Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by saturneptune, Feb 10, 2007.
Will the ticket by Clinton-Obama or Obama-Clinton? Neither would get my vote.
It's way too early to know if either one will be on the ticket. This should be a more interesting question 12 months from now.
I agree with Ken. To early to tell. Remember in 1998-1999 Gephart went into the Iowa Caucuses as the frontrunner. He was replaced by Dean as the frontrunner. Neither made it on the ticket.
Neither would get my vote but, to be honest, I would be much more comfortable with President Obama than President Clinton. I think Hillary has a real problem in Obama but I also think Obama has a real problem in Hillary. I don't know which one will win the DNC nod, however I suspect Hillary will pull some tricks out of her hat and get the nod. If that happens I can see a Clinton/Obama ticket (first female president/first black vp). However under no circumstances do I believe Hillary would ever accept the vp position.
Ultimately, with those who have announced intentions of running, or thinking about running, I think there will be 10 or 12 candidates from each party, which is consistent with history when a sitting president will be out of office. Preliminary polls sometimes have an influence over that process, but it is usually the Iowa Caucuses and the New Hampshire Primary that cause the list to narrow down, and I hope it stays that way. People in smaller states need to have a bit of an influence over the process, IMHO.
Obama is apparently the front runner, with Clinton and Edwards very close behind, but it is still way too early.
I don't think it is too early to speculate, however, that whoever the Democratic nominee will be, they have at least an 8 out of 10 chance of being the President, and maybe even a better shot at it than that. I don't see a serious Republican challenge to the White House again until 2016.
And the best benefit of all is that we will finally be rid of Bush.
==Be that as it may I firmly believe that the next President of the United States will be Hillary Clinton. The only real thing standing between her and the top job is Obama. While it is possible that he may walk away with the job I think it is unlikely. The Republicans will run Rudolph Giuliani or John McCain and will therefore lose the support of many conservatives (like myself). The Presidency is Hillary's to lose.
==True, but the consequences of his failed policies will live on in the world for years to come.
Just curious, since the President is elected by carrying individual states, what states do you think Hillary would win that Bush won in the previous election? I doubt she would get 30% of the vote in this state.
I could vote for a Clinton - Obama ticket, no problem!
I'm not the happiest person in the world with Clinton. If Obama was in the top spot, I'd be much happier.
I think if it's Clinton-Obama instead of the other way around, I'll vote Libertarian.
The polls are showing that she could carry all the states Gore did in 2000, including New Mexico and Iowa, and would add Nevada, Ohio, Florida, Missouri, Arkansas and Louisiana to that list, with possible dead heats that could go her way in Virginia and North Carolina.
Interesting theory. I have always been interested in how the states trend over the years in Presidential elections. It is amazing that Nixon and Reagan came from California, and that Reagan carried Illinois in 80 and 84. Look at those states today.
This just might be a better ticket, I'm just not sure Clinton will accept the second spot. I'm not even convinced that Hillary will even receive the nomination, it's just too far away to tell. Personally I really like Joe Biden better than Clinton at this point in the race, but there are likely to be many changes between now and November 2008.
As a Republican, it little matters to me who the Democrats nominate. It is clear that they will run on the platform of withdrawal from Iraq by January 2009. Of all the major Democrats, only the Jewish Joe Lieberman supports Republican foreign policy against terror and the war in Iraq.
Having said that, I think that the Clintons still control the Democrat Party. Bill may be glib but he is very intelligent. Hillary has the support of enough wealthy Democrats to assure her of plenty of money. Also, she has the name recognition--that goes without saying.
As for Obama, he is already on the defensive from Hillary's questioning of his being Islamic or not. His Chicago church is a Garvey style institution, and others have linked it on this board. Here is a link on Garvey: http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761567876/Garvey_Marcus.html
Here is a link to the strange doctrines of Obama's church: http://www.tucc.org/about.htm
It is possible that New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson will run with Hillary. His credentials are very impressive for a liberal. Here is a link to his official biography: http://www.governor.state.nm.us/governor.php
The Republicans always nominate the front-runner. I think that the front runner today is Rudy Gulliani. John McCain has a bad record with conservatives and has expressed open contempt for conservative Protestants.
I think that with the central issue being how to proceed in the war on terror, Gulliani will defeat Hillary in 2008.
Well, the democratic ticket matters to me in a sense. I will never vote for it with Hillary or Obama on it, but at the same time, I am not going to vote for a pro abortionist like Gulliani or a flip flopper like McCain or Romney on the issue. If the Republicans fail to nominate a true honest conservative this time, unlike the last two elections, my vote will go to a third party, and if it helps elect a democrat, then the Republicans got what they deserve. That is why I pray that Obama or Hillary does not appear on the ticket.
I used to think along your lines and I do not fault you for it, Saturneptune. Your posts are well-reasoned.
My thinking is that the cultural war is stalemated for lack of conservative effort and leadership. Therefore, Guilliani is no problem to me because we have already had eight years of stalemate under Bush on the cultural front. As for the GOP, no conservatives have been willing to spend the capital necessary to obtain leadership in politics. Indiana has Congressman Mike Pence, but he is still young. Guilliani could take for V-P someone like Indiana US Senator Richard Lugar, a Nobel Peace Prize nominee, for foreign policy expertise. The fact that Guilliani is AWOL on cultural issues does not mean that he would necessarily block conservative power since it is unlikely that the GOP could win without conservative help.
The GOP is in disrepair. The eastern Republicans are still liberal dating back fifty years or more to the time of Dewey and Nelson Rockefeller. The problem with politics is that it is all hard, thankless work and it is at the grass roots that victories are won.
Hillary still thinks in a pre-Nine-Eleven manner. We need someone who can deal with the problems presented by Islam and oil. Obama will quickly fall by the wayside because he cannot explain his religious doctrines of Afrocentrism that play well on the south side of Chicago but not so well among those who are tired of the racial issue and want to see domestic tranquility once again.
Why does everyone think that Hillary will choose Baraq Obama as a running mate? It would be a stupid move politically. She doesnt need him in order to get the black vote. She will get more black votes than Obama in the primaries. She will most likely choose someone more right of center and somewhat hawkish.
That should make you feel better about supporting the ticket.
Aw, that's sooo cute the way you misspell his name!
I support Newt Gingrich.