NationStates Jolt Archive

12:45AM EST. I am pleased.

Okay, please bear in mind that not everyone here is American or knows the names of every American politician ... so who's Biden? What party is he running for? And why do you think it's a good thing?

Okay, please bear in mind that not everyone here is American or knows the names of every American politician ... so who's Biden? What party is he running for? And why do you think it's a good thing?
Presumably it's Joseph Biden (Democratic Senator for some hellhole or another) selected as Obama's running mate.
Although, wasn't Biden the one who said Obama was the first well-dressed, articulate black man he'd seen, or something?

Presumably it's Joseph Biden (Democratic Senator for some hellhole or another) selected as Obama's running mate.
Although, wasn't Biden the one who said Obama was the first well-dressed, articulate black man he'd seen, or something?

Something like that, yeah. Although he didn't mean it that way, of course. :tongue:

Mc. Cain should now pick a black woman for his VP. *nod*

Could be worse. Could be better, but most better choices had no chance. All in all, I think he did his chances of getting elected more help than harm. *nod*

White? Check.
Male? Check.
Christian? Check.

Exactly as predicted, a safe candidate.

Interesting.

Mc. Cain should now pick a black woman for his VP. *nod*

:eek:

...pleasedon'tpickcondiricepleasedon'tpickcondiricepleasedon'tpickcondirice....

AP is reporting Joe Biden, they have 'inside sources' who spoke anonymously, so it is still very possible that he is not the pick.

:eek:

...pleasedon'tpickcondiricepleasedon'tpickcondiricepleasedon'tpickcondirice....

I thought Condi Rice was a decent official (by political standards) until about 10 seconds after she first was appointed.

Okay, please bear in mind that not everyone here is American or knows the names of every American politician ... so who's Biden? What party is he running for? And why do you think it's a good thing?

My sincere apologies. Joe Biden is A 35 year veteran of congress born in Scranton, PA. He was a contender for the top spot this year, but didn't get much traction. He shores up the experience aspect for Obama. He's co-chair of the Foreign Relations committee and is known for working across the aisle with people like Richard Lugar (the other co-chair). He had been the top Democrat on the Judiciary committee for many years. He now heads a major sub-committee there. Joe Biden has run the drug caucus for a long while. He's reached across the aisle to pass the 1994 "Biden Crime Bill." This put 100,000 more law enforcement officers on America's streets. It made a major impact on the crime statistics of the 1990's. He has fought tirelessly to stop violence against women. He's also a pit bull. He is very good at attacking with class. People of both parties consider him to be a stand up guy and a man of his word. You may disagree with Joe Biden, but he always stands by his promises. I would have voted for this man for President, and I'm very happy to see him being tapped for the #2 role.

You can find more info on him here: http://biden.senate.gov/

http://www.joebiden.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden

http://www.joebiden.com/issues/

:eek:

...pleasedon'tpickcondiricepleasedon'tpickcondiricepleasedon'tpickcondirice....

He could always go with Colin Powell.

He could always go with Colin Powell.

He's not a woman. He's a eunuch because Donald Rumsfeld castrated him.

He's not a woman. He's a eunuch because Donald Rumsfeld castrated him.

Yea, but he is black and the Republican & Conservative do like him.

Mc. Cain should now pick a black woman for his VP. *nod*
:eek:

...pleasedon'tpickcondiricepleasedon'tpickcondiricepleasedon'tpickcondirice....
He could always go with Colin Powell.
So he finally got the operation? I've been telling him to do it for years, you can't keep fighting your true self like that.

He's not a woman. He's a eunuch because Donald Rumsfeld castrated him.
You can't joke about castrating black men, that's racist! Also, no fair jumping on his mistake before me.

Presumably it's Joseph Biden (Democratic Senator for some hellhole or another) selected as Obama's running mate.
Although, wasn't Biden the one who said Obama was the first well-dressed, articulate black man he'd seen, or something?

That's not really what he said. It was a poor choice of words, but even Barack exonerated him when he said it. He knows Joe Biden and said he was a good man on the right side of the issues.

Here's a link to Biden's comment and Barack's response. Let's make sure we are being factual when attributing comments to people. I always say that people are entitled to their own opinions, just not their own set of facts.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/31/biden.obama/

Yea, but he is black and the Republican & Conservative do like him.

Yeah, they like him so much Condi took his job. :p

You can't joke about castrating black men, that's racist! Also, no fair jumping on his mistake before me.

I can joke about anything. It's in my contract: *holds up NSG Contract of Unlimited Goofiness*

Could be worse. Could be better, but most better choices had no chance. All in all, I think he did his chances of getting elected more help than harm. *nod*

Exactly. Biden presents balance to the ticket. That's really what you need when selecting a VP. You could choose someone from out of left field and really shake things up. I do not think that would have been a good idea for Obama at this point. You need someone who is going to compliment you and bolster you in areas where you may be weak. This is the role that Dick Cheney played for GWB. W was not very well versed on foreign affairs (one can say that still now, but I digress) and Cheney was the right man at the time. Whether you like Cheney or not, he was the perfect person to compliment Bush.

Solid choice Senator, solid choice.

Exactly. Biden presents balance to the ticket. That's really what you need when selecting a VP. You could choose someone from out of left field and really shake things up. I do not think that would have been a good idea for Obama at this point. You need someone who is going to compliment you and bolster you in areas where you may be weak. This is the role that Dick Cheney played for GWB. W was not very well versed on foreign affairs (one can say that still now, but I digress) and Cheney was the right man at the time. Whether you like Cheney or not, he was the perfect person to compliment Bush.

I thought the only reason Bush chose Cheney was so that no one would assassinate him.

Would you really want Cheney for President?! :eek:

I thought the only reason Bush chose Cheney was so that no one would assassinate him.

Would you really want Cheney for President?! :eek:

Don't forget that Cheney chaired Bush's VP selection committee.

*smirks*

Don't forget that Cheney chaired Bush's VP selection committee.

*smirks*

You know, honestly I'm surprised Cheney haven't had Bush "assassinated", assume office, and got drunk with power.

I was looking forward to Armageddon too. :(

I thought the only reason Bush chose Cheney was so that no one would assassinate him.

Would you really want Cheney for President?! :eek:

I don't want Cheney as a VP. But he was a good choice to balance out Bush. A VP doesn't always have to be someone who agrees with you all the time. I think it's good to have a VP who challenges the President to think beyond their own personal point of view. Biden will do this for Obama, and give him valuable in sight into the tough world of politics in DC. Joe is a fighter and will not allow attacks to go unchallenged. He brings the experience that many says Obama lacks. Obama has the intellectual aspect down and now has someone to help clarify his positions.

You know, honestly I'm surprised Cheney haven't had Bush "assassinated", assume office, and got drunk with power.

I was looking forward to Armageddon too. :(

He probably would've if his ticker didn't go on the fritz. He decided to rule behind the scenes as the fourth branch of government and let his pet president absorb the stress. *nod*

No one has any patience....Obama was going to announce his decision TOMORROW!

He probably would've if his ticker didn't go on the fritz. He decided to rule behind the scenes as the fourth branch of government and let his pet president absorb the stress. *nod*

But if that's true, then where's Armageddon? I want to see Ragnarök (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ragnar%C3%B6k)! :D

AP is reporting Joe Biden, they have 'inside sources' who spoke anonymously, so it is still very possible that he is not the pick.

No one has any patience....Obama was going to announce his decision TOMORROW!

anyone wanna go long odds and claim this was just the obama campaign throwing up even more smoke while clutching their cards even tighter to their collective chests?
(is still holding out hope for schweitzer)

Solid choice Senator, solid choice.

No, THIS would have been a SOLID choice.
http://img.qj.net/uploads/articles_module/105678/mgs-snake_qjgenth.jpg

Let's see McCain's POW experience top that.

But if that's true, then where's Armageddon? I want to see Ragnarök (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ragnar%C3%B6k)! :D

Yeah....

Thor fighting a giant snake would've been epic...

*sigh*

Biden is an Ok choice. But I see a few potential issues.

1. Obama pushes "Change" in Washington...and then selects a 6 term senator?

2. As we know, Obama has trimendous draw with Moderates. But, with his selection of a "liberal" running mate, I think some weight can be given to the preception that an Obama administration would be uncomfortibly leftist for the center-right electorate.

3. Biden, being precieved in Democratic circles as somewhat of an outsider (and a bit more liberal then the bunch), could hurt Obama with the Conservative Ex-Hillary Democrats.

4. The gun lobby. Obama has a piss poor (and limited) record when it comes to gun control. Biden, with is famous "if that's his baby, he needs help" quip during the CNN/Youtube Primary Debate certainly doesn't help is poor (and long) record. It is very, very important not to underestimate NRA members (and the like) as a voting bloc. They helped cost Bush I what should have been a slam dunk 2nd term, and certainly hurt the Democrats (with the AWB) in the 1994 elections. The Democrats have selected two avowedly pro gun control politicians as their shot at the presidency at a time where pro 2nd Amendment activism is at its highest point in decades.

But, in the long run, Biden being a white, (unquestionably) christian, and male Veep candidate may overshadow his potential pitfalls.

Just to clarify, I don't believe what I wrote. I'm just looking at the selection from a logical, detached viewpoint. In the interest of full disclosure, I am presently Undecided.

Yeah....

Thor fighting a giant snake would've been epic...

*sigh*

Am I the only one who gotten a dirty image when they read that?

Am I the only one who gotten a dirty image when they read that?

yes, you pervert.

Who have guessed it...

Oh, I would, sort of.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13765269&postcount=764

Well, a 50/50 hedge at least but I was more singular with John McCain.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13765386&postcount=779

He'd be a fool not to.

I still think Obama should have chosen Sly Stallone.

Something else I just thought of. I think the Republicans have an opportunity here. If McCain goes with Lieberman as his running mate (certainly a legitimate proposition), that might drive a wedge between the conservative and liberal wings of the Democratic party. Those Hillary Democrats might, just might, have some doubt pushed into their minds.

Something else I just thought of. I think the Republicans have an opportunity here. If McCain goes with Lieberman as his running mate (certainly a legitimate proposition), that might drive a wedge between the conservative and liberal wings of the Democratic party. Those Hillary Democrats might, just might, have some doubt pushed into their minds.

Maybe, but I'm pretty sure the Democratic Party universally considers Lieberman to be a shameless turncoat.

I really wouldn't look forward to Biden as VP. The guy still would like nothing more than to ignore the Bill of Rights. Or rather the parts he just doesn't like.

I really wouldn't look forward to Biden as VP. The guy still would like nothing more than to ignore the Bill of Rights. Or rather the parts he just doesn't like.

How so?

Maybe, but I'm pretty sure the Democratic Party universally considers Lieberman to be a shameless turncoat.

Mmmm...I don't know about that. Lieberman was popular enough with New York to beat a wildly spending candidate with the full support of the Party. Lieberman could be popular with those Hillary democrats that, justified or unjustified, were put off by the Obama campaign.

How so?

He did vote to renew the PATRIOT Act in 2006.

ABC NEWS Confirms Secret Service have been assigned to Joe Biden tonight and 2 hours ago were en route to his house. It has to be him pretty much

CNN Confirms from inside sources that Senator Joe Biden (D) of Delaware is Obama's choice for VP, and ABC News confirms Secret Service were en route 2 hours ago to Senator Joe Biden's home. Several family members were gathered at his home as well.

Since it is fairly clear that Joe Biden is the choice, is this a good choice for Obama? He has served in the US Senate for 23 years, is a Catholic, and has a great voting record for the working class. At the same time he has been a major proponent of the War on Drugs, and is somewhat less liberal.

I still go with Rob Portman for McCain, he's Ohio, a great state to take, good on the economy and people would accept him as president, since everyone's got to think that McCain might pop his cork during the presidency.

That's why I don't go for Lieberman, too liberal, too controversial, I'm not sure the right would be too happy with him being a heartbeat away from the oval office.

He's as good as anyone, I suppose. He has boatloads of experience in the foreign policy realm.

I still go with Rob Portman for McCain, he's Ohio, a great state to take, good on the economy and people would accept him as president, since everyone's got to think that McCain might pop his cork during the presidency.

That's why I don't go for Lieberman, too liberal, too controversial, I'm not sure the right would be too happy with him being a heartbeat away from the oval office.

Lieberman would be a very big gamble on McCain's part. He might get some "moderates" and might alienate his base...

Hopefully the second.

That's why I don't go for Lieberman, too liberal, too controversial, I'm not sure the right would be too happy with him being a heartbeat away from the oval office.

The thing is, I don't think McCain has to worry about his base, compared to Obama. McCain has kissed up enough to the Religious Right to united whatever problem he had with them. McCain also didn't have a dirty fight for the nomination like Obama had. I think McCain can afford to use his VP pick to increase his electibility, rather then shore up potential/percieved weaknesses like Obama evidently did.

What we can't determine, however, is how much of a boost a White Christian Male will give Obama on poll day. If it's a big boost, then all this second guessing will be for naught.

The thing is, I don't think McCain has to worry about his base, compared to Obama. McCain has kissed up enough to the Religious Right to united whatever problem he had with them. McCain also didn't have a dirty fight for the nomination like Obama had. I think McCain can afford to use his VP pick to increase his electibility, rather then shore up potential/percieved weaknesses like Obama evidently did.

What we can't determine, however, is how much of a boost a White Christian Male will give Obama on poll day. If it's a big boost, then all this second guessing will be for naught.

Again, if he picks Lieberman, those "fears" the social cons have might come back...

Eh. There are certinly better choices. There are also worse choices.

I would have picked Richardson. But I'm not a candidate for President. Althought that would be cool.

The thing is, I don't think McCain has to worry about his base, compared to Obama. McCain has kissed up enough to the Religious Right to united whatever problem he had with them. McCain also didn't have a dirty fight for the nomination like Obama had. I think McCain can afford to use his VP pick to increase his electibility, rather then shore up potential/percieved weaknesses like Obama evidently did.

What we can't determine, however, is how much of a boost a White Christian Male will give Obama on poll day. If it's a big boost, then all this second guessing will be for naught.

Any gains will be more than the losses incurred by choosing a black atheist female.

Again, if he picks Lieberman, those "fears" the social cons have might come back...

I think McCain has kissed up enough to stabilize his party. There's not nearly the divide in the Republican party as was made by the vicious primary campaign. A choice of Lieberman might seem to give another option for seemingly disenfranchised Conservative Democrats. Perhaps its worth the risk for McCain.

Either way, we'll see how McCain responds. I feel it's comming up pretty soon.

Clarification: the poll now at the top of this thread is from the thread by Aerion, which I merged with this one here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13948033&postcount=44).

No, THIS would have been a SOLID choice.
http://img.qj.net/uploads/articles_module/105678/mgs-snake_qjgenth.jpg


I don't know, he looks like a bit of a snake to me.

I think McCain has kissed up enough to stabilize his party. There's not nearly the divide in the Republican party as was made by the vicious primary campaign. A choice of Lieberman might seem to give another option for seemingly disenfranchised Conservative Democrats. Perhaps its worth the risk for McCain.

Either way, we'll see how McCain responds. I feel it's comming up pretty soon.

I don't think it's a question of gambling for votes, as bad as it sounds I don't think the right will vote for a someone questionable and someone very questionable.

I think John McCain works quite effectively as the crossover, requiring someone safer yet countering the youth of Obama as well as shoring the age of McCain - I just think Rob Portman ticks all the boxes for most votes gained compared to Lieberman.

However, McCain and Lieberman seem great friends, that may colour the decision.

How so?
The PATRIOT Act was already mentioned but he also got an F from the NRA for trying to ban guns based on their looks. Basically a gun-grabber who wants big brother to watch your every move, just not tap your phones. Oh yeah, he also wants to build a wall along the US-Mexico border. Walls currently in place can be breached in minutes with nothing more than a ladder or tin snips so that'd just be a huge waste of our hard-earned tax dollars.

I don't think it's a question of gambling for votes, as bad as it sounds I don't think the right will vote for a someone questionable and someone very questionable.

I think John McCain works quite effectively as the crossover, requiring someone safer yet countering the youth of Obama as well as shoring the age of McCain - I just think Rob Portman ticks all the boxes for most votes gained compared to Lieberman.

However, McCain and Lieberman seem great friends, that may colour the decision.

The Right dislikes Obama more then they like McCain, I think. At least now that primary season is over. As I said to Colodia, If you put McCain and Stalin on the same ticket, theres gulags in Alaska in December. And the right sees a nonvote as a vote for Obama the baby eating Muslim terrorist. The right is united in their dislike for Obama much more then their love for McCain, I think.

And Rob Portman, unfortunately, has no name recognition. He sounds pretty good, though.

www.barackobama.com now shows that Obama has chosen Joe Biden.

Biden will help Obama win Delaware. /sarcasm

And the early poll results are:

FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. Aug. 19-20, 2008 (http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08.htm)

I really wouldn't look forward to Biden as VP. The guy still would like nothing more than to ignore the Bill of Rights. Or rather the parts he just doesn't like.

What a horrendous switch from the veep we have now! :eek:

So Biden finally picked his running mate?

Lieberman was popular enough with New York

Connecticut. And that doesn't necessarily speak to national appeal.

12:45AM EST. I am pleased.

:mad:

Where's Kathleen Sebelius?! Obama, you jerk!

Obama chose a White Christian Male who's a Washington Insider.

So much for "Change", let's wait and see how "Hope" is affected.

Obama chose a White Christian Male who's a Washington Insider.

So much for "Change", let's wait and see how "Hope" is affected.
Isn't it a good idea to have someone who knows how the system work if you intend to change it from within?

But if that's true, then where's Armageddon? I want to see Ragnarök (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ragnar%C3%B6k)! :D

Hail Loki!

I approve this choice. Hell, if he'd just picked a small bowl of blancmange to be his VP, I'd still approve it, just for not being Al Bore.

Blancmange eats people. I saw it on the telly.

Biden will help Obama win Delaware. /sarcasm

And if Obama had somehow picked the bitch, she would "help him get New York", but states weren't the point of Obama's choice, as you are well aware. So why don't you just admit you're annoyed because Obama didn't pick the bitch and let it go, already, while you watch her political career slowly die?

Also, a poll from Fox News? Are you grasping at that many straws?

Blancmange eats people. I saw it on the telly.

True, but I'd rather be eaten than listen to an Al Gore speech.

I was so happy to hear that Biden was the choice, with a nod of course that Obama could still pick someone else considering no official word has been given.

The choice of Biden completely blows away Obama's supposed message of changing DC and that being a Washington outsider and novice is far better than being an insider. It should also worry you Obama lovers that he is picking a man who is quite notorious for speaking without thinking. Not to mention the myriad of documented accounts of plagiarism as well as some racist comments concerning Indians.

But hey, you now have two members of a Senate that has lower approval ratings than Bush. Now that is change you can't vote for!

McCain by a landslide!

I was so happy to hear that Biden was the choice, with a nod of course that Obama could still pick someone else considering no official word has been given.

The choice of Biden completely blows away Obama's supposed message of changing DC and that being a Washington outsider and novice is far better than being an insider. It should also worry you Obama lovers that he is picking a man who is quite notorious for speaking without thinking. Not to mention the myriad of documented accounts of plagiarism as well as some racist comments concerning Indians.

But hey, you now have two members of a Senate that has lower approval ratings than Bush. Now that is change you can't vote for!

McCain by a landslide!
no its official.

and did you miss that MCCAIN is also a member of that same senate?

I was so happy to hear that Biden was the choice, with a nod of course that Obama could still pick someone else considering no official word has been given.

The choice of Biden completely blows away Obama's supposed message of changing DC and that being a Washington outsider and novice is far better than being an insider. It should also worry you Obama lovers that he is picking a man who is quite notorious for speaking without thinking. Not to mention the myriad of documented accounts of plagiarism as well as some racist comments concerning Indians.

But hey, you now have two members of a Senate that has lower approval ratings than Bush. Now that is change you can't vote for!

McCain by a landslide!

And that senile tumor known as McCain gets to rap Obama on "experience" and "foreign policy" how now? Furthermore, if Republicans attack Biden for something he did in the 80s, guess what, McCain has a bigger weak spot.

McCain will not win.

I think that a lot of people 's opinions on Biden as veep for better or for worse miss the point that the Vice-President is the President of the Senate and has a considerable influence over procedures that can make a huge difference in how easily a President can get his agenda through the notoriously bottlenecky Senate. You don't necessarily want an amateur in there.

I think that a lot of people 's opinions on Biden as veep for better or for worse miss the point that the Vice-President is the President of the Senate and has a considerable influence over procedures that can make a huge difference in how easily a President can get his agenda through the notoriously bottlenecky Senate. You don't necessarily want an amateur in there.

An argument that can be made FOR Biden.

Regardless, if it gets Obama elected, I favor it.

heikoku you arent going to equate a bit of plagarism with the keating 5 are you?

plagarism is sooo much worse than political corruption. get real.

I was so happy to hear that Biden was the choice, with a nod of course that Obama could still pick someone else considering no official word has been given.

The choice of Biden completely blows away Obama's supposed message of changing DC and that being a Washington outsider and novice is far better than being an insider. It should also worry you Obama lovers that he is picking a man who is quite notorious for speaking without thinking. Not to mention the myriad of documented accounts of plagiarism as well as some racist comments concerning Indians.

But hey, you now have two members of a Senate that has lower approval ratings than Bush. Now that is change you can't vote for!

McCain by a landslide!

If McCain wins you do realise God will sink America as punishment for rejecting the messiah in favour of the candidate of the anti-christ party?:p

biden knows every thing and every one and he is not a scumbag.

what better qualification is there?

oh yeah he was born in PA so he can help bring that state to obama.

If McCain wins you do realise God will sink America as punishment for rejecting the messiah?
*thinks about israel*

or maybe he will turn the US into a desert?

What a horrendous switch from the veep we have now! :eek:

And every veep we've ever had ever!

Fuck, every politician ever.

*thinks about israel*

or maybe he will turn the US into a desert?

I'd think plagues of locusts and boils might be more appropriate.

An argument that can be made FOR Biden.

Regardless, if it gets Obama elected, I favor it.

Well, not to diss the American public, but how many people do you think realize that?

And every veep we've ever had ever!

Fuck, every politician ever.

Oh, I don't know about that. Thomas Jefferson held the Constitution in fairly high regard. ;)

Oh, I don't know about that. Thomas Jefferson held the Constitution in fairly high regard. ;)

Constitution, sure. Rights, hell no.

I'd think plagues of locusts and boils might be more appropriate.
i was thinkng

being conquered by rome, having the population dispersed throughout the known world and having the capital renamed with a temple to some foreign god replacing the capital building.

i was thinkng

being conquered by rome, having the population dispersed throughout the known world and having the capital renamed with a temple to some foreign god replacing the capital building.

This would be *most* appropriate. WIN.

in other news, this puts chris dodd in charge of the senate foreign relations committee when obama wins.

no its official.

and did you miss that MCCAIN is also a member of that same senate?
Perhaps he's really the second housemate in the Cheney Branch of Government?

Well, not to diss the American public, but how many people do you think realize that?

Well, I'm pretty sure all eighteen of them will vote for Obama now. :p

Perhaps he's really the second housemate in the Cheney Branch of Government?

its good to be the fourth branch

in other news, this puts chris dodd in charge of the senate foreign relations committee when obama wins.
is that a good thing or a bad thing?

GREAT pick for VP. Now I can guarantee a Republican victory in November. Thank you Baracks Hussein Olabama!!!

GREAT pick for VP. Now I can guarantee a Republican victory in November. Thank you Baracks Hussein Olabama!!!
*Giggles*

GREAT pick for VP. Now I can guarantee a Republican victory in November. Thank you Baracks Hussein Olabama!!!
and how does biden make it less likely for obama to win?

GREAT pick for VP. Now I can guarantee a Republican victory in November. Thank you Baracks Hussein Olabama!!!

So... How much money will you be staking on this?

GREAT pick for VP. Now I can guarantee a Republican victory in November. Thank you Baracks Hussein Olabama!!!

:rolleyes:

Well, I'm pretty sure all eighteen of them will vote for Obama now. :p

I probably won't. I suspect I'll be voting for Nader again.

I probably won't. I suspect I'll be voting for Nader again.

Yeah, but you're insane. :p

Yeah, but you're insane. :p

Touche' :)

I probably won't. I suspect I'll be voting for Nader again.
isnt a vote for nader "wasted" since he isnt running with a party?

why not vote for whoever the greens put up?

is that a good thing or a bad thing?

dodd has recently earned points for joining up with feingold to try to stop the fisa bullshit, and has been good about trying to end the war - even voting against funding it at all a couple times. other than that, meh

why not vote for whoever the greens put up?

cynthia mckinney. she's even actually been elected to a position in the federal government before and everything.

cynthia mckinney. she's even actually been elected to a position in the federal government before and everything.
she is no more crazy than nader is AND she has a party behind her that votes help to build.

isnt a vote for nader "wasted" since he isnt running with a party?

why not vote for whoever the greens put up?

I don't think a vote for Nader is wasted since I think he's the best candidate for the job. He's the only vulcan in politics. ;)

I don't think a vote for Nader is wasted since I think he's the best candidate for the job. He's the only vulcan in politics. ;)
he would be an awful president.

he would be an awful president.

Why is that?

Why is that?

because he's a one trick pony.

Why is that?
he wouldnt be able to work with congress to get things done. he doesnt have any experience making laws, working with foreign leaders, running huge organizations, compromising.

his only good point is that he will never get elected.

he wouldnt be able to work with congress to get things done. he doesnt have any experience making laws, working with foreign leaders, running huge organizations, compromising.

his only good point is that he will never get elected.

Well, no point in completely hijacking the thread, but I think his position as a non-party outsider will actually help him work with congress to get stuff done. He wouldn't be the first president new to working with foreign leaders. Many state governors with no experience in foreign affairs have become president. Why good ol' W never even left the country until he ran for the presidency.

I'll give you the compromise thing. If I have any misgiving about Nader, I question his ability to settle for anything less than the ideal(his ideal, of course).

So... How much money will you be staking on this?

How many thousands do you have to lose?
Perhaps the deed to your home?? Let's make it interesting!

12:45AM EST. I am pleased.

So much for Obama's CHANGE. By selecting a person who has been in the Senate for over 30 years, he has proven it is "politics as usual." :mad:

and how does biden make it less likely for obama to win?

Now there are two promised tax raisers in lock step. Every fiscal conservative, and many from the "center" now have a bullseye to aim at.
The mighty vine-swinger from Indonesia made the choice every Republican wanted to see. Bring on the election.

Well, no point in completely hijacking the thread, but I think his position as a non-party outsider will actually help him work with congress to get stuff done. He wouldn't be the first president new to working with foreign leaders. Many state governors with no experience in foreign affairs have become president. Why good ol' W never even left the country until he ran for the presidency.

I'll give you the compromise thing. If I have any misgiving about Nader, I question his ability to settle for anything less than the ideal(his ideal, of course).
im more of a practical voter.

the only reason i would vote out of the democratic party would be if the nominee were horrible. and then i would vote for a 3rd PARTY since the particular candidate has zero chance of winning but the party can use the support.

but i guess it might be different if i didnt think that nader is a dick.

Now there are two promised tax raisers in lock step. Every fiscal conservative, and many from the "center" now have a bullseye to aim at.
The mighty vine-swinger from Indonesia made the choice every Republican wanted to see. Bring on the election.
he was never going to put a republican on the ticket eh?

only a republican panders to the voters by raising spending and cutting taxes.

Now there are two promised tax raisers in lock step. Every fiscal conservative, and many from the "center" now have a bullseye to aim at.
The mighty vine-swinger from Indonesia made the choice every Republican wanted to see. Bring on the election.

Vine-swinger. Any other witty observations you'd like to share?

Every fiscal conservative, and many from the "center" now have a bullseye to aim at.

let me guess, not the guy who promises infinite war and more spending while giving himself $300k back on his taxes?

interesting fact about biden - he's actually one of the poorest senators. probably knows exactly how many houses he has, too.

and how does biden make it less likely for obama to win?

Because Obama has been spouting change and no business as usual politics. So, he go out and digs out a career politician for his running mate. So much for change. Also, with Obama's total lack of experience (less than 2 years) in national politics, running anything, and international affairs everyone will know he will rely heavily on his VP and politics as usual for advice.

If Obama truly wanted change he could have picked someone who wasn't a career white male politician.

How many thousands do you have to lose?
Perhaps the deed to your home?? Let's make it interesting!

I am willing to bet $10,000 that Obama will win.

How many thousands do you have to lose?
Perhaps the deed to your home?? Let's make it interesting!

I'm not betting. You guaranteed an outcome, hence you should have no doubt as to the results. So how much money will you give me if you should happen to be, against all odds and outside the realm of all possibility, wrong?

only a republican panders to the voters by raising spending and cutting taxes.

And only a Democrat panders to the voters by raising spending AND taxes. :(

he was never going to put a republican on the ticket eh?

only a republican panders to the voters by raising spending and cutting taxes.

How much in higher taxes will you, personally be paying when our liberal friends get into office? I'd like to hear how much you, personally pay in income taxes, property taxes, corporate taxes, capital gains taxes, social security tax, medicare and medicaid. I'd like to know how much you, PERSONALLY are going to pay for the liberal victory in November.
I don't know you at all, but my guess is..........uh.........zero.

Because Obama has been spouting change and no business as usual politics. So, he go out and digs out a career politician for his running mate. So much for change. Also, with Obama's total lack of experience (less than 2 years) in national politics, running anything, and international affairs everyone will know he will rely heavily on his VP and politics as usual for advice.

If Obama truly wanted change he could have picked someone who wasn't a career white male politician.

Your definition of 'change' is narrow and unrelated to the actual Obama campaign.

I'm not betting. You guaranteed an outcome, hence you should have no doubt as to the results. So how much money will you give me if you should happen to be, against all odds and outside the realm of all possibility, wrong?

Doubletalk and flim-flam!
Another stupid, democrat who, when pushed to the wall, won't put his money where his mouth is! Thank you for the proof of this fact!

Because Obama has been spouting change and no business as usual politics. So, he go out and digs out a career politician for his running mate. So much for change. Also, with Obama's total lack of experience (less than 2 years) in national politics, running anything, and international affairs everyone will know he will rely heavily on his VP and politics as usual for advice.

If Obama truly wanted change he could have picked someone who wasn't a career white male politician.
pffft

i dont recall him ever promising to choose an unusual running mate.

It reminds me of another young politician who preached change and then chose a career insider. Rhymes with Porge Tush. (George Bush)

Because Obama has been spouting change and no business as usual politics. So, he go out and digs out a career politician for his running mate. So much for change. Also, with Obama's total lack of experience (less than 2 years) in national politics, running anything, and international affairs everyone will know he will rely heavily on his VP and politics as usual for advice.

If Obama truly wanted change he could have picked someone who wasn't a career white male politician.

Forgive me if I don't believe that you truly wish Obama to pick the candidate that grants him the greatest chance at success. Why don't you just admit that you would be just as negative of Obama's choice even if he resurrected Ronald Reagan as his VP, and spare us this intellectual dishonesty?

I was hoping he'd choose Sebelius or Kaine, but Biden is all right. :)

pffft

i dont recall him ever promising to choose an unusual running mate.

The grasping at straws gets kind of amusing.

He still wears a suit, where's the change!?!

He shaves his face and not his hair, where's the change!?!

He eats with a fork and cuts with a knife, where's the change!?!

He goes in 'In' doors and out 'Out' doors, where's the change!?!

He drives on the right side of the road, where's the change!?!

etc.

Your definition of 'change' is narrow and unrelated to the actual Obama campaign.

to be fair, this is also the guy who thinks the 're-defeat communism' shirt was clever

to be fair, this is also the guy who thinks the 're-defeat communism' shirt was clever

Indeed.

I was hoping he'd choose Sebelius or Kaine, but Biden is all right. :)
the biggest problem i have with biden is his age.

he is not too old to be vp. but he is too old to carry the democratic banner in '16.

vp nominees should have the potential to run for president on their own after their vp terms run out.

The grasping at straws gets kind of amusing.

He still wears a suit, where's the change!?!

He shaves his face and not his hair, where's the change!?!

He eats with a fork and cuts with a knife, where's the change!?!

He goes in 'In' doors and out 'Out' doors, where's the change!?!

He drives on the right side of the road, where's the change!?!

etc.
not to mention that if he HAD chosen someone outside of washington the opposition would have been crowing about lack of experience.

Now he just has to lock Biden in a room somehwere until after election night.

the biggest problem i have with biden is his age.

he is not too old to be vp. but he is too old to carry the democratic banner in '16.

vp nominees should have the potential to run for president on their own after their vp terms run out.You bring up a good point I never really thought about. But, you're absolutely right.

not to mention that if he HAD chosen someone outside of washington the opposition would have been crowing about lack of experience.

It is like a switch in their heads, "Not change enough!" *click* "We fear change!"

You bring up a good point I never really thought about. But, you're absolutely right.
george bush really should have dumped dick cheney for '04.

if he had chosen some solid potential future republican presidential candidate the republicans wouldnt be in the position of having to support john mccain now.

It is like a switch in their heads, "Not change enough!" *click* "We fear change!"
obama has an excellent chance of being elected. i think that EVERYONE should be happy that he chose a man who could do the job of president easily.

If Obama truly wanted change he could have picked someone who wasn't a career white male politician.

You're right. Perhaps Obama should have chosen her. Black, female, with a reputation for toughness...

http://img396.imageshack.us/img396/7929/shelobxd2.png (http://imageshack.us)


Obama/Shelob '08!

george bush really should have dumped dick cheney for '04.

if he had chosen some solid potential future republican presidential candidate the republicans wouldnt be in the position of having to support john mccain now.

I think that maybe they were able to recognize a sinking ship when they saw one. If there was a viable VP running for president right now they'd be sucked down by the Bush presidency more so than McCain is, who himself has had to swim against the current. If you watch his 'Original Maverick' ad it almost seems like he's running against the Bush presidency. Having a Bush VP running now would almost have been as good as if they had selected Huckabee, they'd be running just to not get slaughtered.

Erk. Biden is an OK choice, but a bit safe, and rather like Kerry. Kathleen Sebelius would have better attracted female voters who now feel under-represented. Obama's choice of Biden won't make him look strong on foreign policy matters, it will just make Biden look strong on foreign policy issues.

Obviously, the only real qualification to speak on world that John McCain has is that he was tortured in Vietnam, but pointing that out to people isn't going to make your campaign look very positive.

Doubletalk and flim-flam!
Another stupid, democrat who, when pushed to the wall, won't put his money where his mouth is! Thank you for the proof of this fact!

I'm not a democrat.

And since you're the one who's unwilling to put your money where your mouth is, I take your post to mean that you retract your so-called guarantee.

I accept your surrender.

I think that maybe they were able to recognize a sinking ship when they saw one. If there was a viable VP running for president right now they'd be sucked down by the Bush presidency more so than McCain is, who himself has had to swim against the current. If you watch his 'Original Maverick' ad it almost seems like he's running against the Bush presidency. Having a Bush VP running now would almost have been as good as if they had selected Huckabee, they'd be running just to not get slaughtered.
NOW it would be bad for sure

but im not sure they realized in '04 that it was going to get worse and worse.

I'm not a democrat.

And since you're the one who's unwilling to put your money where your mouth is, I take your post to mean that you retract your so-called guarantee.

I accept your surrender.

Please go back to your post that STARTS "I wouldn't bet." I took that to mean that YOU WON'T BET. Am I wrong, or are you a liar? It was your post, not mine.
For someone who isn't a democrat, you've certainly got the spin technique and double talk down to a science.
As far as the bet, I'll put up the deed to my house! Do you own such a thing?

Erk. Biden is an OK choice, but a bit safe, and rather like Kerry. Kathleen Sebelius would have better attracted female voters who now feel under-represented. Obama's choice of Biden won't make him look strong on foreign policy matters, it will just make Biden look strong on foreign policy issues.

Are many women really likely to jump to the McCain camp? He might have struggled to win them over in the primaries but I don't the Republicans offer them anything either. I think the big question is wether Biden can pull in poor, white voters. I believe the answer is yes unless he says something ill-advised between now and November.

As far as the bet, I'll put up the deed to my house! Do you own such a thing?

Wow Gravlen, some guy on the internet you don't know, can't get ahold of, and is impossible to get contact information of, is willing to bet a house that may or may not exist and that you have never seen, in a completely illegal wager.

You should take that bet, I'm sure he's trustworthy and will tender your winnings forthwith upon Obama's election.

Please go back to your post that STARTS "I wouldn't bet." I took that to mean that YOU WON'T BET. Am I wrong, or are you a liar?

Gravlen's point was that a "bet" implies a wager with the possibility of winning, and since you are SO SURE that Obama will lose, and SO SURE that McCain will win, Gravlen betting on Obama isn't REALLY a bet, it'd just be handing you money. Since you're so very sure and all that you're willing to place a totally unenforceable bet.

So I'm going to go with "you're wrong"

Now he just has to lock Biden in a room somehwere until after election night.

nah, he's grabbed biden because biden is a good fucking attack dog. "a noun, a verb, 9/11" anyone?

nah, he's grabbed biden because biden is a good fucking attack dog. "a noun, a verb, 9/11" anyone?

Maybe I'm just too cautious, but I'd be worried that when he tries to score these points he creates an own goal so big it risks everything.

As far as the bet, I'll put up the deed to my house! Do you own such a thing?

No you won't. You're more full of shit than a backed up public toilet. Not only do we have absolutely no way of verifying who you are, where you live, whether you have a home to bet, but there's absolutely no way to hold you to this obligation if you do lose. It's like if I said I'd bet a million dollars that Obama will win. Even if I had a million dollars to bet, there's not a chance on earth you'd be able to legally collect the money if Obama lost.

Maybe I'm just too cautious, but I'd be worried that when he tries to score these points he creates an own goal so big it risks everything.

If Obama sits back and keeps absorbing hits, it's going to be 2000/2004 all over again.

If Obama sits back and keeps absorbing hits, it's going to be 2000/2004 all over again.

obama's strategy is more like rope-a-dope, actually. has been since the beginning, and its working so far.

Blancmange eats people. I saw it on the telly.

THEY MEAN TO WIN WIMBLEDON!




As to Biden, I'm with those who've pointed out that the Veep is also President of the Senate. Seems to me you don't want someone without legislative experience (and lots of it) in that chair if you want to give your agenda a decent shot at getting through Congress.

And to those who are just going to nay-say ANY choice because they're so far up their party's ass they can't tell where they stop and the Elephant starts, is "so much for change" really all you've got? Really?

Are many women really likely to jump to the McCain camp?
No. Are many likely to not even bother? Quite possible.
He might have struggled to win them over in the primaries but I don't the Republicans offer them anything either.
Aye well I don't think that McCain's campaign is going to offer anything to women either, but that's not the main issue. Obama needs all the support he can get, because his campaign is running out of momentum. People are bored of hearing about him. His attack adverts are not actually very interesting. Biden was a poor choice, because he is very much a part of the establishment. Talking about change when your VP has been a career politician since the 1970s is not wise.
I think the big question is wether Biden can pull in poor, white voters. I believe the answer is yes unless he says something ill-advised between now and November.
Nah, he loves the sound of his own voice too much. It'll turn people off.

Maybe, but I'm pretty sure the Democratic Party universally considers Lieberman to be a shameless turncoat.

And you'd be right.

No you won't. You're more full of shit than a backed up public toilet. Not only do we have absolutely no way of verifying who you are, where you live, whether you have a home to bet, but there's absolutely no way to hold you to this obligation if you do lose. It's like if I said I'd bet a million dollars that Obama will win. Even if I had a million dollars to bet, there's not a chance on earth you'd be able to legally collect the money if Obama lost.

not even that, but merely offering to make that bet would be a criminal act.

not even that, but merely offering to make that bet would be a criminal act.

Even if gambling is legal in his jurisdiction?

Please go back to your post that STARTS "I wouldn't bet." I took that to mean that YOU WON'T BET. Am I wrong, or are you a liar? It was your post, not mine.
You are the one with the guarantee. I'm asking you if you want to back up that guarantee with cold, hard cash. It's not a wager, it's just a strengthening of your supposed guarantee.

For someone who isn't a democrat, you've certainly got the spin technique and double talk down to a science.
Thank you! I try ;)

As far as the bet, I'll put up the deed to my house! Do you own such a thing?
That's not relevant, as I've shown you above. The question remains: Are you willing to back up your guarantee, or is your guarantee worthless?

Wow Gravlen, some guy on the internet you don't know, can't get ahold of, and is impossible to get contact information of, is willing to bet a house that may or may not exist and that you have never seen, in a completely illegal wager.

You should take that bet, I'm sure he's trustworthy and will tender your winnings forthwith upon Obama's election
If you can't trust faceless, anonymous posters on an internet forum, hell, who can you trust?


Gravlen's point was that a "bet" implies a wager with the possibility of winning, and since you are SO SURE that Obama will lose, and SO SURE that McCain will win, Gravlen betting on Obama isn't REALLY a bet, it'd just be handing you money. Since you're so very sure and all that you're willing to place a totally unenforceable bet.

So I'm going to go with "you're wrong"
If it's a guaranteed win, he's got nothing to lose, does he?

Well, apart from the "offering up an illegal bet" part of course :tongue:

It reminds me of another young politician who preached change and then chose a career insider. Rhymes with Porge Tush. (George Bush)

George Bush was older than Bill Clinton. That ain't young.

Forgive me if I don't believe that you truly wish Obama to pick the candidate that grants him the greatest chance at success. Why don't you just admit that you would be just as negative of Obama's choice even if he resurrected Ronald Reagan as his VP, and spare us this intellectual dishonesty?

My prediction is; If Obama wins he will be a marginally worse President than Jimmy Carter.

to be fair, this is also the guy who thinks the 're-defeat communism' shirt was clever

You have to admit it worked. She lost. :)

My prediction is; If Obama wins he will be a marginally worse President than Jimmy Carter.

There you go. Doesn't it feel better to be honest with yourself, rather than pretending to actually care who Obama nominates as his VP?

no its official.

and did you miss that MCCAIN is also a member of that same senate?

No, intentional ignorance is his fortay. Taking the senate ratings as a whole is just plain stupid. Look at the individual positive and negative numbers for Biden and it makes more sense. Color me not surprised that frogs tried to frame it in the completely wrong context. I'll see you landlise and raise you a warm bowl of "what you talking bout billis?"

not to mention that if he HAD chosen someone outside of washington the opposition would have been crowing about lack of experience.

We can still do that because of Obama's zero experience. Less than three years in the senate, no foreign policy experience, never ran a state or company is not a very good resume for President.

Biden won't have to wait until 2016. He can run against former vice president Romney in 2012. :D

I don't know, he looks like a bit of a snake to me.

Did McCain ever take down a giant robot with nothing more than a stinger missile? I don't think so.

So much for Obama's CHANGE. By selecting a person who has been in the Senate for over 30 years, he has proven it is "politics as usual." :mad:

Not really. The President still sets the agenda and Obama is in charge. The VP will not have as much power as the current one in the empire. I knew this would be a reaction and was waiting for someone to say it. It's a weak argument at best. He picked someone who would balance the ticket and show experience. It was a great choice and will pay dividends well.

Doubletalk and flim-flam!
Another stupid, democrat who, when pushed to the wall, won't put his money where his mouth is! Thank you for the proof of this fact!

I have now come to the conclusion of puppetry or trolling here. Making inflamatory remarks like "Vine-swinging, etc. will soon have you warned and banned if not discontinued. Keep it up and we'll wave you goodbye. You can take that ish to the bank.

There you go. Doesn't it feel better to be honest with yourself, rather than pretending to actually care who Obama nominates as his VP?

It doesn't make a tinkers damn to me who he picks. However, for one who is so dead set against "politics as usual" (or says he is) he could have picked someone other than a Washington insider career politician to show he really stands for change.

You have to admit it worked. She lost. :)

yes, thanks to you. nice work!

what gets me is why would Biden give up all the power in the senate to take the worthless job of Vice president. my only guess is he is banking that someone will shoot Obama.

It doesn't make a tinkers damn to me who he picks. However, for one who is so dead set against "politics as usual" (or says he is) he could have picked someone other than a Washington insider career politician to show he really stands for change.

Why? We both know that no matter who he picked, you would have found something wrong with the selection. If it's an insider, it's "oh, he's abandoning his change platform." If it's an outsider, its "oh, the ticket doesn't have enough political experience." Obama picked who he picked because he knows that the people likely to vote for him are smart enough to realize that this doesn't detract from his message of "change", and that the people that will make that claim weren't going to vote for him anyway.

what gets me is why would Biden give up all the power in the senate to take the worthless job of Vice president. my only guess is he is banking that someone will shoot Obama.President of the Senate > Senator.

And that senile tumor known as McCain gets to rap Obama on "experience" and "foreign policy" how now?

Biden does nothing to counter Obama's lack of experience or ignorance with foreign policy. In fact, McCain will use Biden's own words. Here are some good quotes and facts:

- Reacting to an Obama speech on counterterrorism, August 1, 2007: “‘Look, the truth is the four major things he called for, well, hell that’s what I called for,’ Biden said today on MSNBC’s Hardball, echoing comments he made earlier in the day at an event promoting his book at the National Press Club. Biden added, ‘I’m glad he’s talking about these things.’”

- Also that day, the Biden campaign issued a release that began, “The Biden for President Campaign today congratulated Sen. Barack Obama for arriving at a number of Sen. Biden’s long-held views on combating al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan.” That release mocked Obama for asking about the “stunning level of mercury in fish” and asked about a proposal for the U.S. adopt a ban on mercury sales abroad at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing.

- Assessing Obama’s Iraq plan on September 13, 2007: “My impression is [Obama] thinks that if we leave, somehow the Iraqis are going to have an epiphany” of peaceful coexistence among warring sects. “I’ve seen zero evidence of that.”

- Speaking to the New York Observer: Biden was equally skeptical — albeit in a slightly more backhanded way — about Mr. Obama. “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,” he said. “I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”

- Also from that Observer interview: “But — and the ‘but’ was clearly inevitable — he doubts whether American voters are going to elect ‘a one-term, a guy who has served for four years in the Senate,’ and added: ‘I don’t recall hearing a word from Barack about a plan or a tactic.’”

- Around that time, Biden in an interview with the Huffington Post, he assessed Obama and Hillary Clinton: “The more people learn about them (Obama and Hillary) and how they handle the pressure, the more their support will evaporate.”

- December 11, 2007: “If Iowans believe campaign funds and celebrity will fix the debacle in Iraq, put the economy on track, and provide health care and education for America’s children, they should support another candidate,” said Biden for President Campaign Manager Luis Navarro. “But I’m confident that Iowans know what I know: our problems will require experience and leadership from Day One. Empty slogans will be no match for proven action on caucus night.”

- Also that night, Biden said in a campaign ad, “When this campaign is over, political slogans like ‘experience’ and ‘change’ will mean absolutely nothing. The next president has to act.”

- September 26, 2007: Biden for President Campaign Manager Luis Navarro said, “Sen. Obama said he would do everything possible to end the war in Iraq and emphasized the need for a political solution yet he failed to show up to vote for Sen. Biden’s critical amendment to provide a political solution in Iraq.

- December 26, 2006: “Frankly, I think I’m more qualified than other candidates, and the issues facing the American public are all in my wheelbarrow.”

It would also seem that Biden is more in tune with McCain on Iraq than Obama. Here are some quotes and facts:

- Biden on Meet the Press in 2002, discussing Saddam Hussein: “He’s a long term threat and a short term threat to our national security… “We have no choice but to eliminate the threat. This is a guy who is an extreme danger to the world.”

- Biden on Meet the Press in 2002: “Saddam must be dislodged from his weapons or dislodged from power.”

- Biden on Meet the Press in 2007, on Hussein’s WMDs: “Well, the point is, it turned out they didn’t, but everyone in the world thought he had them. The weapons inspectors said he had them. He catalogued — they catalogued them. This was not some, some Cheney, you know, pipe dream. This was, in fact, catalogued.”

- Biden, on Obama’s Iraq plan in August 2007: “I don’t want [my son] going [to Iraq],” Delaware Sen. Joe Biden said from the campaign trail Wednesday, according to a report on Radio Iowa. “But I tell you what, I don’t want my grandson or my granddaughters going back in 15 years and so how we leave makes a big difference.” Biden criticized Democratic rivals such as Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama who have voted against Iraq funding bills to try to pressure President Bush to end the war. “There’s no political point worth my son’s life,” Biden said, according to Radio Iowa. “There’s no political point worth anybody’s life out there. None.”

- Biden on Meet the Press, April 29, 2007: “The threat [Saddam Hussein] presented was that, if Saddam was left unfettered, which I said during that period, for the next five years with sanctions lifted and billions of dollars into his coffers, then I believed he had the ability to acquire a tactical nuclear weapon — not by building it, by purchasing it. I also believed he was a threat in that he was — every single solitary U.N. resolution which he agreed to abide by, which was the equivalent of a peace agreement at the United Nations, after he got out of — after we kicked him out of Kuwait, he was violating. Now, the rules of the road either mean something or they don’t. The international community says “We’re going to enforce the sanctions we placed” or not. And what was the international community doing? The international community was weakening. They were pulling away.”

- Biden to the Brookings Institution in 2005: “We can call it quits and withdraw from Iraq. I think that would be a gigantic mistake. Or we can set a deadline for pulling out, which I fear will only encourage our enemies to wait us out — equally a mistake.”

- Analyzing the surge on Meet the Press, September 9, 2007: “I mean, the truth of the matter is that, that the — America’s — this administration’s policy and the surge are a failure, and that the surge, which was supposed to stop sectarian violence and — long enough to give political reconciliation, there’s been no political reconciliation... The reality is that, although there has been some mild progress on the security front, there is, in fact, no, no real security in Baghdad and/or in Anbar province, where I was, dealing with the most serious problem, sectarian violence. Sectarian violence is as strong and as solid and as serious a problem as it was before the surge started.”

- Biden in October of 2002: “We must be clear with the American people that we are committing to Iraq for the long haul; not just the day after, but the decade after.”

- On Meet the Press, January 7, 2007, assessing the proposal of a surge of troops to Iraq: “If he surges another 20, 30, or whatever number he’s going to, into Baghdad, it’ll be a tragic mistake, in my view, but, as a practical matter, there’s no way to say, ‘Mr. President, stop.’”

- On Meet the Press, November 27, 2005: “Unless we fundamentally change the rotation dates and fundamentally change how many members of the National Guard we’re calling up, it’ll be virtually impossible to maintain 150,000 folks this year.” (The number of troops in Iraq peaked at 162,000 in August 2007, during the surge.)

Furthermore, if Republicans attack Biden for something he did in the 80s, guess what, McCain has a bigger weak spot.

Really? So far Obama's come up with the number of houses McCain owns, being married to an heiress, and being old. I am sure if McCain has all of these skeletons you pretend he has they would already have been exposed. Besides, Biden has enough new stuff to bother with the old stuff we already know. Not to mention that a whole new barrage of information about Obama's past is about to break out...

What does Biden have to say about McCain?

- Biden, on a post-debate appearance on MSNBC, October 30, 2007: “The only guy on the other side who’s qualified is John McCain.”

- Biden appearing on The Daily Show, August 2, 2005: “John McCain is a personal friend, a great friend, and I would be honored to run with or against John McCain, because I think the country would be better off, be well off no matter who...”

- On Meet the Press, November 27, 2005: “I’ve been calling for more troops for over two years, along with John McCain and others subsequent to my saying that.”

I am sure Biden will have no problem turning on a "personal friend" but it seems like he was quite a fan.

McCain will not win.

I don't know H2, McCain seems to have the support of Obama's Vice Presidential nominee. Like I said, poor choice and it will cost him. Biden brings a whole new load of ammo to fire at Obama.

Happy hunting! McCain in '08!

Will Biden's words come back to bite him and Obama? I think is will and already has. Here is the link to the McCain add.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDVUPqoowf8

President of the Senate > Senator.

president of the senate < chair of the foreign relations committee chair. and chair of a judiciary sub committee.

the president of the senate is only worth a damn if your party is not in power when you can use procedure to delay the opposition from passing laws. see gore during clinton's second term or H.W. Bush during Reagan second term.
if you party is in power president of the senate is just a rubber stamp.

You have to admit it worked. She lost. :)

No. No it didn't. No it fucking didn't!

Your utter disconnect with reality is astonishing, Celt. I'm wondering why I ever respected you for ANYTHING. You're obviously going senile, assuming you were ever sane to begin with .

what gets me is why would Biden give up all the power in the senate to take the worthless job of Vice president. my only guess is he is banking that someone will shoot Obama.
its a great way to end his political career and one might suppose it carries a better pension too.

when the (future) president calls, you dont say no.

i hate it obama is part of the illuminati and is rigged to win to "clean up" wut president bush did also an illuminati

i hate it obama is part of the illuminati and is rigged to win to "clean up" wut president bush did also an illuminati
oh geeez grow up!

obama is NOT an illuminati

he is an alien reptiloid overlord.

you will vote for him and you will bow to him.

no i dont think its a problem

but now i wonder if they had 3 other ads waiting to be launched that features the other short listers

and if the obama campaign has made the same kinds of ads with the mccain shortlisters.

no i dont think its a problem

but now i wonder if they had 3 other ads waiting to be launched that features the other short listers

and if the obama campaign has made the same kinds of ads with the mccain shortlisters.
Oh, absolutely. What do you think all that campaign money is for? Now what I want is to see the ads for the guys who didn't get the veep pick.

the campaigning in the US lasts too long

[McCain will have to]"figure out which of the seven kitchen tables to sit at" [when considering his own economic future]

Burn...

why is it all the US political ads have "I am X and I approve message" :confused:

its a great way to end his political career and one might suppose it carries a better pension too.

when the (future) president calls, you dont say no.

like anyone in the senate is not independently wealthy.

and yes it will end his political career.
and considering he said Obama is too inexperienced and McCain would be a great president I am beginning to wonder if Obama can win what for just about any other democrat would have been a free ticket to the white house. considering he picked someone who seems most likely to vote for the McCain ticket to be his running mate.

Meh, it's a short-term embarrassment but it won't last long. And I think that because of the comments in the ad, it'll end up stinging McCain all the more when Biden inevitably reverses himself, saying that he was mistaken. That the John McCain he knew is not the John McCain running for President today, and that if he'd understood at the time what McCain had become, he'd never have made such a statement.

why is it all the US political ads have "I am X and I approve message" :confused:

Because the average voter is either stupid or suffering from Alzheimer's.

why is it all the US political ads have "I am X and I approve message" :confused:

something along those lines are required by law. so we can tell what ad is funded by whom. prevents say the republicans from running an ad pretending to be Obama and making him seem like a socialist.

why is it all the US political ads have "I am X and I approve message" :confused:
some law requires that the author/sponsor of an ad has to declare who he/she/they/it is/are. so to make it sound better that "paid for by obama for president" they have taken to having the candidate take credit for it

Actually, the precise words "I am <me> and I approved this message" are required by law, either at the start or the end of a campaign ad.

like anyone in the senate is not independently wealthy.

and yes it will end his political career.
and considering he said Obama is too inexperienced and McCain would be a great president I am beginning to wonder if Obama can win what for just about any other democrat would have been a free ticket to the white house. considering he picked someone who seems most likely to vote for the McCain ticket to be his running mate.
and where do you think biden got his money from?

his dad was a car saleseman. he himself has been in the senate since he was 30.

when did he amass this fortune?

Will Biden's words come back to bite him and Obama? I think is will and already has. Here is the link to the McCain add.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDVUPqoowf8
The fun won't really start until the McCain veep is announced.

why is it all the US political ads have "I am X and I approve message" :confused:
An ad needs by law to include a statement by the candidate that identifies the candidate and states that the candidate has approved the communication. It's intended to limit negative ads because the candidate gets so closely connected to it.

and where do you think biden got his money from?

his dad was a car saleseman. he himself has been in the senate since he was 30.

when did he amass this fortune?

according to public records his dad's dealership was worth 10 million.

Will Biden's words come back to bite him and Obama? I think is will and already has. Here is the link to the McCain add.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDVUPqoowf8

There's actually already a thread about the Biden selection. It's on the first page. Perhaps you missed it?

according to public records his dad's dealership was worth 10 million.
nice

now

is his dad dead and if so how much did biden inherit? he has quite a few brothers and sisters after all.

no senators are POOR but "independently wealthy" requires a lot of money on the east coast.

I guess this story says it all:

In Biden, Obama Opts for Experience Over Change (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/08/23/obamas_choice_of_biden_reveali.html?hpid=topnews)

But he and Obama are different in another way, one that Republicans were quick to point to on Saturday. Long a fixture in Washington, Biden hardly symbolizes the kind of change that Obama's candidacy has signified.
Change you can count on......

Another good one:

On the central foreign policy issue of the campaign, Obama and Biden began in different places. Obama opposed the invasion of Iraq, while Biden supported it. Even as late as the spring of 2007, they were on opposite sides on a vote on funding the war, with Obama opposed and Biden--pointedly among Democratic senators seeking the nomination--in favor.

A little more icing on the change cake:

But the real debating Biden will be expected to do will be with McCain at long distance. He knows McCain well and, no doubt, has considerable respect for him. Republicans on Saturday were sending around quotations with Biden praising McCain and criticizing Obama as inexperienced.
Ohhhhh my!!

the campaigning in the US lasts too long

This one was longer than most due to Obama vs. Hillary. Usually there's a pause between nomination and conventions.

I guess this story says it all:

In Biden, Obama Opts for Experience Over Change (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/08/23/obamas_choice_of_biden_reveali.html?hpid=topnews)


Change you can count on......

Another good one:



A little more icing on the change cake:


Ohhhhh my!!


sounds like obama didn't pick a yes man. isn't that a good thing?

This one was longer than most due to Obama vs. Hillary. Usually there's a pause between nomination and conventions.

still too long.shorten it to at most 2 montths

I guess this story says it all:

In Biden, Obama Opts for Experience Over Change (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/08/23/obamas_choice_of_biden_reveali.html?hpid=topnews)


Change you can count on......

Another good one:



A little more icing on the change cake:


Ohhhhh my!!
Just keep banging that drum, CH. It's the only one you've got after all, even if it is a puny snare.

I guess this story says it all:

In Biden, Obama Opts for Experience Over Change (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/08/23/obamas_choice_of_biden_reveali.html?hpid=topnews)


Change you can count on......

Another good one:



A little more icing on the change cake:


Ohhhhh my!!
Bitter, party of one?

still too long.shorten it to at most 2 montths
cant be done.

there is no legal way to do it.

cant be done.

there is no legal way to do it.

why?
...

why?
...
because the parties are independent of the government and they decide when the primaries will be.

even if the feds mandated when the primaries could be they cant stop anyone from campaigning well before any of them take place.

the elections occur on a rigid schedule. formal campaigning starts the beginning of the year in question, informal starts at least a year before that.

sounds like obama didn't pick a yes man. isn't that a good thing?

Of course not! It means he's indecisive. Or something.

No. No it didn't. No it fucking didn't!

Your utter disconnect with reality is astonishing, Celt. I'm wondering why I ever respected you for ANYTHING. You're obviously going senile, assuming you were ever sane to begin with .

Kyronea, back off.

Kyronea, back off.

Yessir.

You have to admit it worked. She lost. :)

Yes, it's obvious that what turned the tide in the primaries was you posting that asinine picture on the board every other day. :rolleyes:

I guess this story says it all:

In Biden, Obama Opts for Experience Over Change (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/08/23/obamas_choice_of_biden_reveali.html?hpid=topnews)


Change you can count on......

Another good one:



A little more icing on the change cake:


Ohhhhh my!!

So, you're rapping on Obama because he picked a VP that was just like the one you wanted to force down our throats, except for having character, not tried to steal the election, and a penis?

If Hillary had run a decent campaign, she might have won. If she had run a graceful campaign, she might be in the ticket. She didn't do either, she was incompetent and a bitch. Which cost her one opportunity, then the other. DEAL.

So much for Obama's CHANGE. By selecting a person who has been in the Senate for over 30 years, he has proven it is "politics as usual." :mad:

Yeah, and the last politician who had faith in being open and upfront was Jimmy Carter. And apparently he's even more reviled now than Dear Leader Dubya.

Obama's idealistic but he's not a naive moron either.

Yeah, and the last politician who had faith in being open and upfront was Jimmy Carter. And apparently he's even more reviled now than Dear Leader Dubya.

Obama's idealistic but he's not a naive moron either.

The whole system is rotten, it must go. The 'two-party system' is just a recipe for deadlock and nothing happening, no progress being made. The only way anything changes it when one group imposes itself on the other by force of arms.

The only way anything changes it when one group imposes itself on the other by force of arms.

So, you're trying to deny the previous existance of Gandhi.

Cool.

It reminds me of another young politician who preached change and then chose a career insider. Rhymes with Porge Tush. (George Bush)

How dare you speak ill of Dear Leader! Off to Gitmo with you, dirty unpatriotic Muslim Athiest!

Absolutely fabulous choice. I am very please with Biden, and he has got a solid liberal track record, without going overboard and looking crazy. Obama 08!

We can still do that because of Obama's zero experience. Less than three years in the senate, no foreign policy experience, never ran a state or company is not a very good resume for President.

As opposed to Dear Leader with zero years in the Senate, no foreign policy experience as can be seen in the Middle East currently, ran a state and several companies into the ground and yet managed to gain a full 8-year Presidency despite that.

Obama is EXACTLY what the ruling class needs, an 'idealist' who will restore American faith in imperialism and the old system, a faith which has been severely shaken by Bush.

It will be just more Democratic Imperialism, meaning imperialism cloaked in populist rhetoric, aka Kennedy, Johnson etc.

Do you actually speak in anything other than clichés?
You didn't answer my point.

Aye, globalisation is pretty sweet for us in the west, including yourself tbqh.
You all but accept the global nature of capitalism through imperialism and exploitation of the third world. Again revealing your jingoistic 'hey I don't care if billions of people live in slave conditions as long I get my cheap products'.

Seeing as most Americans aren't mentally retarded and at least sort of literate, the labels on their clothes saying MADE IN CHINA, see also most of their consumer goods, will probably give them a hint as to the global nature of trade...
Good then.

Aye for one thing, seriously, wut?, for another, you can't shock nations into doing much of anything. Sorry.
Depending on tactics you can. Make them realize the privileged position the first world is in, make them realize that their 'consumerism' is only made possible by raping the vast toiling masses of humanity.

Killing exploiters and business leaders etc, politicians, is an excellent method for this.

People, people, DON'T FEED THE TROLL!

Heikoku, there may not be rules against being annoying, but should it become flamebait, there are. Watch it.

Putting a brief lock on this till it's sorted.

EDIT: Thread unlocked. The nation Behruelshad is banned for 24 hours, which may be extended as details are checked. Please notify Moderation of any reappearances.

EDIT 2: A hero of the revolution has been cruelly martyred by neo-fascist-imperialist-bourgeois-capitalist-running-dog-mods. He refused the blindfold, saluted his fellow-workers who had been pressganged into the firing squad and died singing the Internationale. No, really, would we lie to you?

EDIT 3: A mere 64 bits of off-topic persiflage deleted. I feel like the Rocking-Horse Rider of the Apocalypse.

Seems a bit of a silly attack by McCain considering some of the views expressed about him by his own colleagues...

...Republican Senator Thad Cochran of Mississippi, who has experienced McCain’s temper firsthand, as saying that the thought of John McCain being president “sends a good chill down my spine.”

...Senator Bob Smith of New Hampshire, who has also experienced McCain’s temper firsthand, as saying: “His [McCain’s] temper would place this country at risk in international affairs, and the world perhaps in danger. In my mind, it should disqualify him.”

Obama could easily reply with some humour.

We can still do that because of Obama's zero experience. Less than three years in the senate, no foreign policy experience, never ran a state or company is not a very good resume for President.

Biden won't have to wait until 2016. He can run against former vice president Romney in 2012. :D

Hey, at this point, I'll be happy with anyone who is remotely aware of the US Constitution. Given that Republicans have been using it as toilet paper for 8 years, I think it'll be nice to have a President who cares about checks and balances.

Now, go ahead, tell me about how running a company ... into the ground... is more important than knowing the constitution. Let's here it. I mean, now's not the time for intellectual honesty or anything.

Do the Republicans have any ads BESIDES personal attacks?

I've never heard of him.

People, people, DON'T FEED THE TROLL!

Heikoku, there may not be rules against being annoying, but should it become flamebait, there are. Watch it.

Putting a brief lock on this till it's sorted.

EDIT: Thread unlocked. The nation Behruelshad is banned for 24 hours, which may be extended as details are checked. Please notify Moderation of any reappearances.

EDIT 2: A hero of the revolution has been cruelly martyred by neo-fascist-imperialist-bourgeois-capitalist-running-dog-mods. He refused the blindfold, saluted his fellow-workers who had been pressganged into the firing squad and died singing the Internationale. No, really, would we lie to you?

EDIT 3: A mere 64 bits of off-topic persiflage deleted. I feel like the Rocking-Horse Rider of the Apocalypse.

:fluffle:

Will Biden's words come back to bite him and Obama? I think is will and already has. Here is the link to the McCain add.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDVUPqoowf8

some of those Youtube comments are funny. I esspecially like this one.

McCain killed Tupac.

still too long.shorten it to at most 2 montths

No.

Any other meaningless demands, or are you quite through?

It'll help him about as much as McCain nominating Ted Stevens for the VP spot.

Whoa -- a sixty-plus post train wreck. Ardchoille must be exhausted.

We can still do that because of Obama's zero experience. Less than three years in the senate

Rounding down, are we? Less than three =/= zero.

Whoa -- a sixty-plus post train wreck. Ardchoille must be exhausted.

Hah! That ain't nothin'! Why, back in the day of the US Election Threads, I used to shift hundreds at a time. Hundreds!

Mostly by Jocabia, except when they were by CanuckHeaven.:tongue:

Hah! That ain't nothin'! Why, back in the day of the US Election Threads, I used to shift hundreds at a time. Hundreds!

Mostly by Jocabia, except when they were by CanuckHeaven.:tongue:

Impressive...I'm just lamenting not being here to rubberneck.

Bitter, party of one?
:tongue:

People, people, DON'T FEED THE TROLL!

Heikoku, there may not be rules against being annoying, but should it become flamebait, there are. Watch it.

Putting a brief lock on this till it's sorted.

EDIT: Thread unlocked. The nation Behruelshad is banned for 24 hours, which may be extended as details are checked. Please notify Moderation of any reappearances.

EDIT 2: A hero of the revolution has been cruelly martyred by neo-fascist-imperialist-bourgeois-capitalist-running-dog-mods. He refused the blindfold, saluted his fellow-workers who had been pressganged into the firing squad and died singing the Internationale. No, really, would we lie to you?

EDIT 3: A mere 64 bits of off-topic persiflage deleted. I feel like the Rocking-Horse Rider of the Apocalypse.

:D

I like this thread!

Having thought about it a bit more since it was announced, I'm beginning to think that was a poor pick. It clashes embarassingly with the whole "outsider" and "change" message that Obama's been giving out, and might alienate previous supporters. Its difficult to see what voters Biden is going to attract to the ticket to compensate for this. True, you need people who can work within the system if you are going to change it, but it would seem to dilute the message. Whether the undecided are going to be particularly reassured by the experienced VP considering that the President will always be the driving force behind executive branch policy is an interesting question too. If "experience" was your primary voting determinant, you aren't going to be swayed by a VP pick, I would imagine. Its very easy pickings for the Republicans to rip the "change" and "outsider" message to shreds with this pick so it could be a PR disaster. In his efforts to broaden his appeal, I worry that the "uniqueness" and marketability of Obama as "different" from the candidates of the past has been severely compromised. I can only see it losing him more supporters than it gains. I hope I'm wrong.

Do the Republicans have any ads BESIDES personal attacks?

Do the Demorats? Seriously, I wish both sides would talk about the issues and be specific on what they would do. God, I hope someone comes to their senses and puts time limits on election campaigns.

Rounding down, are we? Less than three =/= zero.

He has been in the Senate for about 3 years and out running for president for well over a year so that makes his experience in the Senate less than 2 years.

Looks like the Republicans are playing up the dissing of Clinton (and millions of voters). Can't imagine why.... /snarky reply.

McCain camp asks, why not Clinton as VP (http://news.sympatico.msn.ctv.ca/abc/home/contentposting.aspx?isfa=1&feedname=CTV-TOPSTORIES_V3&showbyline=True&newsitemid=CTVNews%2f20080824%2fus_race_080824)?

Looks like the Republicans are playing up the dissing of Clinton (and millions of voters). Can't imagine why.... /snarky reply.

McCain camp asks, why not Clinton as VP (http://news.sympatico.msn.ctv.ca/abc/home/contentposting.aspx?isfa=1&feedname=CTV-TOPSTORIES_V3&showbyline=True&newsitemid=CTVNews%2f20080824%2fus_race_080824)?
Linky. (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/08/can-biden-out-hillary-hillary.html)

Linky. (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/08/can-biden-out-hillary-hillary.html)
From your link:

The principal rationale for selecting Hillary Clinton as Barack Obama's running mate is that she would have united Democrats behind their nominee at a time when they have a substantial advantage in party identification....

However, Joe Biden might do nearly as good a job as Clinton of uniting the party, while perhaps paying less of a price among independents.
Not exactly a strong indictment for Biden.

New campaign slogan?

Obama ForBiden.

From your link:


Not exactly a strong indictment for Biden.

New campaign slogan?

Obama ForBiden.

Your selective reading skills are as sharp as ever.

Your selective reading skills are as sharp as ever.
As good as yours obviously?

EDIT:

From a comment from your link:

SarahLawrenceScott said...
Fun analysis, but I think you're way overestimating the switches based on VP.

I'd say 1/8 of very favorable or very unfavorable will switch because of VP, and none of the "somewhats."

Now if you rerun the numbers you see it makes no difference with those who have decided...Clinton switches a few in each direction; no one else switches almost anybody. That matches intuition as well.

But the key is undecideds. The same data set shows this for undecideds (first number is very favorable, second is very unfavorable):

Biden 8/3
Kaine 0/3
Bayh 0/3
Sebelius 3/3
Clinton 38/22

Suppose 1/4 of undecideds who are strongly favorable or unfavorable decide on that basis. (Much easier to imagine than a switcher). Suddenly Biden is worth a point and Clinton is worth an eye-popping 4 points.

Interesting.

His "conscious" choice will be his Waterloo. Too bad so sad.

Are you calling me "blind, idiotic, and bitter"?

You can't read? My signature suggests quite strongly who I would be voting for.

I'll call you blind, idiotic, and bitter, if you really believe that Clinton would have been a good choice for VP for Obama. What would you have him do? After all the vitrol spewed during the primaries, selecting Clinton as his VP would have been a death sentence. After the campaign run by the Clinton camp, there should be no surprise that she was not nominated. Her campaign created the divisiveness; she can lie in the bed she's made.

I'll call you blind, idiotic, and bitter, if you really believe that Clinton would have been a good choice for VP for Obama. What would you have him do? After all the vitrol spewed during the primaries, selecting Clinton as his VP would have been a death sentence. After the campaign run by the Clinton camp, there should be no surprise that she was not nominated. Her campaign created the divisiveness; she can lie in the bed she's made.
You cannot blame Clinton solely for any divisiness? Obama's team played the race card early in South Carolina, and there was other nonsense happening in Nevada before that. No....you can't blame Clinton. You can but the end result is dissing 18 million people who voted for her. That will harm Obama in the long run.

Not exactly a strong indictment for Biden.


You seem to have quoted the editorializing, while completely ignoring the statistics. Good job.

You cannot blame Clinton solely for any divisiness? Obama's team played the race card early in South Carolina, and there was other nonsense happening in Nevada before that. No....you can't blame Clinton. You can but the end result is dissing 18 million people who voted for her. That will harm Obama in the long run.

It's only "dissing" if those 18 million people are immature children who are now going to take their ball and go home. What of the people who voted for Obama? Any Clinton nomination would be taken as a sign of deference and weakness to a candidate that he rightfully defeated in the primary. I can, and do, solely blame Clinton for the divisiveness for carrying on her campaign far too long, after it was apparent to all outside onlookers that she had been defeated. For continuing to trudge along, stubbornly refusing to admit defeat gracefully, she split the party in half, and ruined any chance she had of getting the VP nomination.

I don't feel bad for her, and if you 18 million Clinton supporters want to be childish, and pave the way for a McCain presidency, then so be it. But when those 18 million start complaining about the McCain presidency, and we all know that you'll be here complaining as loudly as you possibly can, then just remember that that is the bed that you yourself made.

You seem to have quoted the editorializing, while completely ignoring the statistics. Good job.

It's only "dissing" if those 18 million people are immature children who are now going to take their ball and go home. What of the people who voted for Obama? Any Clinton nomination would be taken as a sign of deference and weakness to a candidate that he rightfully defeated in the primary. I can, and do, solely blame Clinton for the divisiveness for carrying on her campaign far too long, after it was apparent to all outside onlookers that she had been defeated. For continuing to trudge along, stubbornly refusing to admit defeat gracefully, she split the party in half, and ruined any chance she had of getting the VP nomination.

I don't feel bad for her, and if you 18 million Clinton supporters want to be childish, and pave the way for a McCain presidency, then so be it. But when those 18 million start complaining about the McCain presidency, and we all know that you'll be here complaining as loudly as you possibly can, then just remember that that is the bed that you yourself made.
http://img57.imageshack.us/img57/7350/forgetitjakeks1.jpg

We've been down this road before. You'd just as well step outside and argue with a squirrel.

By supporting Nader, you're supporting them.
I tried to explain this to you before and I guess you don't understand the fundamental principles of a democracy?

I tried to explain this to you before and I guess you don't understand the fundamental principles of a democracy?

I tried to explain it to you before and I guess you don't understand the fundamental principles of the AMERICAN one?

<Self-indulgent rant modedited.>

As anyone on this forum can attest to I am no fan of Hillary Clinton, but your comments above are way over the top. :(

As anyone on this forum can attest to I am no fan of Hillary Clinton, but your comments above are way over the top. :(

Dude, when Celtlund thinks you've gone too far...

It's only "dissing" if those 18 million people are immature children who are now going to take their ball and go home. What of the people who voted for Obama? Any Clinton nomination would be taken as a sign of deference and weakness to a candidate that he rightfully defeated in the primary. I can, and do, solely blame Clinton for the divisiveness for carrying on her campaign far too long, after it was apparent to all outside onlookers that she had been defeated. For continuing to trudge along, stubbornly refusing to admit defeat gracefully, she split the party in half, and ruined any chance she had of getting the VP nomination.

I don't feel bad for her, and if you 18 million Clinton supporters want to be childish, and pave the way for a McCain presidency, then so be it. But when those 18 million start complaining about the McCain presidency, and we all know that you'll be here complaining as loudly as you possibly can, then just remember that that is the bed that you yourself made.
The only thing "paving the way for a McCain presidency", is the Obama approach to this election. His supporters have been slinging divisive remarks about Clinton from the get go. He has listened to those supporters. He doesn't hear the Clinton supporters and hiring one of Clinton's ex-campaign managers, Patti Doyle, as VP campaign manager, proves that he is completely out of touch.

There will be hand wringing on both sides of the Democratic house when this election is lost. Continual dissing of Clinton and her supporters will not make them any more likely to support Obama in November.

It isn't a matter of taking their ball and going home....it is a matter that Obama has the ball and won't allow the others to play.

Dude, when Celtlund thinks you've gone too far...

That earned a giggle from me.

*Gives CToaN a cookie*