've heard but I think Obama should go with some one he knows he can work with and above all TRUST! He can't and shouldn't trust the Clintons.

Just imagine what it would be like for Obama having, as his running mate, someone who really, really, really wanted his job instead of VP, because she thinks she would do a much better job?

Would give new definition to a bitter person clinging to gods and guns (snark)!

Fox News, as well as the media in general (including anything featuring Stephaslopoulos), has become totally irrelevant. Does anybody watch them anymore? Who cares what they "think" about anything?

LBJ could have run for re-election in '68 if he wanted to.
There is a two-term (or ten year) limit for being president.
This isn't complicated (or all that relevant either)

Why not Jim Webb?

Alice (Surfing for Serfs United) @ 101:

ysbaddaden @ 40:

Sorry, the 1968 New Hampshire Primary was on March 12.

On March 23, LBJ had a conversation with postmaster general Larry O'Brien seeking him to run his campaign.

Here is a link for the conversation.

LBJ announced on March 31, 1968 he would not run again.

Here is the text.

On March 27, 2008, Limbaugh said "The dream end of this [of Operation Chaos] is that this keeps up to the convention, and that we have a recreation of Chicago 1968 with burning cars, protests, fire, and literal riots and all of that, that is the objective here [of Operation Chaos]."

Rob @ 112:

"Living in the past is for losers." -- Mike Ditka

Astounding enlightenment and out of the box thinking by ultra-ultra-ultra conservative Mike.

L.A. Confidential @ 115:

On March 27, 2008, Limbaugh said "The dream end of this [of Operation Chaos] is that this keeps up to the convention, and that we have a recreation of Chicago 1968 with burning cars, protests, fire, and literal riots and all of that, that is the objective here [of Operation Chaos]."

So, Hillary fell for the same dribble as Bush did with Bin Laden (bankrupt you; body bags).

Limbaugh IS the Bin Laden of US political comity, that is for certain.

Karen @ 118:

mudshark @ 110:

Karen @ 107:

odanny @ 93:

I would imagine the shortlist looks something like this:

Jim Webb
Kathleen Sebelius
Janet Napolitano
Bill Richardson
Wes Clark

Why Webb? People bash HRC for being a former Repub when she was very young and still in school. Webb was a repub far more recently than her. Me ,myself and i don't trust Webb all that much. Granted, he's come up with a bill to get the Vets more benefits, which is a just cause. But so has HRC for that matter. I'm not 100% sold on Webb yet.

I'm not necessarily "sold" myself. As to why he would be on the shortlist, though:

1. He's got the macho, military bona fides conservative independents and Republicans looking for a reason to vote Democratic like.

2. His former experience in the Reagan administration helps balance out the perceived inexperience of Obama . . . . and having been a Reagan Republican is something Reagan Democrats like, and a constituency Obama needs to reach.

3. Winning Virginia is a major coup for the Democrats, one that comes close to ensuring that we win the presidency. (If we can keep all of the states Kerry won, and add Virginia, we would only need one more small or mid-size state to win, such as Iowa, New Mexico, Arkansas or Colorado.)

I'd prefer Clark over Webb. Theres something about a Rhodes Scholar that say "Brains"

LunaStick @ 114:

Webb would be a good fit for Obama because he too is a "fresh face" representing change in Washington. He is also a fighter who doesn't take sh*t from nobody. Including a smart-assed president. Webb would help with swing states and independents who worry about foreign policy issues and Obama's lack of experience there. Webb would actually be a very good choice despite his republican history.

Web is better as a senator.
Obama doesn't have to worry too much about a VP to shore up a coalition because McCain is such a weak candidate he will implode before this thing goes very far.

Christy Hannity @ 123:

<Obama doesn't have to worry too much about a VP to shore up a coalition because McCain is such a weak candidate he will implode before this thing goes very far.

You should consider becoming a political adviser. Just work for the Republicans though.

Personally, I bet BO picks Richardson. That new van dyke BR is sporting just screams "young and hip." Of course, BO may try to find a woman to help bring back those he's alienated by his tactics.

But then again, who knows?

I just hope HRC does not get on the ticket. I don't think it would be in her best interests. I'd rather see her continuing to work in the senate to build up her influence there. I don't think she needs to be attached to all the scandals sure to be part of the BO campaign/administration, should he be elected. HRC has enough baggage of her own without adding Ayers, Wright, Michelle, Resko, Jackson, etc.

It will be interesting to see who he chooses although it won't influence my vote.

mudshark @ 121:

Karen @ 118:

mudshark @ 110:

Karen @ 107:
Why Webb? People bash HRC for being a former Repub when she was very young and still in school. Webb was a repub far more recently than her. Me ,myself and i don't trust Webb all that much. Granted, he's come up with a bill to get the Vets more benefits, which is a just cause. But so has HRC for that matter. I'm not 100% sold on Webb yet.

I'm not necessarily "sold" myself. As to why he would be on the shortlist, though:

1. He's got the macho, military bona fides conservative independents and Republicans looking for a reason to vote Democratic like.

2. His former experience in the Reagan administration helps balance out the perceived inexperience of Obama . . . . and having been a Reagan Republican is something Reagan Democrats like, and a constituency Obama needs to reach.

3. Winning Virginia is a major coup for the Democrats, one that comes close to ensuring that we win the presidency. (If we can keep all of the states Kerry won, and add Virginia, we would only need one more small or mid-size state to win, such as Iowa, New Mexico, Arkansas or Colorado.)

I'd prefer Clark over Webb. Theres something about a Rhodes Scholar that say "Brains"

Clark, General Clark? Mr. almost WW3 General Clark?

yeah, put Clark in there. Pristina Airport confrontation?

Clark is a globalist. Period. THAT is why he gels so well with the Clintons.

Do you know the agenda of Cecil Rhodes and his Round Tables?

the veep must be a southerner or a midwesterner

i prefer webb (i dont care about any of his votes) but most anyone else will do

bart @ 127:

Personally, I bet BO picks Richardson. That new van dyke BR is sporting just screams "young and hip." Of course, BO may try to find a woman to help bring back those he's alienated by his tactics.

But then again, who knows?

I just hope HRC does not get on the ticket. I don't think it would be in her best interests. I'd rather see her continuing to work in the senate to build up her influence there. I don't think she needs to be attached to all the scandals sure to be part of the BO campaign/administration, should he be elected. HRC has enough baggage of her own without adding Ayers, Wright, Michelle, Resko, Jackson, etc.

It will be interesting to see who he chooses although it won't influence my vote.

What tactics are you referring to? The way he employed the "kitchen sink strategy"? Oh wait! That was Clinton.
The way he brags about having the "white vote"? Oh wait! That too is Clinton.
So what tactics? I'd LOVE to hear them.
(note-being a sourpuss because she LOST will be met with derisive laughter)

Karen @ 128:

Christy Hannity @ 123:

LunaStick @ 114:

Webb would be a good fit for Obama because he too is a "fresh face" representing change in Washington. He is also a fighter who doesn't take sh*t from nobody. Including a smart-assed president. Webb would help with swing states and independents who worry about foreign policy issues and Obama's lack of experience there. Webb would actually be a very good choice despite his republican history.

Web is better as a senator.
Obama doesn't have to worry too much about a VP to shore up a coalition because McCain is such a weak candidate he will implode before this thing goes very far.

So you think a clever VP pick from Obama will flip some of Bushes devotees?
Don't count on that. We've got a difficult fight on our hands.

Remember, this is not a national race. It's 50 races for individual states. McCain is going to win majorities, however slim, in most of the states George Bush on in 2000 and 2004, and he will make New Hampshire and Connecticut competitive. That's all he has to do to win. No matter how much of a buffoon he is, he'll have a helpful media, and virtually locked majorities in crucial regions.

We're in better shape than we've been in for a long time. We can put Virginia in play. We can put North Carolina in play. And states like Iowa, New Mexico, Colorado, Missouri, Arkansas.....all going to teeter back and forth.

But the one thing that we could do wrong is rest on our laurels, thinking "the truth is out there," "Americans are smart enough to see through McCain," or "McCain is weak."

Karen @ 118:

mudshark @ 110:

Karen @ 107:

odanny @ 93:

I would imagine the shortlist looks something like this:

Jim Webb
Kathleen Sebelius
Janet Napolitano
Bill Richardson
Wes Clark

Why Webb? People bash HRC for being a former Repub when she was very young and still in school. Webb was a repub far more recently than her. Me ,myself and i don't trust Webb all that much. Granted, he's come up with a bill to get the Vets more benefits, which is a just cause. But so has HRC for that matter. I'm not 100% sold on Webb yet.

I'm not necessarily "sold" myself. As to why he would be on the shortlist, though:

1. He's got the macho, military bona fides conservative independents and Republicans looking for a reason to vote Democratic like.

2. His former experience in the Reagan administration helps balance out the perceived inexperience of Obama . . . . and having been a Reagan Republican is something Reagan Democrats like, and a constituency Obama needs to reach.

3. Winning Virginia is a major coup for the Democrats, one that comes close to ensuring that we win the presidency. (If we can keep all of the states Kerry won, and add Virginia, we would only need one more small or mid-size state to win, such as Iowa, New Mexico, Arkansas or Colorado.)

The way to win 'Reagan Democrats' is to enlighten them as to what is in their best interest.

The Republicans, to me, are the party of the Huns. If the 99% understood clearly how little there is in their own enlightened self interest, that is compatible with the 1% that are the core of the Huns, there would be no contest. Period.

Maybe it is 95/5. No way shape or form should it even be close to 50/50.

These folks have been hoodwinked.

That is the challenge, to get the word out clearly. One problem of course is the Corporate Media. There are others.

Nothing is gained from my viewpoint by going into the camp of the enemy to look for allies.

I just figure it will be BR because he's pretty much been lobbying for the job, become quite attached to BO and because I think BO may try for the hispanic vote over other potential groups. Hispanics are a sizable minority in many states now - particularly NC. I also think he'll go for another "revolutionary nominee" (first hispanic) and BR at least has some bona fides in his resume.

Still won't vote for him though.

We explored the issue of potential running mates for Obama, Clinton, or McCain over at The Hawke and Dove Political Punditry Podcast and found that the only unifying veep candidate across all lines is Leonard Nimoy. /snark

Attacus Dove @ 141:

We explored the issue of potential running mates for Obama, Clinton, or McCain over at The Hawke and Dove Political Punditry Podcast and found that the only unifying veep candidate across all lines is Leonard Nimoy. /snark

Does that mean he'd pick Bill Shatner for Sec Def ?

mudshark @ 134:

LunaStick @ 126:

Alice (Surfing for Serfs United) @ 122:

LunaStick @ 114:

So explain Webb's vote on FISA.

He is not on my list for anything.

I didn't say he is the perfect Democrat. Far from it actually but he does bring POLITICAL benefits to the ticket that makes him belong on the short list at least. Clark would be a good choice too for much the same reasons but Webb's style may have more appeal to those who want to see some "toughness" in the White House. Webb would play very well in the south and midwest. VA, NC would come into play and it may strengthen Obama's standing in CO and WI which are close but leaning his way.

Toughness?
Clark was wounded in battle, and refused to leave his men. Then he turned the battle around and won that battle. To me that's tough. I would call him a "War Hero" long before I'd call McCain one. There's political benefits there.

That is true mudshark but remember that Americans are more likely to buy an image than the truth of a candidate. The repubs managed to portray a Connecticut born with a silver spoon in his mouth Yale cheerleader as some brush clearing Texas cowboy. Webb gives off the image of toughness better than Clark. That's not to say Clark would be any worse a candidate for VP. It's just that he may not reep the same benefits as Webb could.

mudshark @ 138:

Rebel Patriot @ 129:

mudshark @ 121:

Karen @ 118:

I'd prefer Clark over Webb. Theres something about a Rhodes Scholar that say "Brains"

Clark, General Clark? Mr. almost WW3 General Clark?

yeah, put Clark in there. Pristina Airport confrontation?

Clark is a globalist. Period. THAT is why he gels so well with the Clintons.

Do you know the agenda of Cecil Rhodes and his Round Tables?

Weren't the Russians supporting the Serbs during all that? And enlighten me on the Round Tables thing, I'm not familiar with that one.
Hey, you maybe right about this. That's why I'm asking.

Clark was very confrontational during the Pristina Airport incident. A British General refused to follow his orders on the belief that they would spark a major incident.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/671495.stm

General Wesley Clark, Nato's supreme commander, immediately ordered 500 British and French paratroopers to be put on standby to occupy the airport.

''I called the [Nato] Secretary General [Javier Solana] and told him what the circumstances were,'' General Clark tells the BBC programme Moral Combat: Nato at War.

''He talked about what the risks were and what might happen if the Russian's got there first, and he said: 'Of course you have to get to the airport'.

General Jackson
General Jackson: Backed by UK Government
''I said: 'Do you consider I have the authority to do so?' He said: 'Of course you do, you have transfer of authority'.''

But General Clark's plan was blocked by General Sir Mike Jackson, K-For's British commander.

"I'm not going to start the Third World War for you," he reportedly told General Clark during one heated exchange.

General Jackson tells the BBC: ''We were [looking at] a possibility....of confrontation with the Russian contingent which seemed to me probably not the right way to start off a relationship with Russians who were going to become part of my command.''

as for the Rhodes-Milner Round Table groups, a basic introduction can be found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhodes-Milner_Round_Table_Groups

Karen @ 128:

Christy Hannity @ 123:

LunaStick @ 114:

Webb would be a good fit for Obama because he too is a "fresh face" representing change in Washington. He is also a fighter who doesn't take sh*t from nobody. Including a smart-assed president. Webb would help with swing states and independents who worry about foreign policy issues and Obama's lack of experience there. Webb would actually be a very good choice despite his republican history.

Web is better as a senator.
Obama doesn't have to worry too much about a VP to shore up a coalition because McCain is such a weak candidate he will implode before this thing goes very far.

Don't count on that. We've got a difficult fight on our hands.

Remember, this is not a national race. It's 50 races for individual states. McCain is going to win majorities, however slim, in most of the states George Bush on in 2000 and 2004, and he will make New Hampshire and Connecticut competitive. That's all he has to do to win. No matter how much of a buffoon he is, he'll have a helpful media, and virtually locked majorities in crucial regions.

We're in better shape than we've been in for a long time. We can put Virginia in play. We can put North Carolina in play. And states like Iowa, New Mexico, Colorado, Missouri, Arkansas.....all going to teeter back and forth.

But the one thing that we could do wrong is rest on our laurels, thinking "the truth is out there," "Americans are smart enough to see through McCain," or "McCain is weak."

So you think Obama can flip one issue Bush devotees with a clever VP pick? The only way is with an overwhelming turnout via a get out the vote campaign.