NationStates Jolt Archive

I personally would like to see Chuck Hagel or Jim Webb. I will cry if he picks Hillary. Your thoughts?

Batman

Batman

Does this mean Robbin will be VVP?

Webb, is, politically the best choice.

John Edwards so he can get the mill worker vote.

Webb, is, politically the best choice.

I agree Webb is the best choice on this particular list. He has a strong military background and served under the Reagan administration. He has had a good run as a Senator out of Virginia from what I can tell. However down side maybe is being married three times and now married to a corporate lawyer.

Chuck Norris.

Chuck Norris.

:sniper::mp5::gundge:

Old meme is old!

Bill Richardson. Get the black and hispanic vote, plus all the whiteys that like Obama. Boom, unbeatable! Or it causes a totally opposite reaction and white people freak at having minorities in office.

:sniper::mp5::gundge:

Old meme is old!

Ok, you be the VP.

Ok, you be the VP.

Sweet. I take it you would want the role of being VP mistress?:fluffle:

Ronald Reagon. I would love to see the Neocons try to vote against Reagon.

RON PAUL!!! or, realisticly, Jonathan Edwards

Hagel may be anti-war, but he is, in reality, a Republican. There's no way he would run as Obama's VP.

I voted Clark because he seems to be a good fit whose views and image would likely match those of the remaining Hillary loyalists. Such a pick in the absence of Hillary agreeing to be the VP (which she still likely won't) would be wise.

I personally would like to see Chuck Hagel or Jim Webb. I will cry if he picks Hillary. Your thoughts?

Why? Instant women & "working white person" vote that won Texas, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and such. Would be as cagey as Cheney without the cabalism or the hand up the President's ass doing ventriloquism.

Bill Richardson. Get the black and hispanic vote, plus all the whiteys that like Obama. Boom, unbeatable! Or it causes a totally opposite reaction and white people freak at having minorities in office.

A very good selection.

Hagel. You don't have to be of the same part to be VP. Jefferson was VP for Adams, and that Administration was actually decent, despite them both being from different parties. Hagel would pick up the voters that are scared by Obama.

Otherwise make it Webb. Just not a Clinton. They're under sniper fire. :sniper:

Hagel. You don't have to be of the same part to be VP. Jefferson was VP for Adams, and that Administration was actually decent, despite them both being from different parties. Hagel would pick up the voters that are scared by Obama.

A couple points:

In the days of Jefferson's administration, political parties were still forming in America and did not mean near as much in American politics as they do now.

Second, again, Hagel's anti-war views do not mean that he would willingly jump the GOP ship and become an Obama-ite, much less enough of one to join him on a presidential ticket. McCain is more well-known for bucking the GOP stance in the past than Hagel is, and he was quite resistant to the idea of being Kerry's VP. In other words, it would depend on Hagel's stance on a lot of other issues, as well as his own personal relationship with Obama, to be able to make that call, and I just don't see it happening.

My first two choices would be Bill Richardson or Wesley Clark.

Why? Instant women & "working white person" vote that won Texas, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and such. Would be as cagey as Cheney without the cabalism or the hand up the President's ass doing ventriloquism.



A very good selection.

Okay, I've had about enough of this meme.

If Hillary Clinton is a representative of the white working class, then I'm a Kryptonian. By your logic, we can clearly see that Idaho (79 - 17 in favor of Obama) is a land full of young, upper-middle-class, college-age black men. Hillary Clinton did not get the white working class in Appalachia because the white working class in Appalachia shares a special affinity with Wesseley/Yale grads; she won it because 1) places like West Virginia and Kentucky go 60/40 Republican in the general, and a vote for her is perceived as a vote to train-wreck a formidable Democratic opponent, and 2) that formidable Democratic candidate happens to be a relative newcomer to the party and black.

The impact should be fairly obvious: she won those places where racial antagonism is particularly deep and where people over 45 have the greatest share of the electorate. Unfortunately for her, those for whom racial antagonism runs particularly deep and people over 45 are statistically far more likely to be conservative than liberal, and the states where they are concentrated in go overwhelmingly Republican and have since 1994 at least. Of all the people we could put on the ticket, she does the least to alter this. What she does do is drive the Mountain West and Southwest, states that are just starting to come around to the fact that the Republicans were playing a shell game with them on abortion for the last 20 years, right back into the Republican fold. If she is on the ticket, let me make the confident prediction that the only states west of the Mississippi the Democrats will win are on the west coast, and once again it will be a game of the Republicans racking up 33 states, the Dems 16, and fighting like mad for Ohio or Pennsylvania or Florida, states that Hillary won't carry against McCain in the general.

Ronald Reagon. I would love to see the Neocons try to vote against Reagon.

Reagan...but you still win the thread :)

Me. I have some Senate procedural rules to add and alter. *nod*

Wesley Clark is the best choice, hands-down. Hell, I'm a Republican and I'd give a Obama/Clark ticket serious consideration.

That being said, Obama WILL NOT take Hilary has a running mate. Him and his wife are more than fed up with the Clintons, and do not want to join hand in hand with the people who have been smearing them non-stop.

That being said, Obama WILL NOT take Hilary has a running mate. Him and his wife are more than fed up with the Clintons, and do not want to join hand in hand with the people who have been smearing them non-stop.

QFT

Okay, I've had about enough of this meme.

If Hillary Clinton is a representative of the white working class, then I'm a Kryptonian. By your logic, we can clearly see that Idaho (79 - 17 in favor of Obama) is a land full of young, upper-middle-class, college-age black men. Hillary Clinton did not get the white working class in Appalachia because the white working class in Appalachia shares a special affinity with Wesseley/Yale grads; she won it because 1) places like West Virginia and Kentucky go 60/40 Republican in the general, and a vote for her is perceived as a vote to train-wreck a formidable Democratic opponent, and 2) that formidable Democratic candidate happens to be a relative newcomer to the party and black.

The impact should be fairly obvious: she won those places where racial antagonism is particularly deep and where people over 45 have the greatest share of the electorate. Unfortunately for her, those for whom racial antagonism runs particularly deep and people over 45 are statistically far more likely to be conservative than liberal, and the states where they are concentrated in go overwhelmingly Republican and have since 1994 at least. Of all the people we could put on the ticket, she does the least to alter this. What she does do is drive the Mountain West and Southwest, states that are just starting to come around to the fact that the Republicans were playing a shell game with them on abortion for the last 20 years, right back into the Republican fold. If she is on the ticket, let me make the confident prediction that the only states west of the Mississippi the Democrats will win are on the west coast, and once again it will be a game of the Republicans racking up 33 states, the Dems 16, and fighting like mad for Ohio or Pennsylvania or Florida, states that Hillary won't carry against McCain in the general.

First of all, thanks for misrepresenting my post. "A very good selection" was in reference to Bill Richardson, not Hillary Clinton.

Second, You make a very good point. I was asking for clarification of Hillaryphobia, and you gave it to me. Thanks.

I'd rather see her stay in the Senate as a potential majority whip, were I able to assign roles in an Obama administration.

First of all, thanks for misrepresenting my post. "A very good selection" was in reference to Bill Richardson, not Hillary Clinton.


If you notice, Intangelon, I don't really talk about that part; I spend the bulk of my critique on the notion that "If she wins the working white person vote in the primary, she MUST be able to win them in the general" that the first part of your post seemed to take for granted. I find it wrong for two reasons: 1) she only carried the working white vote in very specific areas, all east of the Mississippi, something that no one in the media talks about because that would require actually trying to remember there being an "across the Mississippi" that isn't California, and 2) there is not much in the way of compelling evidence that the if/then propositional makes any sense.

Which brings me to:

Second, You make a very good point. I was asking for clarification of Hillaryphobia, and you gave it to me. Thanks.


Unless you're using the word "Phobia" in a way that is stripped of most of its conventional meaning, then there's two of us misrepresenting. I'm not afraid of Hillary, nor am I afraid of her candidacy. I do think that there is a legitemate process that must be taken to the nomination and she has failed to meet that bar, but that is not the same thing. Nowhere in my post do I discuss fear in my discussion of demographics.

You'll forgive me if, after several discussions with Hillary supporters, you'll find that I find the term "Hillaryphobia" to be an incredibly loaded term whose implicit meaning I wholeheartedly reject. The usual connotation is that I'm sexist, which as a feminist, to put it bluntly, I find to be fighting words.


I'd rather see her stay in the Senate as a potential majority whip, were I able to assign roles in an Obama administration.

Of all the roles for her, that might actually make sense, but I'm not sure, practically speaking, whether she could get the support she needed for that within the party. My sense is that she's burned a lot of bridges and a lot of the behind-the-scenes arm-twisting she did in the months between Super Tuesday and Kentucky will not be forgotten, nor still will the perception of race baiting, so it's uncertain whether or not she still has the pull with party elites and many sections of the Democratic party she once did.