*The United States Presidential Election * (II)

furriner wrote:Not really.

Democrats today = Republicans of 125 years ago.

Really?:

"They supported big business generally, hard money (i.e. the gold standard), high tariffs, and high pensions for Union veterans."

Link

The Repubs were also notoriously corrupt then as half of Grant's (1869-77) Cabinet were convicted of graft. However I would agree that the current Democrat policy seems to be protectionism at home and isolationism abroad which has more in common with Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge than FDR or JFK. I wouldn't be surprised if Obama attempted to reintroduce Prohibition as a means of rescuing the "bitter" working class.

Obama wins the Democrat Nomination.

Maybe a bit premature - but it's a foregone conclusion.

Go Barack. Can't help but cheer for the bloke.

Yep he comes across as a sincere but a little bit politically naive guy. Go Obama.

If the Alfred E Neuman lookalike wins, and after all the maverick claims begins to repeat Bush's lines. will it be a case of

McCain - a chip off he old blockhead?

OMG, Hillary still refuses to concede. What a bitter bitch. She's prepared to damage the democrat's chances in the presidential election through sheer stubborness.

Hillary, it's over. You've lost. Accept it, and throw your support behind Obama for the sake of your party.

And after this stubborn bitchy display she probably fully expects to be the first choice for the VP.

The question has to be asked (And i'm sure the Obama camp is asking themselves this as well)- Can Obama win the presidency without Hillary as his number two?

After tonight, I have no doubt that the Obama camp is extremely angry with Clinton, and in the heat of the moment is seriously considering snubbing her as a vice Presidential candidate.

McCain must be rubbing himself all over with glee.

(That's glee, furry, not ghee).

Henry wrote:The question has to be asked (And i'm sure the Obama camp is asking themselves this as well)- Can Obama win the presidency without Hillary as his number two?

After tonight, I have no doubt that the Obama camp is extremely angry with Clinton, and in the heat of the moment is seriously considering snubbing her as a vice Presidential candidate.

I think Hillary's plan is simple.

Tell Obama he has her full support - as long as he puts her on the ticket.

Does Obama want her inside the tent pissing out, or outside the tent pissing in?

Having said that, there's always the chance that Hillary as VP could be inside the tent pissing in.

Hass wrote:I think Hillary's plan is simple.

Tell Obama he has her full support - as long as he puts her on the ticket.

Then hire a very good hitman.

Fixed.

freddled gruntbuggly wrote:

Hass wrote:I think Hillary's plan is simple.

Tell Obama he has her full support - as long as he puts her on the ticket.

Then hire a very good hitman.

Fixed.

Sounds like the plot of "The Manchurian Candidate". Where's "Ol' Blue Eyes" when you need him?

Why get a dog when you can bark yourself? According to HRC her dad taught her to shoot. Obama might come to regret the "Annie Oakley" jibe.

lardbucket wrote:McCain must be rubbing himself all over with glee.

(That's glee, furry, not ghee).

What's wrong with ghee?

There's plenty wrong with Neuman II, though.

Obama is going to have enough problems without adding the Clintons to his ticket. It would bring him no positives he can't get from pretty much any well-known white Democrat, and would cost him among the moderate voters who propelled him to victory in the primaries - voters who also like John McCain.

lardbucket wrote:McCain must be rubbing himself all over with glee.

(That's glee, furry, not ghee).

How did I miss this?

This time last year the Democrats had Clinton who was practically guaranteed to become the next president with very little the Republicans could do about it.

The civil war that has happened this year has produced a candidate who is, at best, slight favourite to win in November.

Replacing Clinton with Obama may still produce the presidency but it is a high risk strategy to say the least.

It beats me why the two main US parties work this way. Throwing the candidacy out to a popular vote strikes me as a bit strange in the first place. The upshot is that half of the party's own elite spend millions of dollars telling the electorate why their final selection is not good enough to be president, and this a few months before the election.

If they really feel they have to do it his way then why not the year before the election?

ten years after wrote:This time last year the Democrats had Clinton who was practically guaranteed to become the next president with very little the Republicans could do about it.

The civil war that has happened this year has produced a candidate who is, at best, slight favourite to win in November.

Replacing Clinton with Obama may still produce the presidency but it is a high risk strategy to say the least.

It beats me why the two main US parties work this way. Throwing the candidacy out to a popular vote strikes me as a bit strange in the first place. The upshot is that half of the party's own elite spend millions of dollars telling the electorate why their final selection is not good enough to be president, and this a few months before the election.

If they really feel they have to do it his way then why not the year before the election?

Because of "front-loading" the whole business was supposed to have been concluded by the begiining of February this year which would have given the nominee 9 months of campaigning. The Democrats have made life difficult for themselves by having a proportional sharing out of state delegates, in response to Jesse Jackson's complaints after the 1984 campaign, and a mixture of caucuses, which are about as democratic as the old-style union meetings in factory car parks, and primaries. Texas had both a primary and a caucus which ended up giving Hillary fewer delegates despite winning the popular vote. HRC was also deprived of four delegates whom the voters had elected there for no apparent reason other than having the chutzpah to challenge the party bosses' decision to exclude them altogether.

If the Democrats had used the Republicans' method of "winner-takes-all" state delegate selection Hillary would have comfortably seen off Obama as she won the larger industrial states whilst Obama mainly won the smaller, rural states (who will mostly vote for McCain in November) and Obama would have been consigned to history as just another Jesse Jackson-lite candidate.

What we have learned from this primary season is that the supporters of a party previously characterised as the bastion of religious bigots and xenophobic prejudice have chosen their most moderate candidate since Dwight D.Eisenhower whilst the contest in the other party which has swung sharply to the left in recent years has been dogged by accusations of racism and sexism and its supporters have been characterised by the winning candidate as "clinging to guns and religion." How the world turns!

I listened to Clinton's speech today - she said that she had "suspended" her campaign. Interesting choice of words. Could it be that unless she gets the VP nomination or some sort of guarrantee about a job in Obama's administration (should he win) will she try and slug it out at the Democratic Convention?

Basil wrote:I listened to Clinton's speech today - she said that she had "suspended" her campaign. Interesting choice of words. Could it be that unless she gets the VP nomination or some sort of guarrantee about a job in Obama's administration (should he win) will she try and slug it out at the Democratic Convention?

In a word, yes.

Basil wrote:I listened to Clinton's speech today - she said that she had "suspended" her campaign. Interesting choice of words. Could it be that unless she gets the VP nomination or some sort of guarrantee about a job in Obama's administration (should he win) will she try and slug it out at the Democratic Convention?

Will she hire Boof?

Basil wrote:I listened to Clinton's speech today - she said that she had "suspended" her campaign. Interesting choice of words. Could it be that unless she gets the VP nomination or some sort of guarrantee about a job in Obama's administration (should he win) will she try and slug it out at the Democratic Convention?

I think it's rather a face-saving alternative to the more candid words like "call off" or "give up".

But of course, she would like a big job.

PeterCS wrote:

Basil wrote:I listened to Clinton's speech today - she said that she had "suspended" her campaign. Interesting choice of words. Could it be that unless she gets the VP nomination or some sort of guarrantee about a job in Obama's administration (should he win) will she try and slug it out at the Democratic Convention?

I think it's rather a face-saving alternative to the more candid words like "call off" or "give up".

But of course, she would like a big job.

Prunes!

You may have hit on something there. She does look slightly pinched at times.