Clinton? Obama? or Edwards? Who Will It Be?

reply to post by Justin Oldham

If Senator Obama picked anyone else but Senator Clinton, I think he would spend most of his time defending his Veep ... unless .... He picks a white Southerner like Edwards.

Well, there is Senator Bill Nelson from FL who won re-election in 2006. He won re-election over the ignoble Secretary of State in 2000 Katherine Harris. He ran about 300,000 votes ahead of the Dems in other statewide races, including a losing one to Charlie Crist as governor.

Now I’m not sure you have dealt with my complaint that Hillary as VP would DILUTE Obama’s candidacy for not that much to gain. That aside, I also hold that Hillary is no Number 2 to anybody. So she won’t feel slighted if he does not name her. She’s too smart to “take a walk” from the Convention. If she gets 10 earmarks under Bush43, then she’ll get 20 under Obama. Plus Bill will get to be Ambassador at Large. Maybe Jimmy Carter can retire then and let the Neo Cons go back to sleep?

In my mind's eye, I can see the 60 day hard sell that they'd have to do in an effort to weld broken fences and generate some good buzz. I can also see it working, too.

Obama is riding a WAVE. Hillary shot herself in the foot today in an off-the-cuff interview. She mentioned “assassination” when she ought not to have. She’s tired - everyone is tired - but she ought to have opted for 40 winks instead of the quick interview. But what the hey, that won’t be the last mistake to be made before November 4.

With X11's favorite - Bill Richardson - Obama will not be asked to “explain” his VP nominee. Bill is clean enough and smart enough to tackle those line of attack on his own. If it were up to me, I’d have not a second’s delay in asking Richardson to make the run!

Let me see if I can clarify my thinking as regards Senator clinton.

It's true that Hillary brings with her certain negatives. Trouble is, Obama faces some very scary backlash if he does NOT choose her as his running mate. He's damned if he does, and damned if he does not.

As we've seen in each of the parimaries, and discussed in this thread, Obama has a problem with the white vote. If he does not choose Hilary, the Democrat's white base will fragment . As much as 30% may cross over to vote for McCain as a form of protest.

It's true that she'd be a successful senator, for the reasons you give. Politics asid,e she would clean up when it came to earmarks.

McCain has the luxury of choosing a former governor to be his veep. that's romney, Huckabee, or a currently serving governor like Sarah Palin.

Unless Obama can convince New Mexico's Janet Napolitano to be his VP, he's got only one other real gubenetorial choice. Bill Richardson. He can't risk that, for reasons of racial biasing and demographic percentage.

Knowing htat he's faced with McCain-Huckabee, or McCain-Romney, Barack Obama has to bet on the msot sure thing he's got. Can they mend fences? Yes. All they'd have to do is ignore McCain, bash Bush, and run on the economy.

If Obama loses to McCain, and Hillary is NOT on the ticket...the DNC will have a civil war on its hands. they'd suffer damage that would take ten years to fix. In that time, Senator Clinton could be up to all kinds of no good.

reply to post by Justin Oldham


On Hillary VP chances .
Here is some additional reasoning as to why I don't think Hillary will be Obama VP pick . This goes for people and life outside outside of politics as well . Anybody that has been successful or even ground breaking has taken a manageable or calculated risks . For example Bill Gates and others who help to found the PC industry were college drop outs . Dropping out of college would have defied(SP?) conventional or parental wisdom .

Returning to the political focus McCain took a risk with his support for " immigration reform " . As we have seen McCain chose to risk the wrath of his party core in order to appeal to the Latino vote . So even if one views Hillary as the risk free choice for VP it stands to reason that at some stage Obama will have to take a risk if he wants to win the White House .

reply to post by xpert11

On Hillary VP chances. Here is some additional reasoning as to why I don't think Hillary will be Obama VP pick. Taken a manageable or calculated risks . For example Bill Gates and others who help to found the PC industry were college drop outs. McCain took a risk with his support for " immigration reform." As we have seen McCain chose to risk the wrath of his party core in order to appeal to the Latino vote. So even if one views Hillary as the risk free choice for VP it stands to reason that at some stage Obama will have to take a risk if he wants to win the White House.

Risk free!?

Hillary has polled nearly as more or more votes than Obama depending on how you count. On that basis alone, Hillary would merit VERY serious consideration as the No. 2 on a Obama Clinton ticket. You have convinced me Mr X11.

I have now come to support an Obama-Clinton ticket for the Dems against a McCain-Romney ticket.

reply to post by Justin Oldham

Let me see if I can clarify my thinking as regards Senator Clinton.
It's true that Hillary brings with her certain negatives. Trouble is, Obama faces some very scary backlash if he does NOT choose her as his running mate. He's damned if he does, and damned if he does not. Obama has a problem with the white vote. As much as 30% may cross over to vote for McCain . .

Knowing he's faced with McCain-Romney, Barack Obama has to bet on the most sure thing he's got. Can they mend fences? Yes. All they'd have to do is ignore McCain, bash Bush, and run on the economy.

Unlike King Agrippa and St. Paul, you have persuaded me J/O. See: Acts 26 v. 28: King Agrippa tells Paul, “Thou almost persuadest me . . “ KJV.

I’m now a booster for a Obama-Clinton ticket. As I wrote elsewhere I now anticipate the McCain selection will be the very ambitious and very rich Mitt Romney!

reply to post by donwhite


Back up the truck I myself do not view Hillary as the low or no risk option for VP assuming that he wins the nomination . I will rephrase so I will make more sense . Even if someone follows Justin line of thinking in order to be successful Obama will have to take a chance on Richardson or Edwards .

I still hold the view that Hillary would bring more negatives then positives to the ticket . Obama smartest move will be to select either Richardson or Edwards as his VP pick .

IMO Obama - Richardson will defeat the McCain - Huckabee(SP?) ticket in November .

reply to post by xpert11

Back up the truck I myself do not view Hillary as the low or no risk option for VP . . Even if someone follows Justin line of thinking in order to be successful Obama will have to take a chance on Richardson or Edwards . . Hillary would bring more negatives then positives to the ticket. Obama smartest move will be either Richardson or Edwards as his VP pick. IMO Obama - Richardson will defeat the McCain - Huckabee ticket in November.

OK, Mr X11, let’s have a re-run. Seems we all have agreed that Obama is the man to beat. Only MT, ND and PR remain to vote. Based on the proportional vote counting method, Obama cannot achieve the needed 52 votes to reach 2,025. But I predict he will bust 2,000. Since the popular vote DOES NOT COUNT in any calculation but Hillary’s, you might say Obama is the MAN!

That being the case, who does he tap for No. 2? I too like John Edwards, the accomplished ATLA - trial lawyer - who now owns the largest - 25,000 square feet - home in NC. I assume he was one of those class action lawyers who beat a tobacco company or a drug company. For him, a $400 hair cut may be more affordable that my $11 cut.

Edwards is a liberal. “Liberal” is a bad word in American politics. We have changed our name to Progressives. I don’t know if that will work or not. Mark one up for the relentless GOP propaganda machine.

Richardson OTOH, has not espoused positions traditionally equated with liberals. Lot’s more regulation of industry and commerce, for example. He has been careful. As the governor of a small state, he can’t do anything anyway in the regulating business. Only big populated states like NY and CA really have the capacity to make important state laws. Which is ONE more reason I advocate a STRONG central government.

Without one we LOWER class in effect have NO real government at all. None that can address the humongous problems facing society. Health care. Education. Infrastructure. I’d say at least 40 of the 50 states do not have the financial resources to deal effectively those problems. Yet they DAY DREAM themselves into CORPORATE DOMINANCE thinking all the time they somehow have more FREEDOM. But I digress.

J/O reminds that despite Hillary’s negatives, she is MORE positive to him than her negatives will ever be, considering the make-up of the Dems coalition. That DEMANDS an Obama-Clinton ticket.

Originally posted by donwhite
J/O reminds that despite Hillary’s negatives, she is MORE positive to him than her negatives will ever be, considering the make-up of the Dems coalition. That DEMANDS an Obama-Clinton ticket.

Senator Clinton's recent R.F.K. gaff may have been a Freudian slip. but let's remember that politics is rough and tumble business. We should expect to hear from her very little this week. Her campaign will roll on in Low Budget mode.

reply to post by Justin Oldham


How about no budget mode?

Ya know I am not a big fan of Obama's, preferring Edwards instead... but in my humble opinion, he's earned it and Clinton has ended up looking like a spoiled sport.

I fully expect her to threaten an independent run at the convention.

[edit on 26-5-2008 by grover]

You may be right about that no budget thing. by all reports, she is hoarding what little cash she has left. At this point, she needs to be seen as leaving the race with some few shreds of dignity. In three years, noboyd will remember how she ran the race, but they will remember how she finished the race.

If she wants to be positioned for 2012, she must finish on a more positive note. McCain's chances tow in are none against an Obama-Clinton ticket. His chances are "some" against Obama-Edwards. A lot hinges on just how much of a fight Obama wants during the general election.

reply to post by Justin Oldham


If she blows it for the party in Nov. or if it ends up looking that way, she will never be forgiven and her chances after that will be zilch.

Originally posted by grover
If she blows it for the party in Nov. or if it ends up looking that way, she will never be forgiven and her chances after that will be zilch.

If, for whatever reason, Obama does NOT choose her, and he loses to McCain....her stock will go up considerably. In the short run, she will be blamed for doing damage to his campaign...but...she'll be able to spin her way out of that. In the long run, she'll be seen by party loyalists as having been the better choice. She'll be a sainted figure, if that happens.

[edit on 26-5-2008 by Justin Oldham]

I don't know I am kinda expecting him to chose Wesley Clarke for the foreign policy experience that he would bring to the ticket.

Like it or not I have come to believe that the days of a do-nothing VP are over and we are entering the "co-emperor" stage of our nation.

reply to post by Justin Oldham

McCain's chances to win are none against an Obama-Clinton ticket. His chances are "some" against Obama-Edwards. A lot hinges on just how much of a fight Obama wants during the general election.

Obama will FIGHT a LOT! Look how he has been responding to McCain’s attack ads. The NEXT day! And so far, I’d rate the contest McCain 0, Obama 2.

With Hillary as No. 2, even the RED NECK vote will go to Obama. Call Oprah to set aside January 20, 2009, to PARTY ALL NIGHT!

If I ad to bet money, I'd say that the only viable ticket for the Dems that does NOT include Hillary Clinton would be Obama-Edwards. I can see how McCain could win under those conditions. I don't see how he wins out against Obama nad Clinton.

Now with all this talk about what happened lately with the comments about Obama being related to Osma bin ladin.. Not by blood by in terms of the word use..

Let me comment what another member said on this thread Here

Posted by Cyberbian
That was no accident. That was carefully crafted propaganda to relate and equate in the listeners mind, Osama Bin Ladin with Barack Obama.
It is about as low as you can go, even if you are the lowest form of media vermin. I am fairly certain that they have the ability to edit out an unintended content. Even live broadcasts have monitors and delays. Which means that the statement was sanctioned by the organization. Do not blame the actors, blame the producers, directors and the station.

I really didnt see this one comming! I didnt think they would sink this low to get Hillary in the office. I really hope they dont follow threw with this threat.. As I take this as a threat when connecting the dots!

So much talk lately about this subject and I must word myself carefully here, and I have no desire to say something wrong and have it taken out of context. But if you are following my thought pattern here you know just what I am saying here.

They have dropped hints and clues for us in the past. They could have just as easy cut and pasted that comment out of that Fox Report.
But they decided to go ahead and let it slip on threw.
Why?

Must they sink this low in pushing Obama out of the race?
Clinton is one sneaky lady. And threw the use of these slips, I think they just really opened up a whole new can of worms here.

Lets not get into what would happen if this happened, but lets just keep an eye on this one here. Just take it down as a mental note.

The dots are here for us all to see.. Its just a matter of connecting these dots. And I for one can see this playing out. However this really came out of no where! I didnt see this play of events unfolding until just last night.. Ive been so busy with my life, new job and new home, that I had some time today.. And wanted to just share this in this thread here.

As I think this is prudent to what is to be around the corner.

Threwout this thread my stance is clear.. And mark my words.. I stick with my feelings threwout this whole thread. No need to repeat myself.
The core members of this thread know where I stand, and know who I think is going to win.

[edit on 27-5-2008 by zysin5]

As you may have noticed, the candidates were out and about during this Memorial Day weekend. I did notice while watching coverage of Senator Clinto nthat she seemed almost subdued. She was polite and congenial as she coul be, but...did anyone else pick up on that?

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
As you may have noticed, the candidates were out and about during this Memorial Day weekend. I did notice while watching coverage of Senator Clinto nthat she seemed almost subdued. She was polite and congenial as she coul be, but...did anyone else pick up on that?

They must have her on drugs... heavy drugs!!!

reply to post by zysin5

“Must they sink this low in pushing Obama out of the race? Clinton is one sneaky lady. And threw the use of these slips, I think they just really opened up a whole new can of worms here. Lets not get into what would happen but lets just keep an eye on this one here. Just take it down as a mental note. However this really came out of no where! I didn’t see this play of events unfolding until just last night.. I’ve been so busy with my life . . “

Although American blacks number about 13% of the population, they have managed to raise the IRE of 3X that many people in the white population. 39% red necks. This sad condition is almost entirely attributable to Republicans beginning with Dwight Eisenhower. The only GOP president since 1932 who did not play the RACE card was Gerald Ford.

It is de rigueur for GOPs in the Old South. The 11 states of the Confederacy plus a couple of others. White people go crazy over the issue. Racism is alive and well in the US of A. Once we had 1000s of sundown towns. More than 9/10ths were outside the south. The sundown town has morphed into today’s gated community. Thanks to the Republican Supreme Court there are very few pubic schools that are not segregated INSIDE but look mixed on the OUTSIDE.

McCain has already showed his stuff. He started in NC when the local GOPs were running the Obama Wright ad. McCain feigned to make an objection but he must have winked because the ad ran on. McCain has insulted Michelle. This will be a typical down and dirty Republican campaign. Say hello 527s!


[edit on 5/27/2008 by donwhite]

The Scott McClellen book is raising quite a bit of dust. It's not telling us any more than what we suspected. It is, however, validating our suspicions. I'd like to point out that Republicans and Democrats alike have been critical of this administration. If you go back to the earliest days of this thread, you find that Bush's motivations have played some roll in our speculations about who will be the next American President.

[edit on 28-5-2008 by Justin Oldham]