Originally Posted By Dabob2 That's why, if you put a gun to my head now and said "choose," right now I'd pick Webb. He was Secretary of the Navy (under Reagan, no less), but he also opposed invading Iraq, for basically the same reasons as Obama, so they can provide a united front there, and it underscores the idea that there were hard-nosed military reasons for opposing the invasion if a former Sec'y of the Navy (who would be very hard for the GOP to paint as either naive or unpatriotic) could oppose it. He also comes off very much as a military guy, and provides a military "aura" that Obama lacks. He's also from VA, a state that is trending "purple" and might be ripe for the Democrats to pick off this year. Wesley Clark brings much of the same strengths, although he's not from VA. He also endorsed Clinton, which could be seen as either a strength or a weakness, and frankly I don't think most people would see it as an issue.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Gore on the ticket solves a lot of problems - executive experience, foreign policy experience, name cache, 'gravitas', and it provides gore with a platform of strength and real power to enact his policies. Plus, gore will be 65 in 2016 - another bite at the apple!
Originally Posted By jonvn "I don't think Gore would have any interest in being VP again." He's said as much. He's not flatly turned down the idea of being at the top of the ticket. If there is a brokered convention, maybe he could be at the top of it, with one of these other two as VP. Really, the Democrats have to know that they can't win with Obama at the top of the ticket, Clinton either. Their best bet is going for someone else.
Originally Posted By gadzuux I just don't see it. There's never been an occasion in my lifetime where all the circumstances so favored the democrats. I've used the word earlier, but the situation really is unprecedented. The GOP is in full retreat, all time lows in polling, unpopular current administration, unpopular war, economy in shambles, ridden with scandal, several retirements leaving open seats in congress, and a 72 year old candidate on the wrong side of most every important issue within his own party - economy, immigration, war, judges - not to mention a lack of any significant rapport with hard-right christians. The planets are aligned on this one.
Originally Posted By jonvn "There's never been an occasion in my lifetime where all the circumstances so favored the democrats." I agree, except for the Ford/Carter election. Very similar situation. I'm just not going to be convinced Obama can win until I see it happen. I'm afraid I'm just going to drag my feet on that one, even if I do vote for him myself. Maybe I'm just being obstinate, but I really don't think it can happen in this country. If it does, it'd actually be a great thing for us. I think he'd be another Carter, but his election would still go a long way towards resolving race issues in this country.
Originally Posted By imadisneygal I received in the mail today a flyer/full page postcard from Hillary's campaign and I was wondering if anyone who is also in Texas can explain something to me. The postcard reads that in order to vote for a candidate you not only must vote either early, by absentee or on election day at your precinct, but you ALSO (that would be italics if I had the choice) must attend a precinct convention at your polling location on election night at 6:30 PM. Does this mean that unless you show up at the polling place that evening that your vote does not count? Does she get more votes if more people show up at the convention to register? The postcard reads that there are "two steps to victory" It reads that one step is not enough and that you must do both. I have never heard of this because I've always voted in California. I voted absentee from CA this year because we're military and technically still residents of CA. Having to vote and also physically attend a convention seems unduly difficult for many people. What is the deal with this?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Texas has an unusual way of doing this - sometimes called the "Texas two-step" by political wags. They have a primary AND a caucus. You don't have to vote in both, but some delegates are awarded via both methods, so you could vote in both if you chose to. <a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=19211076&ft=1&f=1012" target="_blank">http://www.npr.org/templates/s tory/story.php?storyId=19211076&ft=1&f=1012</a>
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan On Meet the Press yesterday, they showed several "red phone" ads similar to Hillary's latest. The first was for Mondale in 1984 when he was campaigning against Gary Hart. Of course, the "who do you want to answer the phone at 3am" question didn't play so well in the fall, as voters in a landslide reelected Reagan. It didn't work so hot for George Bush against Bill Clinton, either. And even more intersting, they played part of a stump speech where the speaker said basically "When one side is using fear while the other side is promoting hope, go with hope". That was Bill Clinton in 1992! LOL
Originally Posted By RoadTrip If Hillary had been smart enough to make Slick her campaign manager she would probably have had the nomination locked up by now.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Meh, I don't know about that. He's been the thorn in the side of her campaign more than he's helped, and they've had to waste time and energy explaining what he "really" meant several times now. And I don't know if a good campaign manager would have set up Texas and Ohio as "do or die" like he has. While it may be true, do you really want to have to eat your words should she be close enough to stay in it?
Originally Posted By Mr X ****Meh, I don't know about that. He's been the thorn in the side of her campaign more than he's helped, and they've had to waste time and energy explaining what he "really" meant several times now. And I don't know if a good campaign manager would have set up Texas and Ohio as "do or die" like he has.**** He hasn't been very slick this time around. For such a smart guy (I don't think anyone would argue that!), he has made some incredible blunders. Frankly, it seems as though he's TRYING to sabotage her campaign!
Originally Posted By friendofdd Perhaps he,, subconsciously, doesn't want her to possibly be a better president than he was. I am puzzled about the call for Hillary to call it quits. Obama is only a hundred delegates in the lead and has won only smaller states. Why shouldn't he be stepping out of her way?
Originally Posted By gadzuux I could be wrong (but I doubt it) ... obama's been ahead in the earned delegate count from the very beginning - iowa. He started out in first position and has remained there ever since. This isn't quite the squeaker that the clinton campaign would have you believe.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I think Bill would have done a far better job as Hillary's campaign manager than he has done with his "off the cuff" speaking. As campaign manager he would have had to put a whole lot more thought into everything he said. Without an official position in the campaign, he is something of a loose cannon and is free to say stuff every bit as stupid as "I never had sex with that woman" or "It depends on what your definition of is, is". If Bill had a position of any importance in the campaign I’m sure he would be much more careful about what he said. What's this? You say Slick said that dumb-shit stuff while he HAD an official position? Just what position would that be?? Oh my goodness. President of the United States??? Never mind... (I still love him anyway... America was good when he was president...)
