Mentioned on Cnn tonight as the winning ticket.

No, disagree. A female/black ticket will not win in our current cultural environment. I'm not being racist or sexist, I'm being realistic. BTW, it's Obama, not Abama.

And it's "Hillary" not "Hilary."

I do think a woman and a black man can indeed be elected in 2008. Whether it's THIS pair I'm not so sure.

Andrew

I dunno, given 'A'bama's fauxes on responses to world issues, (Hi'l'ary showed them who has been doing homework), I'd say this would be a terrific team. Obama can learn from the two masters of politics (the other, Bill) as Hillary brings the world together from the Iraq mess.

I'm thinking "fixing" Iraq and other Bush blunders will consume most of the Clinton presidency, leaving Obama with a wide open and clean slate in 2016 to really bring us into the 21st Century.

Hmm?

I imagine there are two camps on this one:

This ticket is a very "now" mix of a senior citizen and a rising minority that will grab the imagination of a majority of Americans.

This ticket looks like somebody found the last of the Mondale/Ferraro in the fridge and is heating it up in the microwave.

*ding*

You sure that is still good? Sniff it.

C'mon Democrats, dammit already, wow me!

"C'mon Democrats, dammit already, wow me!"

Um, okay . . . Greg Oden?

LMAO! Perfect!

No, in all seriousness, Hillary is a big anvil tucked in a $500 handbag. She is too inside, too corporate and too snippy to be taken seriously -- IMHO.

We want an infectious spirit, a never wavering focus, and a person who galvanizes a nation to face the job ahead.

This person needs to be willing to face the war, our diminished value as wage earners, and the creation of an energy plan that is rooted in sustaining life, not energy and petrochemical giants.

This person needs to voluntarily and permanently cut and limit "executive" powers to the original standards of our forefathers. There will no longer be a throne behind the desk in the Oval Office.

This person needs to be tough as nails and tell the truth. Weaving the simple, honest and unvarnished facts into something that makes sense to everybody, not just the elbow patches.

For that monumental task, I still like Gore and Edwards the best. Not perfect, but not poison either.

Agreed.

Actually, Edwards for sure + somebody else sane, assuming Gore either ends up waiting too long, or simply does not run at all.

maybe it's all set up from outside sources that we have another 8 years of Clinton followed by 8 years of Bush (jeb)

I am kind of tired of the whole Bush/Clinton era.

Time to move on. Dynasties are not our thing.

CJ/Missing.....theres a winner for ya! Merkin as Speaker of the House!

Given that the two front runners are
1. An intelligent, experienced, yet abrasive, divisive female, and
2. An intelligent, energetic, yet inexperienced black male, (I'm thinking next time Barack)

What would be the logical, politically prudent alternative choice? An intelligent, charismatic, good looking white male of course. Mr. Edwards needs to step it up. Which I suspect he will as we draw closer to the convention. Now this isn't neccessarily my preference, but I bet that's what will happen. This countrty still isn't ready for a female or black President. Which is sad, really.

Merkin as the new speaker? I'd go for that!

I'd never vote for Hillary. She'd be just preparing the White House again for a new dictator. With a Dem as prez, the liberals would take a nap while Hillary consolidates more power for the executive branch that couldn't have been done while the liberals were awake and noisy.

I just ordered my new "Proud Amurricans for Merkin" bumper sticker.

Merkin for Streaker of the House!

The left misses the obvious problem with a Hillary-Obama ticket.

The war on terror.

Mrs. Clinton is being taken to task by extreme leftists for voting to fund the war.

Mr. Obama is willing to associate with evil-doer and blackheart Fidel Castro, along with Iran's Jew-Hating leader & other unsavoury characters who wish us nothing but harm.

Those two disparate and passionate democrat factions will not likely participate in a liberal love fest anytime soon.

Herb

I'll get back to you on that one after I see the first official election debate take place. Until then it is pretty much pointless pointing your pointer and someone who may not even run!

Edit Add:
I have my "Run Hillary, Run" bumper sticker firmly attached to my front bumper!

"Mrs. Clinton is being taken to task by extreme leftists for voting to fund the war."

So Herb will be voting for Clinton then. Sweet.

It would be interesting to watch the dynamics of a Clinton-Obama ticket. We have no computer model to show what might happen.

Hillary turns off a lot of women as well as men. Are there enough extra female voters who would vote for her because she's a women? I doubt it.

Would blacks flock to the polls to elect a black to the White House? Again, I doubt it.

In each of these cases they would collectively need to bring enough voters who would respond solely to their unique contribution (ie black/female) to overcome the loses for the same reasons.

I'll guarantee you they would not carry our neighboring liberal state of Iowa.

The Dems could easily lose the White House, and it's their's at the moment to lose.

"The Dems could easily lose the White House, and it's their's at the moment to lose."

As I've been saying all along. I fear a Hillary led ticket would give it to the Repubs, even more than an Obama led ticket would.

So, another time Deane and I agree. Mark it down.

I think Hillary running for President is the surest way for the Republicans to win in 2008.

On one hand, I fear her more than anyone, because she's way smarter than her husband and far more socialist. Unlike Bill, who was in it mainly for the babes, Mrs. Clinton is a true believer.

But on the other hand, I recall her health care debacle. If you think business is going to sit on the sidelines whilst Mrs. Clinton prepares to Smash N' Bash private enterprise in the US, you're simply naive.

Only Mr. Nader running would be a better bet for a Republican victory.

Herb

Herb, this is one of those rare times when you and I totally agree. So, far I don't like anyone from either party. I was a McCain fan until he refused to back down from his support for Bush's failed war efforts.

As I've said before, Hillary can win the White House without a single southern state, simply by winning every state Kerry won in 2004 plus Ohio (where he came very close).

So, do you think Hillary CAN'T win in Ohio vs. a Republican? Remember, that state recently elected a Democratic governor and senator after mounting disgust with Republicans in the state.

And which other states that Kerry won do you think would vote for ANY of the Republicans who would be nominated in 2008?

Those are the polls I want to see: Hillary vs. Romney/Thompson/McCain in Ohio and Pennsylvania. Maybe Florida too, because I hear Hillary is quite popular among middle aged women, which Florida might have a lot of.

Andrew

Some of the voters I know who voted for Bush are now liking Hillary so I think she'll get a lot of the moderate to conservative vote.

But it's so early, and most voters have no idea who the Republican nominee will be, nor do they likely know that candidate very well (if it's Romney for example). But they know Hillary very well. Once swing voters get to know the Republican nominee, perhaps in September or October of 2008 for many of them, they'll be able to make their choice.

Andrew

Repeat from prior post:

"I'll get back to you on that one after I see the first official election debate take place. Until then it is pretty much pointless pointing your pointer and someone who may not even run!"

"So, do you think Hillary CAN'T win in Ohio vs. a Republican?"

While I greatly prefer positive campaigning, you're not factoring in the immense power of negative campaign advertising. Mrs. Clinton will be tainted goods long before the '08 election.

Republicans use this tool just as much as democrats. Relentless hammering will take its toll on a potential Clinton presidency II.

Unlike Mr. Obama, Mrs. Clinton has a significant track record to defend.

They'll have a team smarter than Mr. Rove to campaign against Mrs. Clinton.

Herb

So you think Hillary can't win Ohio, Herb?

Andrew

I haven't seen any polls or anything, but I find it hard to believe that those blue-collar laborers will warm up to her.

One of the confusing things with any polling right now is that it's often done with the hard core left, the Democrat activists, not with the general population or the rank and file Democrats. The Iowa polls are thet way at this time. The Caucus folks are the typical voter.

"So you think Hillary can't win Ohio, Herb?"

I don't know. But to presume that Mrs. Clinton will win every state Mr. Kerry won is questionable.

Herbert M.

I am not saying Hillary can win Ohio (or not). But, looking at the electoral map from 2004, I don't see many Kerry states that I believe would support the Republican over Clinton. Yes, of course, without the actual candidates picked (and not knowing if we'll have a viable 3rd party candidate in 2008) it's all just speculation.

I think Clinton would win Oregon, Washington, and California for sure vs. a Republican. New York too (yes, even against Giuliani). New England? New Hampshire and Maine are perhaps more questionable. Massachusetts? Yeah, Romney might well carry his home state if nominated, but I'm not sure that's a done deal either. That could be really important in the political calculus for 2008, actually.

Andrew

Just because you don't like a candidate, it doesn't help to be in denial about her. The right all is in lockstep about how they say they want Hillary to run because she is beatable. She's a big threat to a GOP candidate. They all know that. Their game gets old pretty fast.

I don't like Hillary either and I won't vote for her but I won't lie to make myself feel better.

Can you think of ANY candidate the GOP would hate MORE than Hillary winning the presidency in 2008??? That to me is one big reason to vote for her in the general election - imagining them on the day after election day! I wonder how many will speak of moving to Canada? :-)

Andrew

"...New York too (yes, even against Giuliani)."

Nope. I'm not buying it.

Mr. Giuliani would cream Mrs. Clinton in an election there. New York was ground zero for 9/11. Besides, Mrs. Clinton's negatives are very high all over.

I also would compare Mrs. Clinton to any potential African-American candidate and I say this as one who voted for, and seriously hoped that Alan Keyes would win the Republican nomination: For while many people might SAY they'll vote for Mrs. Clinton, what they actually do in the voting booth may be something else.

The first female and African-American presidents will need to be Republicans. Otherwise, they will not get elected.

Herbert Milhous

Giuliani has never been elected in a statewide election in New York - Hillary has, twice, and last time, she won her senate race by a landslide (67%). Rudy hasn't been mayor since 2001, and I think his "I was mayor on 9/11" campaign platform is already wearing thin.

Andrew

I think the GOP would expose Hillary for who she is, the proverbial wolf-in-sheeps-clothing. She is trying to paint herself as this great moderate when she isn't ... of course Dubya gave us the "compassionate conservative" crap, and we see where that's gotten us.

The more I see of Obama the more I like ... but I still am really pulling for the longshot in Bill Richardson.

If Obama wants to go to Pakistan and maybe Syria then I'm in! Those are the places DUHbya and Co. SHOULD have gone. Then blow the crap out of Saudi Arabia. The biggest THUGS on the planet. Look into Osama and the insurgence and you will find Saudi money EVERYWHERE!!!!!

Pakistan has been an ally to the US. Sending troops in there is a just plain wrong. Obama has proved he doesn't have the world-politic experience to lead this country. Invade an ally? This may have severely damaged his chances, if not killed them.

But Redford, foreign policy types have not criticized Obama much if at all. If you read the blog link to the WPost on the other thread I started, you'll see that several foreign policy people say his statement is basically Bush Administration policy now, only the Bush Admin chooses for obvious reasons to keep that low key.

But suppose Pakistan refuses to deal with al Qaeda and lets them thrive. We should just sit back and do nothing? And I don't think an invasion of Pakistan is necessarily anyone's first resort.

Pakistan is a dangerous country for America. Musharraf barely has control of Pakistan, a country with nuclear weapons and a vocal anti-American radical islamic population. If we abandon him or place sanctions, we risk having him overthrown by these radicals. If we appease him, we risk new attacks from Al Qaeda. I don't think any American really wants to invade Pakistan - that's a nightmare scenario but better than, say, having al Qaeda prepare for a huge terrorist attack there against us.

Andrew

"The first female and African-American presidents will need to be Republicans. Otherwise, they will not get elected.'

Really. Why?

"Really. Why?"

It's kind of like Mr. Nixon going to China.

A liberal could not have pulled it off without looking soft on communism. But a Republican with such strong anti-communist credentials like Mr. Nixon doing it? He simply looked open-minded and less harsh. Besides, he was able to play the trade card.

In the same vein, it will take a conservative woman, a la Margaret Thatcher, or a moderately conservative African-American, a la Colin Powell, to come close to winning the presidency.

Herbert M.

Your analogy makes no sense to me, Herb. Want to keep trying?

Andrew

Yeah, uh...That doesn't explain anything but Nixon.

Nevermind. I don't care anymore. It was just something to say, Herb, I know.

If you guys actually cared, I would be glad to.

Otherwise, never mind.

Herb

Keep in mind the troll predicted a gop landslide last november. And when he is trapped in a corner, he will bring out nixon.

Trivia time!

Name the party with two Dicks in the White House and no balls!

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'll be here all week.

"If you guys actually cared, I would be glad to.

Otherwise, never mind.

Herb"

Allright! Now we know what to do to stop the ridiculous postings. Stop caring!

DONE!

If it were only so easy to prove it to him.

Herrb, how can we convince you?

First of all, the GOP stands no chance of winning the presidency in 2008. Like Andrew has pointed out, the electoral map tells the tale and the GOP has no shot. You GOP faithful can thank George W. Bush and his shit leadership for your losses to come.

I just finished reading "The Audacity of Hope" by Barack Obama, and I must say, this man is smart. He's positive. And he's real. He's got my vote for 2008 and it's unlikely I will change my mind. At this point, Obama needs to just coast along until we get closer to election time. Once people get to see him more close up, and see debates that are more focused and narrowed down to the real candidates, he will resonate with people. Mark my words, Obama will win the Democratic nomination and will most likely win a landslide election in 2008. Combine that with the Dems gaining further majority status in both the Senate and the House, and I gotta say, the future is so bright, I gotta wear shades!

There is a shot actually.

A ballot initiative in CA will divide electorial votes, by county, thus handing the GOP a significant chunk of electorial votes this coming election, should it pass.

It's an interesting approach actually. The thing very well could pass as many people are not pleased with the existing system, for whatever reason. Framed under election reform, it's about a 20 electorial vote gimmie.

They've not got people, but they've a lot of dollars, attorneys and judges these days.

It could backfire and give birth to a movement to discontinue the electorial college and hand the Democrats an inexpensive way to get in the White House.

(The Democrats would only have to focus on the top 10 largest cities while the GOP would have to go after every rural vote nationwide.)

I agree, but what's gonna happen is a lot of attention on CA, little to no serious national debate and a lot of framing that appeals to people wanting better representation in the Presidental election.

I hear, it all comes down to some state in particular, why even bother?

I hear that a lot, from all kinds of people everywhere.

This thing could very easily pass, and if it does, it will be as a "model" for other states to follow some time in the future.

End result: GOP gets nice boost, looks good while doing it.

The ugly part would be the post election efforts. Should the GOP win, they then can expand on the concept and leverage their position (again) to craft a system that favors them nation wide.

The only way you could get the electorial college done away with, is if you could get 37 of the states to agree. And thats not going to happen,

actually the winning ticket was

3-9-18-21-22-31..............



That's me, all fluff, no substance..........

Where is the "my mom can whup your mom" thread?

......I have my "Run Hillary, Run" bumper sticker firmly attached to my front bumper!

And I have a run Hillary run, but you can't hide bumper sticker on the car behind you..........

Herb said: On one hand, I fear her more than anyone, because she's way smarter than her husband and far more socialist. Unlike Bill, who was in it mainly for the babes, Mrs. Clinton is a true believer.

Hillary might be in it for the babes too!

You have a black man and a woman as the top two contenders for the dems and most likely the Dem ticket. Although I would rather see a Obama/Clinton ticket rather than the opposite

Then you have a Mormon and a Crossdresser for the GOP I am guessing on a Romney/Guilani ticket or vice versa.

Now if you take all of America's many hangups which ones are more loathed by the collective conscience?

Had a conversation with a Vietnam vet at the bar the other day and he said a woman would do a horrible job. He then went on to say that what this country really needs to be successful is a front lines veteran. I didn't have a chance to tell him why his reasoning was so flawed but then again the old man kinda dominated the conversation.

As I mentioned in a different thread, I truly believe that in this election we will not be picking the candidate who is best for America but the one who is the least bad.

NONE of them on either side look worth a crap.

So, do you think Hillary CAN'T win in Ohio...

She can only win the parts North of I-76 and the areas between I-71 and I-271....

Basically, Akron /Cleveland /Youngstown.....

3 neglected cities that politics only gives lip service to.

If Clinton wins, Barbra Streisand will buy Canada and give it to her as a housewarming gift!

Then, all the celebs that fled to France when Boosh won can return home and resume their careers.

Booo! No Hillary and No Obama!!!!

Shane...
Whom do you want???