It's going to be Obama-Clinton

[rhombus]

Mark that down.

As much as some here dislike Hillary Clinton, Obama actually likes and respects Hillary. Of course, he understands that in the heat of a primary, many things are said and done that may be hurtful. But anyone who has watched Obama carefully knows he's more than a grown-up when it comes to moving on.

This is going to be Kennedy-Johnson 2.0

[saltpoint]

1. Still possible.

But I'm betting a Warren Spahn, a Frank Robinson, and an Orlando Cepeda that it's going to be someone else.

[cliffordu]

6. Orlando Cepeda?? I'll raise you a Matty Alou, wize guy....

[saltpoint]

48. Matty? Ok. Or Felipe'. I'm flexible.

[cliffordu]

52. Felipe is good, too. You a Giant's fan?- around 1960 or so???

Wasn't there a third Alou of some sort?? Maybe one that didn't play well enough to get to the show??

A cousin?

And then there's always Juan Marichal (sp)

heheheheheheh

[saltpoint]

53. You invoke the name of Juan Marichal.

From the first moment his leg went up in the air in his wind-up I knew I was witnessing some cross between the Minotaur and a heavenly entity of some kind.

He was a genius of muscle and grace on that pitcher's mound.

Candlestick Park still stood when Marichal's leg went up almost as far in the air as those odd light configurations. I am desperately homesick for the way baseball made me feel in those days. I still love the game, but don't follow it at the pro level as I did then.

Marichal was one of the athletes who defined baseball for me.

[cliffordu]

66. Yep - He was just the best.

My old man knew the answer to some radio contest and had me call in the answer - we won tickets to a Giants game that was one of the the last road games Stan Musial played. It might have been the last road game altogether.

As I remember it:

Marichal pitched part of the game, Stan singled, Willie Mays went 0-3 and the Giants lost. It was one of the best days of my life. Except the part where Mays didn't hit another homer, Marichal didn't finish and I don't remember if Musial played the whole game.

Got to see Mays do that catch he did.

[salonghorn70]

20. Warren Spahn

When I was a kid, I loved Warren Spahn. I was a Braves fan. I still remember the '57 and '58 World Series against the hated Yankees. Alas, now I'm an Astros fan.

[11 Bravo]

24. Spahn, Sain, and pray for rain.

[cliffordu]

45. Smokey Burgess

[Patchuli]

92. My spouse just commandeered my 'puter

Spahn, Eddie Matthews, Joe Addcock, Hammerin' Hank. Heck, I even love the old Dodgers. The Davis Brothers, Sandy Koufax, Don Drysdale. Did we mention Willie Mack?

[saltpoint]

125. What damn fools the Reds were to let Koufax go. "Too wild," was the

initial report. "He can't find the strike zone."

It was not a good prediction of later success.

[saltpoint]

50. Hi, salonghorn70. I was mesmerized by Warren Spahn.

What a wind-up, what a delivery.

County Stadium in Milwaukee!

[Zhade]

93. Unlikely. All mcLame has to do is play two videos: Tuzla, and her endorsement of him over Obama.

First easily proves clinton's an unrepentant liar, second one (already appearing in mcLame ads) undercuts the ticket.

I don't think Obama is stupid enough to hand mcLame that ammo.

[Drunken Irishman]

2. I would agree...

If Obama were not doing as well as he is in the polls. I think everyone knew he'd only pick Clinton if he had troubles nationally and in key states. He is not and therefore, selecting Clinton could be risky, as it might push away the many swing and Republican voters who will support Obama in the general, while not doing much for the base.

[rhombus]

4. I used to think that way

But many of the people supporting Obama are not going to be turned off by his selection of Hillary. On the contrary, I think it would reinforce Obama's message as a unifier who is willing to work with competent individuals to get results. Hillary Clinton is very competent.

[Drunken Irishman]

10. I think it would turn off many voters in some key swing states.

Like Virginia, Georgia, North Dakota, Montana, Colorado and North Carolina. I don't think it helps him much at all and while it may not hurt him, there is, in my opinion, a better chance of that happening than the choice helping.

[1Hippiechick]

56. Definitely would not work in NC - Obama beat Hillary in NC. n/t

[paulk]

114. those are only "key swing states"

in that Obama supporter fantasy land that has us writing off places like Ohio...

[gmudem]

3. I am 100% sure it will not be.

Bill's baggage is just too big of a risk. It would be a terrible choice and would only hurt Obama's chances of winning, and not help.

[Phx_Dem]

19. Ditto. nt

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[salonghorn70]

23. I Hope That You Are Not Implying

that LBJ was responsible for what happened to JFK.

[NYC_SKP]

30. Johnson was a drag on the presidency.

He openly disliked John and Robert.

Obama doesn't need to pick someone who doesn't work well with others.

[Beacool]

57. Doesn't work well with others????

Pardon me while I laugh my butt off. Go talk to her colleagues on both sides of the aisle about working with Hillary on a committee or bill.

:rofl:

[NYC_SKP]

62. Go talk to Pat Moynihan or George Mitchell

If she worked so well with others, she might have gotten further with her "health care plan", and she might have gotten more support among superdelegates in the Senate when she needed them, but that didn't happen, now did it?

She works well with lobbyists and Norman Hsu, types, I'll give her that.

After all, they're people, too!

:rofl:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LY0AqYXZC4

:applause:

[Beacool]

69. Moynahan?????????

That was around 1993!!! I'm talking about the here and now.

As for Hsu, anybody who had Rezko in his orbit for most of his political career should not cast stones......

Pooch, sometimes you're too funny!!!

[NYC_SKP]

75. I can't speak for "today's Hillary"...

I haven't seen her or Bill since Buddy passed.

Rest his soul.

:hi:

[Beacool]

105. Yeah, poor Buddy!!

But you can come and hang with Seamus. He and Bill know the best b..ches in town.

:evilgrin:

[NYC_SKP]

106. LOL

oooh, you're bad!

Sadly, Ginny's a girl dog, as was Bridgette, the lab I had before her.

OK, getting sad now...deep breath....better.

Cheers to all of our animal friends, past and present!

:toast:

[Beacool]

113. Ginny is very cute!!!

Hmmm, does she believe in interracial dating? Maybe Seamus can, ahem, show her the town........

:eyes:


PS, Yeah, animals are wonderful. My mother is an animal lover and there was always something with fur and four legs running around. Right now, she has a white bichon frise who's as dumb as a brick but lovable (I call him a male bimbo) and a long hair chihuahua who's as smart as the other one is daft. LOL!!

[NYC_SKP]

117. I don't know about Ginny's interests..

in "romantic" matters...

Interestingly, she likes cats (unless their in HER yard), I think she was living with them on the street before I adopted her.

She bats at things like a cat does and prefers cat food, which was all she'd eat at first.

I'll bet she'd get along fine with your family pets, but would most likely love you mom's lap and claim it as part of her domain!

:hi:

[Beacool]

124. Cats? I said "interracial", not "interspecies".

Yeah, by looking at her picture, I know that my mother would go crazy for her. We've had a long line up of dogs and a few cats over my lifetime. Everybody knows that my mom is a sucker for animals and someone always dumped some unwanted critter on her. Actually, her whole side of the family is nuts about animals. My cousin even adopted once a pigeon chick that the doorman of her bldg. brought to her because it fell off a tree. The darn pigeon ended up with a virus and couldn't be released. So, my cousin ended keeping the pigeon for 8 years until it died. Crazy family!!

:D

[MonkeyFunk]

26. He was elected!

Surely you can't mean anything else.

[ronnykmarshall]

35. Stop calling Deleted Message Shirley

[MonkeyFunk]

36. LOL!

you make me laugh.

[Clark2008]

31. First thought that came into my head, as well. n/t

[NYC_SKP]

40. Thank you. The deletion of the subject doesn't change the facts.

If only to call Johnson a "bad luck charm", he hated the Kennedy's and certainly didn't help matters during the presidency.

Johnson's Texas was not a safe place for Kennedy to be, but I never suggested a connection to JFK's assassination.

Also, the very suggestion that Obama's presidency will mirror JFK's is frightful when we consider it's premature end.

Barack Obama will, I hope, select someone whose experience and actions demonstrate that person's similarities in vision and style.

[salonghorn70]

82. Thanks For Explaining Your Post

Hi NYC_SKP :hi:

I actually agree with you regarding JFK and LBJ. RFK hated LBJ and I think the feeling was mutual. LBJ's staff didn't like JFK's staff and that feeling was mutual. JFK and LBJ may have actually gotten along better than the others. The problems between LBJ staff and Kennedy staff certainly continued into 1964 and beyond.

I also agree that this may be a good reason for not putting Clinton on the ticket. I think that she and Obama would get along just fine. It is the staff for both that might cause problems. Remember, I say that as a Clinton supporter.

I must politely disagree with your conclusion that Texas was a dangerous place for JFK to be in 1963. He was welcomed by great and adoring crowds throughout Texas even though right wing feelings were boiling over with some. JFK would have carried Texas in 1964 against any Republican.

[NYC_SKP]

85. You said it all better than I did.

But I'd like to say this about the Texas part, and maybe you can share your Texas experience, especially if you're old enough to remember the sixties.

I'm not convinced that the police force in Dallas was as proactive as they might have been, and the same might have been true of Texans in other agencies. Texas is a long way from Massachusetts. I'm not saying that Johnson played a role, but his feelings toward the Kennedy brothers could not have helped.

But the more important part, as you indicate, is the effect of Hillary and Bill on interactions among other staff.

:hi:

[salonghorn70]

94. I Was Only 15 in 1963

I don't think the relationship between LBJ and JFK had anything to do with the Dallas police. If anything, remember LBJ really wanted this trip to go well. It was actually a political trip to try and heal relations between Ralph Yarborough and John Connaly.
Any shortcomings of the Dallas police were for other reasons.

[KittyWampus]

7. Ludicrous assertion. Clintons won't be vetted and her negatives are huge AND she doesn't help

[Hutzpa]

8. .

:rofl:

[newmajority]

9. 28 years of BushClinton is enough already.

It's ridiculous that voters in their 40's have never seen a GE ballot that didn't have at least one of those two names on it. Let this year be the first of many where that's the case.

Change is not possible with Hillary Clinton on the ticket. Obama would have to change his entire campaign, and to what? "Hey maybe the status quo is cool after all?"

As for Kennedy/Johnson, or Reagan/Poppy.... well we all know what happened in both cases, don't we?

[NYC_SKP]

64. Amen! nt

[marimour]

11. I think so too...

and not because she will really help in the polls, but because the story of unity and 76,000 people cheering as they stand together on that stage in Denver will take up all the media time and completely overshadow John McCain and his republican convention, especially if he picks a typical pick (old white guy).

[Kittycat]

12. Doubt it.

[Skidmore]

13. Phu.......

ey. Phooey!

[GarbagemanLB]

14. One word why you are wrong.

Bill.

[Zhade]

96. Another word: Tuzla.

HE DOESN'T NEED HER. Polls show a majority of registered voters -- the people we need to vote with us -- do not want her on the ticket.

[salguine]

15. You have to remember...with Hil, you get Bill. It's a package deal. And frankly

I'd rather have a root canal than have to look at Bill Clinton for a minimum of four more years. Oh, God, can't he/she/they just go away!? I have such acute Clinton fatigue.

She won't be the VP pick. She'd be a tremendous millstone around the neck of the campaign. Hillary Clinton as Obama's running mate would be the GOP's wet dream come true. Practically nobody's excited about McCain—but Hillary Clinton on the ticket would light a fire under the GOP base like nothing else has been able to so far. She adds nothing to the ticket that plenty of other candidates couldn't offer, and her negatives are shockingly high. I wouldn't even vote for the ticket if she were on it.

[jesus_of_suburbia]

18. "I wouldn't even vote for the ticket if she were on it."

Then you are part of the problem, not the solution.

[salguine]

81. What problem is that, exactly?

[MonkeyFunk]

28. No good democrat hates Bill Clinton

your reaction is just absurd.

She's been an outstanding Senator for 8 years, and nobody has ever claimed that Bill has impeded on her position.

[NYC_SKP]

34. Actually, plenty of great Democrats dislike Bill Clinton very deeply.

Hate is a strong word, I wouldn't use it personally.

[JerseygirlCT]

63. Nor would I. But his behavior of late has been particularly

disappointing, that's for sure.

[NYC_SKP]

67. Agreed.

Bill Clinton was a terrifically energetic man with lots of energy and great ambition.

Like him or not, these things are true.

But his actions and words and behaviors suggest to me that he's losing his grip.

Maybe he's less slick and a bit more of his soul is showing than did in the past.

:hi:

[Zhade]

97. Indeed. We progressives hate his ACTIONS (NAFTA, DOMA/DADT, dead Iraqi kids, etc), not him.

NT!

[NYC_SKP]

111. Thank you.

Sometimes I feel alone in pointing out the imperfections of that dude, but I was paying attention all through the nineties.

This past primary season was quite a ride, I loved Obama from the beginning and the more I learned the more I loved him. The thought of him losing and us going back in time to those times was frightening.

Of course, nearly anything would be better than Bush, but that doesn't make "anything" necessarily good.

:thumbsup:

[salguine]

83. Well for starters, I'm not a registered Democrat. I'm not aligned with

any party, but I lean reliably left politically.

My reaction isn't absurd. My reaction is my reaction. What makes it absurd?

I dislike Bill Clinton intensely as a political figure. He's nothing more than a run-of-the-mill corporatist. So's Hillary. Look into her dealings with Big Pharma and the credit card and insurance industries.

As far as "outstanding senator" goes, well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion. I won't even say it's absurd. But I'm not a fan of her work. I'm not singling her out, necessarily...Out of 535 members of Congress, I think 532 of them range from merely pathetic to outright evil.

[JackORoses]

16. what is the purpose of this post other than to make a fool of yourself?

[rhombus]

21. oh my. so I can't express an opinion now?

:dilemma:

[Leftist Agitator]

79. Express Away!

But don't be surprised if some of the more rational DUers think that the content of your post makes you look foolish.

[BklynChick]

17. not going to happen.

[PassingFair]

22. I hope not.

She will bring only negatives.

Unless you see Pumas as positive.


She is VERY polarizing, and
would be the impetus for "anyone but Hillary" voters getting
out of their homes and voting Republican.

[Prophet 451]

25. Can't see it

Leaving aside their personal feelings toward each other, Hillary has very high negatives (not all of them her fault, in fairness), half the country said they'd never vote for her before she even started campaigning (again, for reasons which weren't her fault) and with Hillary, you get Bill. Plus, I think there are better candidates who could help more with getting him elected.

None of that is to say that Hillary wouldn't make a fine VP if their ticket won but I think putting her on the ticket is a bigger gamble than Obama is willing to take. However, I can easily see her in a Cabinet post (especially Education or HHS).

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MonkeyFunk]

29. Kennedy stole the 1960 election?

Do tell.

[iamahaingttta]

37. You've heard of Mayor Daley of Chicago, no doubt?

He had all the dead people in his city vote.
Joe Kennedy threw buckets of money around, all over the country to bribe others to play the same kinds of dirty tricks to get his son elected.
Nixon knew it was stolen, but was told by his party's leadership not to contest the election, or he would have no future.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1960_presidential_election

[MonkeyFunk]

38. If Nixon had won Illinois

who would've won the election?


Illinois had 27 electoral votes. Kennedy/Johnson had 303 votes. Nixon/Lodge had 219.

If Illinois had flipped, it Kennedy/Johnson would've had 276 votes. It took 269 votes to win.


The notion that Kennedy stole the election is a freeperish idea, and a demonstrably idiotic one. It's a bit surprising to see it repeated here.

[iamahaingttta]

43. We're REALLY talking about the fact that Obama...

...won't need to steal anything to win, and that Clinton would be a liability.

[MonkeyFunk]

44. Maybe you are

but *I'm* talking about the fact that you repeated a well-known right-wing lie. Now you want to change the subject.

You were WRONG about the 1960 election. I've never heard a real democrat repeat that lie before. It surprised me to see it here.

[iamahaingttta]

47. Interesting...

Because I've heard that all my life, and many times from "real" Democrats.
I didn't know it was a "right-wing lie," I always just thought it was common knowledge.
Why does everything you disagree with have to be a right-wing lie?

Can we get back to the subject at hand, which is why Sen. Obama will never pick Sen. Clinton as his running mate?

[HughMoran]

129. Your "common knowledge" is an oft repeated right wing lie

Snap out of it and admit you were wrong and tried to promulgate an old right-wing lie.

Stop trying to change the subject.

[polmaven]

55. You are absolutely right!

Mayor Daly was, indeed, the "typical" crooked politician. Nixon/lodge did NOT, however, lose the election because of it! Illinois did not make a difference in that election.

You are right also about the feelings that real Democrats have for Bill Clinton. In 2000, if President Clinton could have (and wanted to) run for a third term, he would have been easily reelected.

[salguine]

86. No, it's true. Joe Kennedy freely admitted working very hard—

and spending a lot of money—to influence the outcome of the election. It wasn't even a particularly well-kept secret.

[MonkeyFunk]

128. No, it's not true

And spending money to infuence the outcome of election? How much is Obama spending to "influence the outcome" of this election?

As demonstrated above, even if Nixon had won Illinois, Kennedy would still have won the presidency. Stop repeating freeper lies here.

[Hippo_Tron]

39. Can you tell me with a straight face that tricky dick wasn't stealing votes as well?

And if Kennedy had lost Illinois he still would've won the electoral college.

[iamahaingttta]

42. Of course he was...

...and that's why he decided to keep his mouth shut.

[karynnj]

60. I heard of Mayor Daily and

you do know that EVEN if Illinois was stolen, Kennedy still would have won. You also know that anyone can edit wikipedia.

In fact what hapened back then was that there was Republican cheating down state becasue they thought there was cheating in Chicago.

[NYC_SKP]

68. "and you can just stop now..."

:rofl:

Thanks for that!

[BlooInBloo]

32. I betcha a star for a DUer that Clinton is not on the 2008 Democratic ticket.

[AspenRose]

33. Nope.

[AtomicKitten]

41. Not a chance and the Clintons are entirely responsible for it.

[Cha]

46. That Kennedy Johnson thing doesn't

hold water in this new era but carry on.

[salonghorn70]

77. Kennedy-LBJ Isn't the Same Thing

LBJ was put on the ticket for a specific reason: to carry Texas. If Clinton were put on the ticket, it would not be to carry a specific state. Consequently, 1960 is not a good comparison. That being said, I don't think Clinton will be on the ticket. Also, as a Clinton supporter in the primaries, I can honestly say that I don't think Clinton would be the best choice.

Regarding your idea that the concept of putting a VP on the ticket to carry a specific state can't be repeated, this is an interesting proposition. It really hasn't been done since 1960. Most conventional wisdom seems to agree with you. I still think that under the right circumstances, it can be successful. I hope that either Bayh or Kaine can prove it successful this year.

[Cha]

87. I know it's not the exactly the same..

There was a customer at work on Saturday who said, "if Obama were smart he'd choose Hillary..Kennedy chose Johnson".. And, this woman teaches college government.

It's the choosing someone to help you with more votes theory..and that's why I said Kennedy Johnson thing wasn't going to work in this new era. Obama has stated he wants someone who shares his vision and that wouldn't be Hillary, as far as I know. It sure didn't apply to Kennedy and Johnson, either.

Edit~to clarify what I really meant.

[salonghorn70]

95. It Worked For Reagan

Putting rival Bush on the 1980 ticket made it easier for moderate Republicans to vote for Reagan.

[Cha]

104. Yeah, it "worked" but Obama's not reagun..

Thank the Universe.

[scheming daemons]

49. I'll bet you a $100 donation to the campaign that you're wrong

[Motown_Johnny]

51. Unlikely... Hillary's Valor Theft incident disqualified her. This would be Mondale/Ferraro revisited

[Zhade]

100. "Valor Theft" -- that's a good way to describe her repeated, proven lying about Tuzla.

Nice.

[Beacool]

126. Here we go again with your favorite topic of conversation!!!

You are obsessed with Tuzla!!!!!!

[mystieus]

54. Hillary doesn't want it... for the millionth time!!!

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

58. Then say hello to President McCain!

[Darth_Kitten]

59. What act on the premise that lots of people dislike Hillary?

:shrug:

I like Hillary. That woman is TOUGH. I respect that.

[Beacool]

71. It's always the same B.S. with certain people.

Hillary and Barack won each almost 18M votes, more than anybody in primary history. She also won most of the registered Democratic votes. Yeah, she's soooo disliked.

Obama can pick whoever he wants, but I can't think of one single person (other than Gore) who would bring as much excitement to the ticket than Hillary. By comparison, the rest are just a bore.

[Leftist Agitator]

84. Yes, because Democratic caucus-attendees shouldn't be counted as voters.

Yes, that makes perfect sense.

PERFECT SENSE!

"...one single person (other than Gore) who would bring as much excitement to the ticket than Hillary."

If by excitement you mean the revulsion and loathing of that essential-for-victory bloc of independent voters, then I'm totally with you!

[salguine]

89. Awww, SNAP!

[Zhade]

101. Only a few clinton supporters keep emulating her by lying.

She wasn't close to his votes, but they can't even admit that he won the popular vote.

[Leftist Agitator]

102. You are quite correct.

But I won't let the whining of certain elements destroy my unbridled enthusiasm.

They'll get their pizza soon, I'm sure.

[Beacool]

108. Only Hillary haters believe that they both didn't win about the same amount of votes.

Keep fantasizing that Hillary did not have the support of millions of people.

:crazy:

[Zhade]

119. Oh, millions of people voted for her. I agree.

It just wasn't as many as Obama, and he won the popular vote.

And I don't hate clinton. I hate her actions.

[AtomicKitten]

131. It's easier to just issue the epithet "hater" than examine the truth.

I was a strong Clinton advocate for decades. But I realized it's because I didn't pay close enough attention. Their behavior in this primary was beyond the pale, in fact, it was downright appalling. I'll take the epithet "unforgiving" because none of that will be forthcoming anytime soon from me.

[Beacool]

107. Revulsion and loathing???????

Aha, and in the real world you think our nominee is beloved by everyone?

:eyes:

[darius15]

61. I hope so

Actually, I think Hillary would help Obama a lot.

A lot of people say independents don't like her, which may be true, but in this election, if Obama gets 100 % of Dems and McCain gets 100% of Repubs, and McCain gets 60% of Independents, Obama would still win the election. There are many more Dems than Repubs and Independents.

Plus, she would secure Pennsylvania (21 EV), Ohio(20 EV), Florida(27 EV), maybe even West Virginia and Arkansas.

I know that in the closing parts of the primary season, it got ugly between the two, but these two agree on much more than they disagree.

[salguine]

90. It didn't get ugly until Clinton uglied it up.

[Zhade]

103. Considering that polls show a majority of registered voters DON'T want her on the ticket...

...I don't see how she helps him. At all.

[otohara]

110. What About Her 18 Million

many are already on board with Obama, but in phone banking - many women still say they'd like to see Hill on the tix.

[Zhade]

120. A majority of REGISTERED VOTERS -- the people we need to vote with us -- don't want her.

That's just a fact.

[Imagevision]

65. For the umpteenth time, Obama doesn't need Clinton to landslide McCain...

[Lucky 13]

70. I don't believe that for a second.

Not one bloody second.

[Pavlovs DiOgie]

72. I'll mark it down

so I can laugh about it later. :)

[BlueJac]

73. Dream on.........

the poison pill will not work! The facts are Clintons were only so-so for America. Alan Greenspan as fed Chief was a hugh mistake. Read a book, please!

[musicblind]

74. I think so too.

Obama is a SMART politician. One of the smartest we've seen in a LONG time. I think it is very likely he will choose Clinton as his VP. And if he does then wow, the Republicans are FUCKED. I mean, they're pretty much fucked already... but with Hillary on the ticket as well they're fucked with a CAPITAL F!

[marimour]

76. I agree, it would be the best story for the MSM

I am not a Hillary supporter at all (very angry AA female voter after the primaries), but I will deal with it because she can match McCain on the negative campaigning and would be a very good attack dog VP. She knows how to do the dirty work that needs to be done to respond to McCain's "respectful" campaign.

[Leftist Agitator]

78. That is not going to happen.

Obama isn't foolish enough to commit political suicide by putting Hillary on the ticket.

That is the only thing that could possibly cause him to legitimately lose this election.

Why in the world would you think that Senator Obama would want to doom his chances at being elected to the office of the presidency by selecting Hillary Clinton (with her ~50% negatives) as his running mate?

[Skittles]

80. I used to have a cat named "Rhombus"

*sniff*

[NYC_SKP]

98. cool name!

probably a good kitty, too...

:hi:

[Skittles]

115. aw thanks

I just remembered it from high school how I thought it was a cool name for a shape - LOL I remember the vet saying GEOMETRICAL SHAPE, RIGHT? He was very proud of himself. :D

[Jakes Progress]

88. Just kinda curious

that so many posters who say that former Hillary supporters must support the ticket and be enthusiastic about the candidate seem to be unwilling to be supportive and enthusiastic about a ticket that includes Clinton. I think most would support Obama's choice and be supportive, but we see the undercurrent of the haters who say one thing when it suits and then another when it doesn't.

You either support the Democratic ticket or you're against it. That's what they've been saying. Let's see how they feel like cheering if Hillary is the VP choice.

[salguine]

91. I think people should support whomever they want, and not pay attention to

anyone telling them who they "should" or "must" support.

[Beacool]

109. Exactly, some can't seem to get it that she's very popular with at least half of the party.

Isn't it ironic? We are chastised if we don't show enough enthusiasm for our nominee, but it's OK to continue to bash Hillary and act as if she's some kind of pariah within the party. Too funny.......

[Zhade]

122. We know she is. We also know that when she's not chosen, her supporters will still vote Obama.

The vast majority, anyway.

(Oh, and telling the truth about her isn't bashing. Sorry you can't accept that fact.)

[nolabels]

99. It's going to be...............Flamebait

Wow, and even late in July on a Sunday. No wonder somebody figured out a way to invent barbecues :shrug:

[candice]

112. He can't pick anyone who would make him look less than a gifted politician...

...he needs to find someone he towers above in terms of experience and political astuteness.

[GarbagemanLB]

116. what a nice backhanded compliment.

[paulk]

118. why even bother posting that a DU?

here at Hillary hate central

you're fishing in a tiolet bowl.

[angee_is_mad]

121. hillary's supporters can always dream

but it ain't happening. The clinton name is a curse word in a lot of black homes right now. Barack needs a large black turnout in the Fall to turn red states blue so that he can have a strong working majority in both houses.

The clintons need more than a few months to repair the damage they have done to one of their strongest constituencies. Maybe this time next year things will be better for them. As a Black woman, I will never view the clintons the same.

[marimour]

127. but would that stop you from voting for Obama?

I'm a black female too and if the Clintons come up in convo around my family (who used to love them) there will be plenty of swear words. I doubt I will look at them, especially Bill Clinton the same again. Its hard to describe how angry and the things I would say to him if I ever saw Bill in real life. But I still think it will be her, because it is the most exciting story, especially since everyone basically counted her out of the VP sweepstakes. Most of my family would have stayed home in protest of their racial insensitivity (to put it nicely) if she had won, but they will vote for Obama no matter who is the VP. I just tell myself that the VP is only as powerful as the president allows so if she wants to start acting like a co-president Obama will put her in her place.

[wisteria]

123. I hope not n/t

[TheKentuckian]

130. I think she maybe brings in 40-50%

of her remaining supporters not all ready on board and runs off at least an equal number of voters as she brings.

I don't see the point. She doesn't help with governing, she brings no specialty focus (ie military, foreign policy, monetary, etc) , she doesn't bring a state, she doesn't bring any new voting blocks, and it's at least debatable she increases turn out.

All of her people won't be coming back, if you promise to bring that to the table, there'd be a legitimate reason to put her on the ticket but if all she's going to do for us is talk a few stragglers off the edge, then it's not worth the risk.
I also believe she has been leveraging her support. She could have been a powerful advocate for Obama while he was out of the country but she's still on the edges.