Chicagoist: Barack Obama Wins Nomination

matilda

Wed, 04 Jun 2008 15:27:42 -0600

"No problem Tilly Till Tila, and of course I never take you seriously." You would never take anyone seriously who actually has the nerve to challenge your loose grasp on historical facts, or who might be able to name drop books better than you. I've met dozens of pretenders like you, and you're all the same.

Spook

Wed, 04 Jun 2008 15:19:28 -0600

No problem Tilly Till Tila, and of course I never take you seriously. But I do find it amusing from time to time to stop by your lemonaid stand, pat you on the head and toss a nickel of knowledge at you cause that’s about all you can handle ;-)

Wed, 04 Jun 2008 15:16:15 -0600

"Here's an analysis that shows Obama can win the general election, even without the "indispensable" "swing" states" Not to quibble, but that analysis does not indicate Obama could win without the "indispensable" swing states. It shows that he is currently ahead of McCain in the indispensable swing states and a few known republican strongholds, which is unsurprising given the fact that almost all of the media attention thus far has been focused on Obama v. Clinton rather than on Obama v. McCain. We will see how those numbers hold up(assuming they are true because the margins of error are not listed for the polls and some of the states are apparently within 10 points) when Obama and McCain start slinging mud at each other.

Wed, 04 Jun 2008 14:56:04 -0600

"Given the way she has dealt with her impending defeat in the primary, is she someone you would want to have to overrule on a big decision? The prez and VP have to be on the same page and I don't think HRC is one to be overruled and not carry a grudge." I think the Bush/Cheney years have really left us with an inflated sense of the VPs real power. While Clinton has some serious flaws, I don't think she is presumptious or stupid enough to think she can actually control or severly influence the white house from behind the scenes as a VP. Besides acting as president of the senate, the VP is simply another advisor to the president. Bush Sr. was against the majority of Regan's economic policies (remember the term "vodoo econonmics"), yet he was selected as a VP and kept his mouth shut until it was his turn to run. I think Clinton simply looks at the VP slot as an opportunity to keep her name relevant for 8 more years and run as the incumbant VP when Obama's time is up. If it would help his electability, I see no reason not to select her as the candidate.

Navin

Wed, 04 Jun 2008 14:28:04 -0600

And you point really has nothing to do with my point about spying, unless I am missing something. If nothing's relative than I suppose you're correct. Only real democracy Our definition of "Democracy" seems to change depending on how far the leaders of those nations are willing to bend over or whether or not we like the results of the vote. And if 'democracy' is the yardstick on economic and military aid then there are a lot of countries that will be surprised when the money gets cut off.

fed up

Wed, 04 Jun 2008 14:08:00 -0600

I dont think HRC has any chance of being VP. As for the Israel policy Obama has to say the right things or we will be going through the whole is he a muslim saga again and again. It's kinda of strange that its a few crazy christians that are giving obama headaches now I know why the left has stayed away from religion.

dopplerd

Wed, 04 Jun 2008 13:59:30 -0600

What really bothers me is HRC's sense of entitlement toward this whole process. Edwards in 2004 didn't hang on to the bitter end and force a huge rift in the party. He saw the writing on the wall as it appeared and accepted that he would not be the nominee. HRC has been delusional about her prospects for victory for at least a month now, a month that could have been time to reunify and move forward. Ol' Harold Ickes and the other HRC hacks feel like to fairest solution for the mess in MI is to award 100% of the delegates to Clinton. What? The solution that was worked out seems pretty fair given the steaming pile the DNC rules committee was handed. The math that HRC is using to justify more popular voters is just laughable, and the super delegates obviously saw through the BS and have gone to Obama in droves. Given the way she has dealt with her impending defeat in the primary, is she someone you would want to have to overrule on a big decision? The prez and VP have to be on the same page and I don't think HRC is one to be overruled and not carry a grudge.

matilda

Wed, 04 Jun 2008 13:54:25 -0600

"It's naive to put all countries on the same level considering that (tiny) Israel has gotten more economic aid and harmful policy concessions than any other countries (or in cases continents) in the world for many several decades. That's history for you though............. " More history: Israel is the only real democarcy in that part of the world (one might count Turkey as being in the Middle East, while others prefer to place it in Europe). That would be one very important reason--among others--that we have supported that country so long. And you point really has nothing to do with my point about spying, unless I am missing something.

Dave!

Wed, 04 Jun 2008 13:49:42 -0600

Actually, the idea that Obama "needs" Clinton to pick up the "swing states" in order to win the general election is a myth, too. Here's an analysis that shows Obama can win the general election, even without the "indispensable" "swing" states: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/3/1102/08063/782/527059

Navin

Wed, 04 Jun 2008 13:44:56 -0600

By the way, Spook, all countries tend to spy on each other, even friends, whether for military or industrial purposes. Please refrain from being so naive about the world and its history. It's naive to put all countries on the same level considering that (tiny) Israel has gotten more economic aid and harmful policy concessions than any other countries (or in cases continents) in the world for many several decades. That's history for you though.............

matilda

Wed, 04 Jun 2008 13:44:25 -0600

My mistake, Spook. Taking you seriously again. When will I learn?

Slaphappy

Wed, 04 Jun 2008 13:40:57 -0600

Picking the strongest opponent worked for Kennedy when he selected Johnson as his running mate--Johnson had actually led a pretty vocal "stop kennedy" coalition in the democratic party during the primary process until he was selected at the convention. Yeah, then Kennedy was assassinated under suspicious circumstances. (Just saying....)

Spook

Wed, 04 Jun 2008 13:36:52 -0600

"By the way, where did you pull the "thirty-five percent" from? Why not 40%? well I low balled the figure least I get accused of being "antisemitic" like they did Nadia Abu El Haj. Did any one read the article in the New Yorker about her!?! Unbelievable what they put her through!

matilda

Wed, 04 Jun 2008 13:24:07 -0600

"Yea a "friend" that spies on us, and represents a good thirty-five percent of the reason why half the world hates us, all the while being a continious greedy black whole for USA welfare dollars " Yes, one or two mildly interesting points, but that does not address the point that our Israel policy is unlikely to change anytime soon. By the way, where did you pull the "thirty-five percent" from? Why not 40%? By the way, Spook, all countries tend to spy on each other, even friends, whether for military or industrial purposes. Please refrain from being so naive about the world and its history.

Wed, 04 Jun 2008 13:22:09 -0600

"Since when did second place in the primary give someone a leg up in the choice for VP?" Does the name John Edwards ring a bell? Not saying Clinton as VP is a good idea, but picking your strongest opponent in the primaries can be viewed as a way unify the party if sharp divisions exist. Obama may have carried the nomination in the end, but it wasn't a blowout and Clinton carried several swing states that Obama needs to win if he is going to take the presidency. Picking the strongest opponent worked for Kennedy when he selected Johnson as his running mate--Johnson had actually led a pretty vocal "stop kennedy" coalition in the democratic party during the primary process until he was selected at the convention.

Slaphappy

Wed, 04 Jun 2008 13:09:05 -0600

Hillary is doing all of this because she wants Obama to lose -- it'll make a 2012 bid that much easier. "See what happened when you didn't nominate me? McCain was elected and didn't make things better." For all of her bluster about making the country better, all she's interested in is Hillary Clinton. Obama could always throw a curveball and tap a woman as his VP (I bet that would burn Hillary up!), but any way I look at it, it has to be Richardson. John McCain? Does anyone honestly believe all these American women are going to vote for a man who reminds them of somebody's ex-husband? Running for the highest public office with a trophy wife at your side doesn't help McCain either. Exactly. The "party of morals" nominating a guy who ditched his first wife for a wealthy second wife. What a creep.

Navin

Wed, 04 Jun 2008 13:09:04 -0600

There's not any political will to even entertain the idea of holding them acountable for anything. I don't know what you mean about 'change' I've always said that Obama's politics as usual when it comes to the democrats although a bit more preferable than Clinton. Anyway, the 'noble fool' argument's tired and neither of the two parties is getting my vote. Settle for "more of the same" or "more of the same *light*" and perpetuate the self-fullfilling prophecy if you will..

Spook

Wed, 04 Jun 2008 13:08:46 -0600

"there is zero chance this country will treat Israel as anything but a best friend for years to come" Yea a "friend" that spies on us, and represents a good thirty-five percent of the reason why half the world hates us, all the while being a continious greedy black whole for USA welfare dollars

Dave!

Wed, 04 Jun 2008 13:06:52 -0600

McCain/Clinton? Yeah, right!! Please... I hope that's sarcasm I missed. McCain's been busting his hump to court the right and shed his "maverick" image to become a good party boy, and you think he'd risk that to have a *Clinton* on the ballot? The only thing Republican's seem to hate more than freedom are Bill and Hillary. C'mon... Besides, I don't think Hillary's "18 million" supporters are _really_ going to stand by her side through all of this. They are already starting to defect: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hilary-rosen/i-am-not-a-bargaining-chi_b_105133.html Like I said: Obama doesn't need her. McCain most certainly doesn't want her. No one needs her or wants her anymore. She needs to slink back to the Senate before she does any more damage to her _own_ reputation.

matilda

Wed, 04 Jun 2008 12:41:40 -0600

You can talk about change all you want, but the reality is one must suffer through the current political process in order to gain the prize. It's not fair, it is not right, and it's not pretty, but the sooner some of you lefties realize and accept this, the less chance your heart will be broken to pieces in the future, and more cynicism sets in. By the way, there is zero chance this country will treat Israel as anything but a best friend for years to come. It's not politically possible, for one thing.

Navin

Wed, 04 Jun 2008 12:36:31 -0600

So today Obama talked about "change" by saying that he's going to have the exact same policy toward Israel as both Clinton AND McCain....ungh.

YoknapatawphaTourismBoard

Wed, 04 Jun 2008 12:21:59 -0600

Since when did second place in the primary give someone a leg up in the choice for VP? Since many of her voters are, er, bitter about her loss. Bitter enough to threaten to either go McCain or write her name in. Many, probably most, of these will vote for Obama, but why spend the next five months courting people who already identify as Democrats? Spend that time and money courting people who didn't vote in the primaries instead.

dopplerd

Wed, 04 Jun 2008 12:06:05 -0600

Since when did second place in the primary give someone a leg up in the choice for VP? Hillary Clinton/Tracy Flick's late in coming concession is just sour grapes and doesn't make me believe that she really cares more about a Dem in the White House than she does in Hillary Clinton in the White House. She needs to realize that every minute that goes by without her concession is a minute closer to a John McCain presidency, not a minute closer to her nomination for president.

irishman1

Wed, 04 Jun 2008 12:04:45 -0600

"If McCain has sense, he will kneel before Hillary Clinton, make some concessions to his platform, and do whatever it takes to get her on as VP." Love it. How did Kramer put it to Morty Seinfeld?..."NOW we're playing politics!".

JawsOfJosh

Wed, 04 Jun 2008 12:02:44 -0600

The mention of the last name Clinton has already sent millions of dollars and voters in the opposite direction. It will continue to do so if Obama picks Clinton, which we won't do after seeing her barrage of temper tantrums during her campaign. Women voters are NOT going to vote Republican en masse just to spite Obama, they'll vote for Obama rank-and-file. What's the viable alternative? John McCain? Does anyone honestly believe all these American women are going to vote for a man who reminds them of somebody's ex-husband? Running for the highest public office with a trophy wife at your side doesn't help McCain either.

matilda

Wed, 04 Jun 2008 11:56:26 -0600

"If McCain has sense, he will kneel before Hillary Clinton, make some concessions to his platform, and do whatever it takes to get her on as VP." Interesting idea, but I look at it another way. McCain does have sense, and therefore, no matter the potential short-term gains, is wise enough not to invite Bill Clinton to more or less join a McCain administration. Still, an interesting and wonderfully cynical idea.

YoknapatawphaTourismBoard

Wed, 04 Jun 2008 11:50:09 -0600

If McCain has sense, he will kneel before Hillary Clinton, make some concessions to his platform, and do whatever it takes to get her on as VP. I was thinking the exact same thing.

Dave!

Wed, 04 Jun 2008 11:34:27 -0600

I don't think having Hillary would increase his electability. Even if there are some radical Hillary supporters who would *rather vote for a Republican than Obama* which is, well, insanely stupid--he could easily make up those votes with Latinos who would come out for Richardson. He *does not* need Hillary to win. That's pure HRC wingnut B.S.

Sears Tower

Wed, 04 Jun 2008 11:27:01 -0600

If McCain has sense, he will kneel before Hillary Clinton, make some concessions to his platform, and do whatever it takes to get her on as VP. This would lock up the election, as GOP faithful will still vote McCain, and she would get enough of her primary votes for a landslide bipartisan victory in November. As is, he will probably pick Louisiana governor Bobby Jindahl, who unlike McCain is young, charismatic, and a second generation Indian immigrant. Obama will pick a more experienced person from a battleground state and go on to win a close election.

YoknapatawphaTourismBoard

Wed, 04 Jun 2008 11:25:48 -0600

Just how strong of a conviction is in his message that he will throw it out the window just to get "Hillary's votes". Better to lose the election and cede the next eight years on principal? Talk about a noble fool!

irishman1

Wed, 04 Jun 2008 11:12:47 -0600

The GOP will not make Richardson's ethnicity an issue. Maybe you people on this board think that is what the GOP will do. But c'mon, that seems a bit off. I KNEW that more Liberals watch O'Reilly than Republicans. It also seems odd to me that Obama hammered away in the Primary about how Hillary is a symbol of what he wants to change in Washington. He made mention that Hillary is a symbol of lobbyists and special interests. He seperated himself from Hillary and said that he is different, she is the problem, and he will change Washington. Then he is considering offering her the Vice Presidency? Or a cabinet position? Or anything? Yo! Barack! I thought she was the problem?!? Just how strong of a conviction is in his message that he will throw it out the window just to get "Hillary's votes". Can you say, "just another politician"?

magikist

Wed, 04 Jun 2008 10:55:01 -0600

Sparky - Agreed, I think Richardson would be a great choice but not help in the "electability" factor. Yo - Also agree a cabinet position would be a good idea.

matilda

Wed, 04 Jun 2008 10:53:21 -0600

I would love the GOP to make an issue of Richardson's ethnic background were he to get the VP slot. The GOP already has enough problems attracting Hispanics, and pointing more fat white fingers at this guy to point out he is a bit more brown-skinned that many of us would drive even more Latinos to the Dems. Bring it on, as W might say.

YoknapatawphaTourismBoard

Wed, 04 Jun 2008 10:52:14 -0600

I can't see how he can't offer it to her. I think it's a bad idea to have Bill shooting off his fat mouth for eight years and the administration constantly having to distance themselves or excuse him. But if, when all is said and done, 25% of her 18 million won't vote for Obama without her, then it behooves him to make the offer. Ideally he'd approach her and say something to the effect of, "Look, you're not going to be doing much as a VP, how about a cherry cabinet position or Supreme Court position? (Second vacancy, please.)" I like Sibelius or Jim Webb.

sparky

Wed, 04 Jun 2008 10:47:24 -0600

Slap: while many do not know right now that Richardson is Hispanic, I am sure that the Republicans will have no qualms exploiting that fact if he was placed as VP. Then everyone will know. And then all of the people that are afraid that Hispanic illegals are taking the good jobs of the American citizens may think Richardson is a bad choice. (I can already imagine it on the O'Reilly Factor). Don't get me wrong, I really like the guy, and think it would be a good ticket. People should vote on experience, and character and ideas, and it is stupid that people wouldn't vote for someone because of their ethnicity or gender or race, but I just don't think it wouldn't be the best choice right now. But who knows? It's really all speculation.

Dave!

Wed, 04 Jun 2008 10:42:59 -0600

I'm with you, Slaphappy. I think an Obama/Richardson ticket would be fantastic. Obama/Clinton? God, no!!

Slaphappy

Wed, 04 Jun 2008 10:40:37 -0600

He needs to tap Bill Richardson as his VP. I've said this from the beginning -- he has all the experience in the world (Governor, Congressman, head of Dept. of Energy, UN Ambassador) and would totally eliminate the "he has no experience" angle at which the Republicans will rightfully hammer away. I've heard some people say, "oh, you can't have a black and a latino on the same ticket." And I say, how many people even realize that Richardson is latino? His last name is Richardson, for God's sake. Of course, now there's this steady drumbeat that Hillary should be the VP -- um, why? So she can undermine his authority at every turn by acting as some sort of co-president? I don't trust her any farther than I can throw her.

magikist

Wed, 04 Jun 2008 10:33:39 -0600

I've always thought that whomever won the nomination would choose a southern white man as their running mate, to try and get around those voters who would never vote for a black man/ woman. It will be interesting to see what happens here.