Concur. However, I'd argue the potential benefit is a unified democratic party that has been voting like mad in the primary. Does that overcome the potential negatives, such as losses in independent voters? I dunno. Where are the polls on this potential ticket already?
Does anyone (other than Republicans) really believe that the Dem party is going to be splintered come November if Obama is on the ticket with say a Jim Webb or someone else? I just don't see it. I could see a fractured party if Hillary grabbed the nomination, but barring that (unlikely) scenario, I just don't see Obama being hurt by any disunity within the party.
I guess, now that I think about it, probably not. Sure a few oddball Hillary supporters may abstain, but I'd wager you're correct in assuming the opposite would be much more severe. Good points, txyank. I think I may be falling into the "it might not be bad, but there is no compelling reason to risk it" camp.
And you have the nerve to call someone else silly? Including you, I've now counted 4 posts from 4 different people saying the same insulting, idiotic, ludicrous thing. What's next? Aliens blew up the Twin Towers? Impeach Bush. Sentence Him to Live with Mad Conspiracy Loonies.
Nope. That was the CIA . I'd love Hillary on the ticket just to piss off her haters. And I think she'd do a commendable job. But Sen Obama deserves his own presidency. And that would be difficult with both Hillary and Bill in the Whitehouse. Plus Barack should have first dibs on the new interns.
I don't have any problem with that. I just don't see why she should be subjected to the same BS from Obama supporters that she received from the GOP during and after Bill's two terms in office. Two terms, I might add, that appear to be a paradise, at least to me, when compared to the 7+ years we've had of George W. Bush. Impeach Bush.
didnt go through the whole thread, but man if Bill Clinton in some crazy world was the VP candidate you know there would be some sort of attempt on Obama's life probably within the Dem ranks themselves. Heck I would vote for him knowing that sooner than later Slick Willie would be back in the oval office
There's a problem with this view which is that the power those VP's wielded was delegated by the President. Other than the ability to break a tie in the Senate the VP has no power than what the President chooses to delegate. If either Clinton or Obama were the other VP they would probably suffer the same fate as LBJ did under JFK, completely marginalized. This all seems highly speculative. I don't know whether a play was made for VP but I will stand by my view that Clinton isn't that interested in the VP position. That's speculation also but my own feeling is that she is consolodating her own power position to possibly become majority leader of the Senate and for another run in 2012 incase Obama doesn't win or has a disastrous presidency.
Except it's very hard to marginalize the Clintons - they will be more than happy to raise hell and have enough connections all over the place to cause problems if they so choose. And as they've demonstrated in this campaign, they have no problem going that route. If Clinton were VP, she'd be a very active/involved one. How do you explain that for about two weeks, she calmed down and her campaign was talking about the idea of seating a half-delegation from FL/MI and had shut down all the nonsense stuff, and then suddenly on Wednesday - a day before this story comes out - the campaign went on full attack mode again, demanding nothing less than full seating of MI/FL, with Obama getting 0 delegates from MI, and then meeting with a SuperDelegate who then sues the DNC the next day? What changed from the two-week toned down period to Wednesday?
Deckard has not lost his mind. He is reacting to the idea that the Clintons will kill people to accomplish their political objectives-- a staple of extreme Clinton hatred for years. We have a group of Obama Republican types or conservative independents on this bbs. They have long hated the Clintons. Their hatred for the Clintons has little to do with their supporting Obama.
Honestly, there are VERY VERY FEW people who really believe the Clintons would kill someone to further their political goals. The problem is these fruitcakes are very loud and obnoxious. To lump the 90% of reasonable people who dislike Hillary for legitimate reasons with these nutcases is complete idiocy and just subtracts from the real debate about why Hillary lost the nomination. Assigning the beliefs of kooks to a larger number of people is a staple of those who like to avoid real political discussion. Morons like Rush Windbag and Hannity constantly grab small pieces of news about left-wing kook groups and say that all "liberals" and Dems believe the same thing. Complete garbage. Another issue here is that a good chunk of the general public (and people on this forum) actually like Bill Clinton but they don't like Hillary. If you haven't noticed, the vast majority of people here are Dems, NOT Republicans. So this "group of Obama Republican types or conservative independents on this bbs. They have long hated the Clintons" is actually very small. If you took a poll last summer on how members here felt about Bill Clinton's presidency, he would have rated extremely high. So please put this "long hated the Clintons" mess in the can where it belongs. The truth is the long-term Clinton haters on this forum have been propping her up against Obama. Even Rush Windbag told GOP voters to cross over and vote for her. Ann Coulter even said she would prefer Hillary to McCain. That leads us to the final refuge for many of Hillary's supporters: Sexism; that gender was a big reason Dem voters rejected Hillary. Pathetic. Voters rejected Hillary because of herself, not her gender. Some will refuse to accept that, but oh well. Her gender really killed her in Kentucky and West Virginia , places that are loaded with feminist males. Yeah right. Hill ain't Bill. Simple as that.
If you accept the official explanation for all the "suicides" on this list, you are a very gullible man.
I don't know about the suicides, but the list itself contains people who have barely any connection at all. One of the people was rumored to have been involved in an affair. Why would this one in the affair be killed but not the other affairs. Two others on the list were "rumored" to maybe have come across some drug cartel members. That really isn't a connection to the clintons unless someone is going to extreme lengths to try and build a conspiracy case. Many of the deaths on the list related to that acase, and aren't really connected to the Clintons. Some are simple heart attacks. Another one is a lawyer who helped people, but it mentions zero connection to the clintons. Sorry, but I think anyone who looks at that list and believes in some sort of conspiracy is stretching in a major way.
