The only way Hillary fans would vote for a McCain/Clinton ticket would be if they were guaranteed McCain would die somehow right after the nomination.
I hate Palin, and have for over a year now, which is how long I've known about her. I have an affection for Alaska, and a strong objection to the fact that Big Oil actually runs the whole state through a few oil-owned figureheads including Stevens and Palin. I know enough about her that I can vouch she has lied just about every time she has opened her mouth on video. She's an evil scumbag in the truest sense of the word, and only marginally smarter than the absolute morons who are planning to vote for her.
If I were advising Obama, I'd have told him to pick Bill Richardson instead of Biden. No baggage, one of the true good guys in politics, fills all Obama's holes even better than Biden does, continues the nebulous "change" theme, etc. Back to McCain/Clinton. Fully 1 in 5 Clinton voters are backing McCain, according to the polls. That number would be 80% or more if she were on the ticket. The Dems' problem may be that their own base doesn't turn out in the kind of numbers required to keep the election close or win it. Back to the math. It's a subjective guess as to how many Republicans would stay home, but if it's 1/2, then the math still is hugely in McCain's favor. 25M + 18M = 43M to Obama's 32M. You start with those numbers and figure out where Obama's going to get more votes and where McCain loses more to make the race close. It's moot tho. For the record, I'm writing in Ron Paul, and don't support either Obama or McCain. If I had my way, govt. would be cut by 2/3, and neither candidate comes close to my view of the role of govt. You have Obama with a laundry list of $trillion spending ideas, and McCain has presented no vision of the future that I can see. Obama talks of escalating the war in Afghanistan, which makes absolutely no sense to me, while I at least am satisfied to ride out the situation in Iraq as the end appears near enough.
Help a brotha out. Is it "FLILJ"? I've been trying to Google it, and nothing comes up. Obviously it must be "First Lady I'd Like To (blank)". Where are Gene Rayburn, Brett Sommers and Charles Nelson Reilly when you need them?
It was genius. Absolute genius. Two people doing spot-on impressions with great writing. That's something not seen often enough on SNL.
The problem is that Hillary would have had to decline it, which would be embarrassing to McCain. What the Democrats are doing with the Clintons are holding them hostage. How? Chelsea has a bright political future and that's the chit the Democratic Leadership is using to keep the Clintons in line. In response, the Clintons are on a slow-down strike. They're "supporting" Obama, but only enough to not really help him much. Hillary's best option is still for Obama to lose and to run for President in 2012. Democrats don't embrace their past losers, and losing this election would finish Obama.
Maxiep -- Do you think McCain should have selected Lieberman? I would imagine you are not fond of Lieberman? I got to say Palin scares me, so I don't think I am voting for McCain.
Get out of my head! Executive experience? Check. He is Governor of NM Knowledge of energy policy? Check. He was Secretary of Energy. Knowledge of Washington and how to get a bill through Congress? Check. He was a US Representative. Shoring up the base? Check. He delivers the Latino vote and has blue-collar labor appeal Changing the Electoral Map? Check. He delivers NM, CO, challenges AZ and brings NV. I couldn't believe after being the first person to abandon Clinton he wasn't rewarded with the Veep slot.
I actually like Lieberman, as I'm supportive of the War on Terror, yet am a social libertarian. My issue with JL is his view of the role of government--he's too big government for me. As for Palin, she scares me too. I generally like my candidates coming from governors, not senators or House members. The debates will go a long way to establishing my comfort level with her.
I would have preferred Giuliani or Romney. Tom Ridge would have also been fine. All three have shown they are effective leaders and Romney has the private sector experience I like. However, I don't think the Republican base would have supported Giuliani's social views (pro-choice, pro-gay marriage), Tom Ridge's pro-choice viewpoint and it's clear Romney wouldn't have delivered anything. Besides, McCain didn't like him. The choice of Palin is a high beta pick. They must have seen something in their internal poll numbers that showed they needed to reshuffle the deck if they stood a chance of winning.
Hillary: "I believe global warming is a man-made catastrophe." Palin: "And I believe it's just Gwahd huggin' us clooosah." LMAO. -Pop
Dammit! I changed the format in the middle of my paragraph to a list and foreign policy was next. Thanks for correcting my error.
I'm mostly non-partisan and hate partisanship in general. I liked Reagan, and I liked Clinton, too. Bill Richardson is one of the true good guys in politics with all the right motivations and seriously skilled. I think he was the most qualified candidate on either side. The next two best qualified were Romney and Rudy. Three least qualified IMO were McCain, Clinton, Obama in that order (Obama least of the 3).
That's true. And expecting Hillary Clinton to keep a secret that benefits her is like expecting Homer Simpson to turn down free beer. It would have made her a lot of friends in the Democratic Party if she let it be known she was offered the VP slot and turned it down.
