Bill Clinton Says joint ticket would be "unstoppable"

[dalegg 143]

I don't see this primary run stopping until the convention. If the polls are correct Clinton leads by 12 points in Pennsylvania so shes gonna pick up a lot of delegates there. She's certainly going to want to hold out to see- and that's in late April! Then, Obama, who will still have the lead, will obvioiusly not back down AND he's got North Carolina in MAY to offset most of those Pennsylvania delegates with an almost sure majority of the 134 delegates where he currently has an 8 point lead.

The math doesn't work for Clinton. The remaining uncommitted super delegates would almost all have to break stride with their states' electorate in order for her to win, and that would tear the party apart. Troll is wrong!

Dale, give this a try... (Delegate Calculator)

http://www.slate.com/features/delegatecounter/

Even if Hillary were to win the remaining Primaries by a 20 point margin (which isn't going to happen), Obama will still have more delegates. Realistically, she won't get any closer than about 70 delegates to Obama by my estimates. So all she could hope for is to convince the DNC and the Super Delegates that despite Obama winning both the popular vote and the most delegates, she somehow deserves to be nominee instead. It's quite delusional really, but not surprising. She's not going to give up until the very end, but in the end her delusion of hoping to win will only cause Super Delegates to swing over to Obama.

He's just got to not rub her nose in those facts, answer whatever allegations she throws at him and he's got the nomination.

That's nice. Wow, even with 85% of Pennsylvania with everything else being equal she still doesn't pull ahead. She's trippin. She just accept sidekick status again and hope for 8 good years.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

As if Clintons are leading in the delegate count. I don't think Obama will be Hillary's running mate and he won't take Hillary as his running mate for sure.

Really. What an odd sense of entitlement the Clintons have to suggest that the candidate that is #1 in elected delegates, #1 in the number of state races won and # 1 in the popular vote be #2 on the ticket. How arrogant.

ETA: This silly proposal gets the Clinton's a bit in trouble. Surely, Hillary would select a running mate that is ready to be commander in chief. But hasn't she suggested all along that Obama isn't ready for that? So, is she now saying that she'll select a running mate that isn't ready for the top job or is she now saying that she would make a poor selection for the # 2 job just to get the presidency or is she saying that her claim was nothing but a cheap shot? Russert raised this issue this morning on Meet the Press - I loved how he got Clintonite Ed Rendell trying to weasel his way out of this one.

I sure hope Obama uses this to expose Hillary's nonsense for what it is.

Edited March 9, 2008 by Mr. Big Dog

[Peikko 1,575]

I don't think it's a question of arrogance. My take on this is, you have for the first time a woman who had a real shot at becoming the presidential nominee. She had to fight her campaign as rigorously as possible because any hint of weakness would be seen as a sign that a woman isn't capable of taking on this type of job. It may be a mistake to think this way, I am not sure, but I do think that her determination is as much to suggest that should she lose, she at least put up a great fight. By doing so she sends a message out that even when things get tough, women don't throw in the towel.

I know some have suggested that she now give in graciously, but I am not sure what happens to her political career is she is seen as a folder. What message does that send out? To a few it might just send out the signal that you think it ought to, that she has fought a good campaign but Barack is more popular so giving in is a good thing. However, to many more people it could more easily send out the signal that a women just gives up when the going gets a little difficult.

What would people be saying, if it was for example John Edwards who was running neck and neck on this nomination, would there be the same pressure on him to step away from the race?

As I said, I am not sure if this is a totally conscious thought process or if it should play any part in this race, but I can't help but feel that it at least in part explains her tenacity in this race.

Anyway, regardless it does appear to be true that for some people, Hilary can do no right and Barack can do no wrong. I find this a trifle odd and not a little worrying. Barack is a gifted orator and potentially a great political leader but he certainly isn't without his own flaws both in character and in policy. He worries me that he plays on this 'I represent a new style of politics' and yet when you try to examine what that means, you find it's surprisingly close to the old style of politics. I don't believe he is politically niave, I believe he knows full welll how to manipulate an audience, and how to play the political games for his own advantage. That's not necessarily a bad thing but there are potential risks in that strategy too. At some point, a lot of people are going to feel disenchanted, not because he will do anything terrible wrong but because if you buy into a dream when you wake up and realise reality can't possibly deliver on the dream, you want to blame someone and the person you will blame is the person who sold you the dream.

[no name 1]

I don't think it's a question of arrogance. My take on this is, you have for the first time a woman who had a real shot at becoming the presidential nominee. She had to fight her campaign as rigorously as possible because any hint of weakness would be seen as a sign that a woman isn't capable of taking on this type of job. It may be a mistake to think this way, I am not sure, but I do think that her determination is as much to suggest that should she lose, she at least put up a great fight. By doing so she sends a message out that even when things get tough, women don't throw in the towel.

I know some have suggested that she now give in graciously, but I am not sure what happens to her political career is she is seen as a folder. What message does that send out? To a few it might just send out the signal that you think it ought to, that she has fought a good campaign but Barack is more popular so giving in is a good thing. However, to many more people it could more easily send out the signal that a women just gives up when the going gets a little difficult.

What would people be saying, if it was for example John Edwards who was running neck and neck on this nomination, would there be the same pressure on him to step away from the race?

As I said, I am not sure if this is a totally conscious thought process or if it should play any part in this race, but I can't help but feel that it at least in part explains her tenacity in this race.

Anyway, regardless it does appear to be true that for some people, Hilary can do no right and Barack can do no wrong. I find this a trifle odd and not a little worrying. Barack is a gifted orator and potentially a great political leader but he certainly isn't without his own flaws both in character and in policy. He worries me that he plays on this 'I represent a new style of politics' and yet when you try to examine what that means, you find it's surprisingly close to the old style of politics. I don't believe he is politically niave, I believe he knows full welll how to manipulate an audience, and how to play the political games for his own advantage. That's not necessarily a bad thing but there are potential risks in that strategy too. At some point, a lot of people are going to feel disenchanted, not because he will do anything terrible wrong but because if you buy into a dream when you wake up and realise reality can't possibly deliver on the dream, you want to blame someone and the person you will blame is the person who sold you the dream.

Wow. That was very well said!

[Teacher Mark 53]

Bill: "I believe the term is ménage à trois".

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I don't think it's a question of arrogance. My take on this is, you have for the first time a woman who had a real shot at becoming the presidential nominee. She had to fight her campaign as rigorously as possible because any hint of weakness would be seen as a sign that a woman isn't capable of taking on this type of job. It may be a mistake to think this way, I am not sure, but I do think that her determination is as much to suggest that should she lose, she at least put up a great fight. By doing so she sends a message out that even when things get tough, women don't throw in the towel.

I know some have suggested that she now give in graciously, but I am not sure what happens to her political career is she is seen as a folder. What message does that send out? To a few it might just send out the signal that you think it ought to, that she has fought a good campaign but Barack is more popular so giving in is a good thing. However, to many more people it could more easily send out the signal that a women just gives up when the going gets a little difficult.

What would people be saying, if it was for example John Edwards who was running neck and neck on this nomination, would there be the same pressure on him to step away from the race?

As I said, I am not sure if this is a totally conscious thought process or if it should play any part in this race, but I can't help but feel that it at least in part explains her tenacity in this race.

Anyway, regardless it does appear to be true that for some people, Hilary can do no right and Barack can do no wrong. I find this a trifle odd and not a little worrying. Barack is a gifted orator and potentially a great political leader but he certainly isn't without his own flaws both in character and in policy. He worries me that he plays on this 'I represent a new style of politics' and yet when you try to examine what that means, you find it's surprisingly close to the old style of politics. I don't believe he is politically niave, I believe he knows full welll how to manipulate an audience, and how to play the political games for his own advantage. That's not necessarily a bad thing but there are potential risks in that strategy too. At some point, a lot of people are going to feel disenchanted, not because he will do anything terrible wrong but because if you buy into a dream when you wake up and realise reality can't possibly deliver on the dream, you want to blame someone and the person you will blame is the person who sold you the dream.

Perceptions are a funny thing...

[Peikko 1,575]

I'd not seen that before, but it made me chuckle.

Tell me, do you think Barack can deliver on his new politics? If so, what's the most radical change that you think we'll see on the political landscape should he become president? I mean in terms of the way politics is done, not policies he might implement.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I'd not seen that before, but it made me chuckle.

Tell me, do you think Barack can deliver on his new politics? If so, what's the most radical change that you think we'll see on the political landscape should he become president? I mean in terms of the way politics is done, not policies he might implement.

Yes, I do. I think the most radical change will be over the amount of corporate influence in the previous two Administrations (both Clinton and Bush). He will bring back more transparency and accountability into the WH. That is something even McCain would be proud of.

see this thread for the long list of Obama endorsements:

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=1647837

Edited March 9, 2008 by Mister Fancypants

[Peikko 1,575]

I am not sure what you are trying to prove with your list. My point about buying into a dream is to do with his crowd pleasing rhetoric like the 2009 troop withdrawal. That doesn't mean all his supporters are dazzled by him. I haven't made the assertion and I don't believe it is true. However, he is playing the crowd, whether you want to admit it or not. He does know the rules of the games and he is playing them for all he is worth. He uses the, "I don't want to say that Hilary would lie/cheat(insert your unpleasant adjective here) because that's not my style of politics" line. What is the impression you are left with when someone says things like that? I'll leave you to work that out.

Ok, so you believe corporate influence would be reduced. What measures is he proposing to ensure that this is true? How will he make sure that politics will be changed permanantly and not just while he is in office playing the honest president role? What are h is actual proposals on transparency? What can he change for the better? They sound great, but in order to mean something, they have to lead to actual workable proposals and I don't see anything more than the lobby ethics bill which I don't see changing things that much. However, again feel free to elaborate how this would work.

I am not for one minute suggesting I wouldn't vote for him were I able to vote if his name were on the ballot, however, were I to do so, it would not be because I thought he could deliver everthing he promisses, but rather because he stands ideologically in the same broad area as I do. I don't buy the dream, so I will not not be tearing his house down when he doesn't deliver it.

Edited March 9, 2008 by Purple_Hibiscus

[Peikko 1,575]

Anyone in the Whitehouse who doesn't play the isolationist America card will restore relations with the rest of the world. McCain could well do so. To suggest that Barack is sufficiently removed from the 'old style' of politics to make him the only one able to do so is just more rhetoric. It's a good sales pitch, I admire it, but I am not buying the goods.

[Heracles 417]

I am not sure what you are trying to prove with your list. My point about buying into a dream is to do with his crowd pleasing rhetoric like the 2009 troop withdrawal. That doesn't mean all his supporters are dazzled by him. I haven't made the assertion and I don't believe it is true. However, he is playing the crowd, whether you want to admit it or not. He does know the rules of the games and he is playing them for all he is worth. He uses the, "I don't want to say that Hilary would lie/cheat(insert your unpleasant adjective here) because that's not my style of politics" line. What is the impression you are left with when someone says things like that? I'll leave you to work that out.

Ok, so you believe corporate influence would be reduced. What measures is he proposing to ensure that this is true? How will he make sure that politics will be changed permanantly and not just while he is in office playing the honest president role? What are h is actual proposals on transparency? What can he change for the better? They sound great, but in order to mean something, they have to lead to actual workable proposals and I don't see anything more than the lobby ethics bill which I don't see changing things that much. However, again feel free to elaborate how this would work.

I am not for one minute suggesting I wouldn't vote for him were I able to vote if his name were on the ballot, however, were I to do so, it would not be because I thought he could deliver everthing he promisses, but rather because he stands ideologically in the same broad area as I do. I don't buy the dream, so I will not not be tearing his house down when he doesn't deliver it.

If people really want change they should stop voting in your stereotypical 'American style' politician who delivers a whole lot of song and dance to get into office but then doesn't actually do or achieve anything while in office. I noticed the other day that the congress had a hearing on CEO's pay. I nearly fell off my chair laughing. The people who waste hundreds of billions of tax payers money on BS have the nerve to question others about their pay.

People never seem to ask what exactly is the change they are proposing? How will they do it? etc

[Jason-Sasha 1]

I am not sure what you are trying to prove with your list. My point about buying into a dream is to do with his crowd pleasing rhetoric like the 2009 troop withdrawal. That doesn't mean all his supporters are dazzled by him. I haven't made the assertion and I don't believe it is true. However, he is playing the crowd, whether you want to admit it or not. He does know the rules of the games and he is playing them for all he is worth. He uses the, "I don't want to say that Hilary would lie/cheat(insert your unpleasant adjective here) because that's not my style of politics" line. What is the impression you are left with when someone says things like that? I'll leave you to work that out.

Ok, so you believe corporate influence would be reduced. What measures is he proposing to ensure that this is true? How will he make sure that politics will be changed permanantly and not just while he is in office playing the honest president role? What are h is actual proposals on transparency? What can he change for the better? They sound great, but in order to mean something, they have to lead to actual workable proposals and I don't see anything more than the lobby ethics bill which I don't see changing things that much. However, again feel free to elaborate how this would work.

I am not for one minute suggesting I wouldn't vote for him were I able to vote if his name were on the ballot, however, were I to do so, it would not be because I thought he could deliver everthing he promisses, but rather because he stands ideologically in the same broad area as I do. I don't buy the dream, so I will not not be tearing his house down when he doesn't deliver it.

If people really want change they should stop voting in your stereotypical 'American style' politician who delivers a whole lot of song and dance to get into office but then doesn't actually do or achieve anything while in office. I noticed the other day that the congress had a hearing on CEO's pay. I nearly fell off my chair laughing. The people who waste hundreds of billions of tax payers money on BS have the nerve to question others about their pay.

People never seem to ask what exactly is the change they are proposing? How will they do it? etc

Well said. I was just joking about this same thing earlier today with a coworker.

[Joe&Ghe 0]

I don't believe he is politically niave, I believe he knows full welll how to manipulate an audience, and how to play the political games for his own advantage. That's not necessarily a bad thing but there are potential risks in that strategy too. At some point, a lot of people are going to feel disenchanted, not because he will do anything terrible wrong but because if you buy into a dream when you wake up and realise reality can't possibly deliver on the dream, you want to blame someone and the person you will blame is the person who sold you the dream.

Your argument always goes back to how Obama isn't politically naive like he pretends to be..well..some news to you my firend..do you know that HE IS A POLITICIAN?

Ofcorz he plays politics like everyone else, Don't assume that most of the people in this nation are being duped by Obama into false hope & dreams..well..people know what they are doing they can also think for themselves you know? So don't assume that people are just going to BLAME this person if he doesn't deliver on those dreams. People KNOW what to expect when he takes over the office..it won't be easy though.

[Donna A 4]

I'm sorry but I don't see Obama being second fiddle to a dirty politician like Hillary who will stoop down to anything just to attain power..I don't even wanna see Hillary as the VP candidate.

If Obama losses the nomination..then oh well...I'm sorry to say that I will not be voting this year...I bet a lot of democratic voters would feel the same way...I've seen enough clintons..they were good in the 90's but it's time to move on. I've had enough bushes & clintons in my lifetime.

HILLARY's experience in the whitehouse she said is critical..but I don't even know why she claims to have experience....She wasn't the president.

If a CEO has work for the company for 10 years, and the wife was living with the man for 10 years..does that mean she also have 10 years experience? Think about it guys.

my husband is a doctor and i know alot more about medicine now then i did before marrying him. so yes, someone who is married to someone does know more then someone who is not. it doesnt make me a doctor but i probably know more then someone who is not married to a doctor.

[no name 1]

I am not sure what you are trying to prove with your list. My point about buying into a dream is to do with his crowd pleasing rhetoric like the 2009 troop withdrawal. That doesn't mean all his supporters are dazzled by him. I haven't made the assertion and I don't believe it is true. However, he is playing the crowd, whether you want to admit it or not. He does know the rules of the games and he is playing them for all he is worth. He uses the, "I don't want to say that Hilary would lie/cheat(insert your unpleasant adjective here) because that's not my style of politics" line. What is the impression you are left with when someone says things like that? I'll leave you to work that out.

Ok, so you believe corporate influence would be reduced. What measures is he proposing to ensure that this is true? How will he make sure that politics will be changed permanantly and not just while he is in office playing the honest president role? What are h is actual proposals on transparency? What can he change for the better? They sound great, but in order to mean something, they have to lead to actual workable proposals and I don't see anything more than the lobby ethics bill which I don't see changing things that much. However, again feel free to elaborate how this would work.

I am not for one minute suggesting I wouldn't vote for him were I able to vote if his name were on the ballot, however, were I to do so, it would not be because I thought he could deliver everthing he promisses, but rather because he stands ideologically in the same broad area as I do. I don't buy the dream, so I will not not be tearing his house down when he doesn't deliver it.

And Steven - to your point about a celebrity 'list' and his fans and his anti-estbalishment line:

How anti-establishment is all this?

They were the two competing elements in Barack Obama’s time in the Senate: his megawatt celebrity and the realities of the job he was elected to do. He went to the Senate intent on learning the ways of the institution, telling reporters he would be “looking for the washroom and trying to figure out how the phones work.” But frustrated by his lack of influence and what he called the “glacial pace,” he soon opted to exploit his star power. He was running for president even as he was still getting lost in the Capitol’s corridors.

---

He spent much of his time raising money for other Democrats, which helped him build chits and lists of potential voters. He tended to his image, even upbraiding a reporter for writing that he had smoked a cigarette (a habit he later said he gave up for his presidential bid).

---

He met with nearly one-third of the Senate, from both sides of the aisle, including his future rival, Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, to learn about the institution and solicit advice on how to succeed. That shaped a strategy: work hard, tend to your constituents, and, above all, get along with others. He spent many weekends traveling across Illinois for town-hall-style meetings.

Mr. Obama’s advisers referred to it as “the Hillary model,” patterned after Mrs. Clinton’s approach when she joined the Senate in 2001. But while Mr. Obama expressed admiration for her at the time, he dissuaded reporters from making too close a comparison.

---

Knowing he needed insider help, Mr. Obama cajoled Mr. Daschle’s former chief of staff, Pete Rouse, to lead his office. Mr. Rouse advised the freshman senator about managing relationships on the Hill and helped engineer hefty assignments, including a seat on the Committee on Foreign Relations. He sought out senior colleagues, traveling to Russia with Senator Richard G. Lugar , Republican of Indiana and an advocate of nuclear disarmament, and getting tutorials during late-night Senate debates from Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, considered the Democrats’ master legislator.

---

During the midterm elections that year, Mr. Obama was his party’s most sought-after campaigner — he helped raised nearly $1 million online in a matter of days that spring for Senator Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia, the institution’s senior member. His appearances on the trail helped lay the groundwork for a possible presidential campaign. He earned the good will of some Democrats who have now endorsed him. And most campaign events required tickets, so his staff members collected names and addresses of potential supporters.

---

Finally, Mr. Obama did what he had done when he first arrived in the Senate, quietly consulting those who knew the institution well — Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Daschle — for advice on whether to run.

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=114949

Edited March 10, 2008 by illumine