Obama: 'If I am not ready, why do you think I would be such a great vice president?'

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

And this would also get her onboard, in all honesty, with a real proposal for a Clinton-Obama ticket in case she won the nomination by a hairline fracture so as to solidify her unity against JM in November. Trying to play the interested party at this point is just plain old more of the same.

Yep. For the sake of the Party, she needs to change her approach.

[garya505 2]

I didn't become cynical, I have always been cynical about politicians because political people have to live a very different life style to most people.

To be a successful politician you have to devote most of your life to the service of politics. That's not a 9-5 job and it takes a certain egocentricity to be able to do that, particulary at the higher levels. What is important, is not that a leader is egocentric, but that he/she wishes to be a leader to achieve goals that are important to not just themselves, but the people who elect them.

Being cynical is not necessarily a bad thing, it can be, but only if you take it to such a degree that you see no good in anyone. I don't see any of the current crop of candidates as all bad, not even Huckabee (and yes I know he has finally dropped out!)

Its like Gore/Bush and Kerry/Bush... people, given the choice over how much damage a President could do to the planet, chose whom they chose and now we can see the effects of the decision. Its a clear and cut case this time around in my opinion, independent of which candidate you like more (or dislike more in others' convoluted views of reality), that if you wish for something to be done about things that are currently not happening how you like them, then try to at least bring in someone that at the minimum taunts a change rather than flaunting the status quo or worse, experience as a catchphrase.

I agree, it would have been much worse had we elected Gore and/or Kerry.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

And this would also get her onboard, in all honesty, with a real proposal for a Clinton-Obama ticket in case she won the nomination by a hairline fracture so as to solidify her unity against JM in November. Trying to play the interested party at this point is just plain old more of the same.

Yep. For the sake of the Party, she needs to change her approach.

It's really interesting that she "needs to change her approach" while Obama acolytes can call her everything they ripped out from Karl Rove's playbook and pretend that also doesn't harm party unity

[HAL 9000 96]

I didn't become cynical, I have always been cynical about politicians because political people have to live a very different life style to most people.

To be a successful politician you have to devote most of your life to the service of politics. That's not a 9-5 job and it takes a certain egocentricity to be able to do that, particulary at the higher levels. What is important, is not that a leader is egocentric, but that he/she wishes to be a leader to achieve goals that are important to not just themselves, but the people who elect them.

Being cynical is not necessarily a bad thing, it can be, but only if you take it to such a degree that you see no good in anyone. I don't see any of the current crop of candidates as all bad, not even Huckabee (and yes I know he has finally dropped out!)

Its like Gore/Bush and Kerry/Bush... people, given the choice over how much damage a President could do to the planet, chose whom they chose and now we can see the effects of the decision. Its a clear and cut case this time around in my opinion, independent of which candidate you like more (or dislike more in others' convoluted views of reality), that if you wish for something to be done about things that are currently not happening how you like them, then try to at least bring in someone that at the minimum taunts a change rather than flaunting the status quo or worse, experience as a catchphrase.

I agree, it would have been much worse had we elected Gore and/or Kerry.

Care to tell that to the families of the fallen in Iraq?

[no name 1]

And this would also get her onboard, in all honesty, with a real proposal for a Clinton-Obama ticket in case she won the nomination by a hairline fracture so as to solidify her unity against JM in November. Trying to play the interested party at this point is just plain old more of the same.

Yep. For the sake of the Party, she needs to change her approach.

A mirror would do Obama well. If he is so perfect, why did he lose Texas & Ohio?

[HAL 9000 96]

And this would also get her onboard, in all honesty, with a real proposal for a Clinton-Obama ticket in case she won the nomination by a hairline fracture so as to solidify her unity against JM in November. Trying to play the interested party at this point is just plain old more of the same.

Yep. For the sake of the Party, she needs to change her approach.

It's really interesting that she "needs to change her approach" while Obama acolytes can call her everything they ripped out from Karl Rove's playbook and pretend that also doesn't harm party unity

I guess you need to consider then whom the current frontrunner is towards the, um, nomination.

And this would also get her onboard, in all honesty, with a real proposal for a Clinton-Obama ticket in case she won the nomination by a hairline fracture so as to solidify her unity against JM in November. Trying to play the interested party at this point is just plain old more of the same.

Yep. For the sake of the Party, she needs to change her approach.

A mirror would do Obama well. If he is so perfect, why did he lose Texas & Ohio?

Wasn't he supposed to win them? Besides, FWIW, he didn't do that bad, did he? That's why its called a close contest.

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

And this would also get her onboard, in all honesty, with a real proposal for a Clinton-Obama ticket in case she won the nomination by a hairline fracture so as to solidify her unity against JM in November. Trying to play the interested party at this point is just plain old more of the same.

Yep. For the sake of the Party, she needs to change her approach.

It's really interesting that she "needs to change her approach" while Obama acolytes can call her everything they ripped out from Karl Rove's playbook and pretend that also doesn't harm party unity

Actually, Obama has been very clear to his camp that he doesn't want any dirty politics. I'm not sure which Rovian tactics have been used on Hillary so far, but I think there's a distinction between challenging your opponent's record and playing dirty.

[garya505 2]

I didn't become cynical, I have always been cynical about politicians because political people have to live a very different life style to most people.

To be a successful politician you have to devote most of your life to the service of politics. That's not a 9-5 job and it takes a certain egocentricity to be able to do that, particulary at the higher levels. What is important, is not that a leader is egocentric, but that he/she wishes to be a leader to achieve goals that are important to not just themselves, but the people who elect them.

Being cynical is not necessarily a bad thing, it can be, but only if you take it to such a degree that you see no good in anyone. I don't see any of the current crop of candidates as all bad, not even Huckabee (and yes I know he has finally dropped out!)

Its like Gore/Bush and Kerry/Bush... people, given the choice over how much damage a President could do to the planet, chose whom they chose and now we can see the effects of the decision. Its a clear and cut case this time around in my opinion, independent of which candidate you like more (or dislike more in others' convoluted views of reality), that if you wish for something to be done about things that are currently not happening how you like them, then try to at least bring in someone that at the minimum taunts a change rather than flaunting the status quo or worse, experience as a catchphrase.

I agree, it would have been much worse had we elected Gore and/or Kerry.

Care to tell that to the families of the fallen in Iraq?

Hindsight is always 20/20. There are many scenarios that would lead to much worse results than what has happened in Iraq.

[Sheriff Uling 3]

That was an appropriate response by Sen. Obama. Conversely, the Clinton's statement about a possible Clinton-Obama ticket is pre-mature, condescending, and bold. However, it was a good political tactic that was countered very well by Sen. Obama. Let the games begin... We can look forward to a back and forth exchange in the upcoming weeks. Even though it would be nice if the Democratic nominee was decided, I do look forward to the political death-match between the two heavy-weights.

Edited March 10, 2008 by Sheriff Uling

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

Actually, Obama has been very clear to his camp that he doesn't want any dirty politics. I'm not sure which Rovian tactics have been used on Hillary so far, but I think there's a distinction between challenging your opponent's record and playing dirty.

Really, even when they/you accuse her of being racist?

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/di...bamas_skin.html

[HAL 9000 96]

And this would also get her onboard, in all honesty, with a real proposal for a Clinton-Obama ticket in case she won the nomination by a hairline fracture so as to solidify her unity against JM in November. Trying to play the interested party at this point is just plain old more of the same.

Yep. For the sake of the Party, she needs to change her approach.

It's really interesting that she "needs to change her approach" while Obama acolytes can call her everything they ripped out from Karl Rove's playbook and pretend that also doesn't harm party unity

Actually, Obama has been very clear to his camp that he doesn't want any dirty politics. I'm not sure which Rovian tactics have been used on Hillary so far, but I think there's a distinction between challenging your opponent's record and playing dirty.

Exactly. The trained eye can see the difference between playing dog politics and being a dirty dog politician.

*Disclaimer: I still would prefer a dirty dog over a wolf in sheep's clothing.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

I guess you need to consider then whom the current frontrunner is towards the, um, nomination.

Since I was referring specifically to party unity you need to consider that her support is not insignificant. If it was, Obama would already be the nominee.

[HAL 9000 96]

I didn't become cynical, I have always been cynical about politicians because political people have to live a very different life style to most people.

To be a successful politician you have to devote most of your life to the service of politics. That's not a 9-5 job and it takes a certain egocentricity to be able to do that, particulary at the higher levels. What is important, is not that a leader is egocentric, but that he/she wishes to be a leader to achieve goals that are important to not just themselves, but the people who elect them.

Being cynical is not necessarily a bad thing, it can be, but only if you take it to such a degree that you see no good in anyone. I don't see any of the current crop of candidates as all bad, not even Huckabee (and yes I know he has finally dropped out!)

Its like Gore/Bush and Kerry/Bush... people, given the choice over how much damage a President could do to the planet, chose whom they chose and now we can see the effects of the decision. Its a clear and cut case this time around in my opinion, independent of which candidate you like more (or dislike more in others' convoluted views of reality), that if you wish for something to be done about things that are currently not happening how you like them, then try to at least bring in someone that at the minimum taunts a change rather than flaunting the status quo or worse, experience as a catchphrase.

I agree, it would have been much worse had we elected Gore and/or Kerry.

Care to tell that to the families of the fallen in Iraq?

Hindsight is always 20/20. There are many scenarios that would lead to much worse results than what has happened in Iraq.

Funny... Kerry wanted out while the current scenario was already in force. The only thing that has really changed is the body count on our side and the civilian side... going up for both. So I guess its not really a case of hindsight but rather of "I told you so."

Unless, or course, we want to paraphrase Mr. Cheney's guarantees of a bleak scenario if Mr. Kerry would have won?

I guess you need to consider then whom the current frontrunner is towards the, um, nomination.

Since I was referring specifically to party unity you need to consider that her support is not insignificant. If it was, Obama would already be the nominee.

That is a good point, and well taken. Enough voters have cast their favor in her.

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

Actually, Obama has been very clear to his camp that he doesn't want any dirty politics. I'm not sure which Rovian tactics have been used on Hillary so far, but I think there's a distinction between challenging your opponent's record and playing dirty.

Really, even when they/you accuse her of being racist?

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/di...bamas_skin.html

Wasn't that a blogger who pointed out the darkened shade and not someone from Obama's campaign?

[no name 1]

If I were to advise her, I'd tell her to drop the line about having more experience and I'd tell her stop going after unsubstantiated rumors that question Obama's character. She should go out there and acknowledge what a great candidate her opponent is and that this selection isn't about whether his character is questionable or not, but whether he could do a better job of changing the course this country is on than her. Then focus on the differences in strategy and answer to any allegations that she is still part of the Washington establishment (corporate lobbying, cronyism and secrecy). That would go a LONG way in getting people to consider her a strong candidate. She has a lot of good qualities, but unfortunately, her bad qualities have eclipsed the good. I would even have her criticize the bad things of her husband's Presidency - including sexual indiscretions.

That is her private business, not yours.

Well, thank god you are not her advisor. You wanted her to step down last week. Gimme a break Steven.

A reminder:

I concede. Obama has lost the nomination.

I agree with Gary, even if Obama gets nominated, it won't be without a mudfest at the Conventioin and McCain will be our next President.

Actually, Obama has been very clear to his camp that he doesn't want any dirty politics. I'm not sure which Rovian tactics have been used on Hillary so far, but I think there's a distinction between challenging your opponent's record and playing dirty.

Really, even when they/you accuse her of being racist?

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/di...bamas_skin.html

Wasn't that a blogger who pointed out the darkened shade and not someone from Obama's campaign?

Could be. Could be an insider tipped them to it? Who's to say?

Actually, Obama has been very clear to his camp that he doesn't want any dirty politics. I'm not sure which Rovian tactics have been used on Hillary so far, but I think there's a distinction between challenging your opponent's record and playing dirty.

ah, gotcha. I'll remember that one. Did Sam Power not get that memo?

Edited March 10, 2008 by illumine