MyDD :: Dream Team within five days of the convention!

by ReillyDiefenbach on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 11:55:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I have one thousand dollars says this will not happen.

Re: Hillary as Veep (2.00 / 1)

I won't steal your money. I just found out through
Dan Rather that Lanny and Donna were overheard reahearsing Ebony and Ivory for Clinton's announcement. I just saved you 1,000 big ones.

by Politicalslave on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:05:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

by ReillyDiefenbach on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:12:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh please, take my money, LOL!

Lanny, now there's one hell of a credible source for you!

I'm as strong as a bull moose, and you can use me to the limit. - Teddy Roosevelt

Exactly. The same Lanny who appeared on PUMA radio. Lanny's dead to me.

by fogiv on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:19:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

by soyousay on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 11:48:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Problem solved IMO.

About 70 percent of you were sure (2.00 / 1)

three months ago that Hillary was going to be the nominee. No doubt about it, Pennsylvania and Ohio and Indiana and even tiny Puerto Rico were going to be the death knell for Obama, then all the superdelegates would somehow flip to the one true candidate, Hillary Clinton. I submit to you that just a tiny dash of uncertainty might possibly be in order, given your lousy record.
My firm prediction is that Hillary will speak on Tuesday about how wonderful it is that a woman can now be a serious candidate for president, and then deliver a ringing endorsement of Obama. All well and good.

But she will not be the Vice President, no way, no day, for a lot of good reasons, not the least of which is that they don't like each other. Both Clintons don't like both Obamas and vice versa. So dream on, folks it doesn't cost anything.

by ReillyDiefenbach on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:40:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: About 70 percent of you were sure (none / 0)

What a "nice" comment. Please go into why it's a
bad idea. You said there are a lot of good reasons. Lincoln may not have liked a few of the guys he appointed or Kennedy or...........

by Politicalslave on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:49:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

There will be no laundry list (none / 0)

of bad votes and nasty statements, you wouldn't read them anyway. Suffice it to say, when you throw the kitchen sink at someone, you don't get to work with them. Especially since the repugs are very predictably using Hillary's own words to hurt Obama right now.

by ReillyDiefenbach on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 01:18:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: About 70 percent of you were sure (none / 0)

Look at RD's comment history. He is a Clinton hater from way back. No surprise he hastened to drop a turd in the punch bowl in this thread.

Your attempt to change the subject to "the issues" is irrelevant.

by itsthemedia on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 04:03:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: About 70 percent of you were sure (2.00 / 1)

But you have to admit, it's gonna be tough. Both candidates did and said things that make it near impossible.

As an Obama supporter from the beginning, and occasional clinton hater in the primaries, I should say I would like it.

I think Obama will win regardless, but there's no doubt the excitement over the dream ticket would put him over the top.

Everyone is right who says the repugs will attack using Clinton's words, but at the same time, the mass media would get behind the ticket big-time (a unity narrative would get endless play, exactly because it would be such a surprise).

(so put me in the dream ticket corner - only I'm not near as convinced as the diarist)

by amsterdem on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 07:35:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: About 70 percent of you were sure (none / 0)

I don't think anyone is as convinved as I am and maybe for good reason. I agree the republicans will use her words but they will anyhow. Thanks for the comment.

by Politicalslave on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 09:57:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: About 70 percent of you were sure (2.00 / 1)

Yeah, I am not saying I think it will happen. I am just saying Reilly's CERTAINTY that it will not happen is grounded in his deep emotional need for it not to happen.

Your attempt to change the subject to "the issues" is irrelevant.

by itsthemedia on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 12:40:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: About 70 percent of you were sure (none / 0)

I love that. Wonderful comment.Mojo

by Politicalslave on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 01:06:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: President Clinton will introduce Hillary as Ob (2.00 / 5)

You know what? I think this would be the smartest move of all. But let's see

The Moose is Loose!

by duende on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:56:05 PM EST

Re: President Clinton will introduce Hillary (2.00 / 4)

I have to say, it will send chills up many a spine, and cause the melons to rotate on many a Republican shoulder spindle.

I'm liking the idea. (But not making my vote conditional upon it, mind you.)

by QTG on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:07:24 PM EST

This is the nomitation of? (none / 0)

Yes. Hillary has a keynote speech. On Tuesday.

She is not going to come back out on Wednesday on give another speech as the VP pick.

Pres. Clinton's speech on Wednesday is torch passing speech to the next generation of Democratic politicians.

by ttmiskovsky on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:08:15 PM EST

Re: This is the nomitation of? (2.00 / 1)

I thought Andrea Mitchell said that Bill will speak before the VP is that incorrect? Thanks

by Politicalslave on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:14:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by ttmiskovsky on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:16:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes. I heard that is Wed.

HRC's keynote is Tue, anniv. of woman's suffrage.

Re: This is the nomination of? (2.00 / 1)

So that's Perfect who better to speak before the new Vice President? Why can't that happen?
This is great Theatre I love it!

by Politicalslave on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:32:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by ttmiskovsky on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:03:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

wrong on date of woman suffrage. Sorry for missing this. August 18.

by Politicalslave on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:09:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Thanks

by Politicalslave on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 09:28:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

It became law on Aug 26 1920 but was ratified on August 18th as you mentioned Thank you

Yeah that's what he said (2.00 / 1)

Hillary isn't going to speak TWICE.

Clinton will speak before the VP as a "torch passing" speech.

Makes me wonder who the VP is...they must know by now.

The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.

by nrafter530 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:16:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yeah that's what he said (2.00 / 4)

Why is there some law against speaking twice? Didn't George Bush speak twice at the republican convention in 1980? The second time was as the Vice Presidential pick.

The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers. -- Thomas Jefferson

by pollbuster on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:20:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The Keynote AND the VP (2.00 / 1)

That's a lot of Hillary Clinton. The convention is going to be two nights of her. I'm not sure that's going to happen.

The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.

by nrafter530 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:36:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Keynote AND the VP (2.00 / 1)

Well there will be many more speakers other than Hillary so I wouldn't define it the way you are defining it, but I respect that it is your opinion.

The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers. -- Thomas Jefferson

by pollbuster on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:40:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The MEDIA will define it (none / 0)

that way. I covered the 2004 DNC for my college radio station. We didn't focus on one speaker (unless it was Edwards and Kerry), but for the rest of the country, there were only four speakers; Bill Clinton on Monday, Barack Obama on Tuesday, John Edwards on Wednesday and John Kerry on Thursday.

The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.

by nrafter530 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:44:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The MEDIA will define it (none / 0)

nrafter What was your impression of Obama after the speech?

by Politicalslave on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 11:17:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Honestly (none / 0)

I turned to my co-host off mic and said "Too bad he's black, otherwise he'd be the next Democratic nominee"

I swear on my grandfather's grave, that's what I said.

The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.

by nrafter530 on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 05:33:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Honestly (none / 0)

Ha You were not the only one I'm sure. Thanks for
your reply.

by Politicalslave on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 06:46:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The MEDIA will define it (none / 0)

As I said it's your opinion, and as they say everyone has them.

The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers. -- Thomas Jefferson

by pollbuster on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 11:48:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Keynote AND the VP (none / 0)

Obama is showing his practicle side. We need unity and this is what Obama is all about. Meanwhile he is putting an end to the McCain/Romney dream.

by Politicalslave on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:54:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Keynote AND the VP (2.00 / 2)

What would be a better smokescreen than for Hillary to speak on Tuesday night?

by georgiapeach on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 11:54:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yeah that's what he said (none / 0)

and how much would she have to say. There would be too much screaming POLITICAL SLAVE IS A GENIUS
or POLITICAL SLAVE IS INSANE. 'No offence insane people.

by Politicalslave on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 11:27:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yeah that's what he said (2.00 / 1)

Nrafter is it possible that the pick doesn't know yet? To keep it from getting out. I somehow doubt it but I have been wondering about this.

by Politicalslave on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:26:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Maybe (2.00 / 1)

but if it's her, then I'm sure she knows.

The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.

by nrafter530 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:35:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yeah that's what he said (2.00 / 2)

Maybe she was put on Tuesday so people would say she isn't going to be picked as VP. Come on these
are politicians and Media people. Maybe change means speaking twice

by Politicalslave on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:34:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yeah that's what he said (none / 0)

Not to be a buzz kill but from what I've been reading I don't think the people and pundits need such a theatrical head fake in order to say she's
not being being picked.

by ProgRock on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:56:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yeah that's what he said (none / 0)

Why not if you can build up the excitement and create a week of a party unified and energized. Then we are hurting McCain at the same time. Thanks for the comment

by Politicalslave on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:02:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yeah that's what he said (none / 0)

Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing either way as to whether or not it's a good idea, as that's well beyond my limited speculative reach. I'm just questioning the likelihood that they're trying to throw us off the scent by scheduling her on Tuesday, which I took to be what you were positing. Thanks for commenting back.

by ProgRock on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:34:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yeah that's what he said (none / 0)

Thank you I understand and appreciate your feedback.

by Politicalslave on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 10:00:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes. Fantasy Island... (none / 0)

wasn't just a bad TV show of the 70s.

by Glaurung on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:28:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes. Fantasy Island... (2.00 / 1)

Tell me is it Fantasy that this would generate historical media attention?
Would it bring about Unity in a moment?
Would it increase Obama's lead in the polls?
These are hard facts

by Politicalslave on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:38:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You portray questions as, "hard facts." (none / 0)

I rest my case.

by Glaurung on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:42:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes. Fantasy Island... (2.00 / 1)

Agreed with Glaurung above me. I'm sorry to be the pessimist, but this is nothing more than utter speculation, and the fact that it would require Hillary to speak on two different nights already makes it unlikely.

If they already know she's VP, there'd be no reason to announce she's speaking on a different night...I realize that drama and stagecraft are all part of the convention, but that's a ridiculous amount of effort to throw the media off the scent. I believe that if she were the pick, they would've just announced it already (or else not announced when she'd be speaking in Denver).

At this point, I'd have little objection to Hillary as VP (aside from how to keep Bill out of the headlines until November). But you're getting everyone all excited by insisting that this is GOING to happen--then when it doesn't, the usual suspects on this thread will amp up their Obama hatred once again. Seems a little irresponsible.

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:58:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes. Fantasy Island... (none / 0)

It's not that much effort, all they had to do was say "hey, Hillary's speaking on Tuesday." Even Nancy Pelosi, no fan of the unity ticket, just shrugged and said that schedules can be changed.

I doubt it will happen, but the issue of the schedule is the least of the concerns.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:59:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes. Fantasy Island... (none / 0)

Hey Johnny Thanks for the comment and I realize this might get hopes up. I think it's a great idea
to plan the week to achieve the greatest impact not just to throw us off the scent. I have no proof but you must admit if Senator Obama was to stage this we would be in the middle of a media frenzy and the bounce would get Obama well over 50.
The Republican convention would be dead.

by Politicalslave on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 11:09:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes. Fantasy Island... (2.00 / 1)

Mojo for you Johnny, but no mojo for Glaurung, because:

1) You presented an argument with facts and logic. That kind of approach is consistent with liberal values, and adds to the discussion, whether I agree with it or not. (I am frankly not sure.) Glaurung simply accused all who do not agree with Glaurung of living in a bad 70's TV show. Less than zero value added.

2) You were sorry to deflate people's enthusiasm. You were trying to help people not get too excited about something that seems unlikely to you. Glaurung seems to think that saying something clever is the most important thing, even if it makes people feel bad about themselves. I think Glaurung must be a sad person. I hope you feel better soon Glaurung.

Your attempt to change the subject to "the issues" is irrelevant.

by itsthemedia on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 04:31:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

there's no law that says (2.00 / 2)

the VP has to speak on Wednesday.

by JJE on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:50:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: there's no law that says (none / 0)

Conventions do have an agenda. It has become a TV media event. This year the state bloggers will be there. Change is one thing. Silly is another, from a marketing pointof view.

The four days are a build up, one on the other, is another. Announce the VP on Tuesday and who would pay any attention to Wednesday except the die-hards who did not get to go.

I went to my state convention and I saw how attendance dropped off as the "speechifying" came to a close, even with resolution and platform work still to do.

by ttmiskovsky on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:08:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

you are right (none / 0)

that these events have to be scripted and marketed. However, there is some malleability. Bill C. is probably a big enough draw for Wednesday. Or they may move Hillary's speech if they don't do the suprise that the diarist is predicting. At any rate, I don't think it's safe to say that Clinton won't be the VP choice simply because she has a Tuesday speech slot right now. I think she is the smartest choice from a raw electoral perspective but if I were setting betting I'd say it's about about 2-1 against her.

by JJE on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:39:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: President Clinton will introduce Hillary (2.00 / 3)

You think they might not announce the VP until that very second? That'd be awesome, like watching the Oscars.

"Tell me about your work ethic." "Well, I don't think ethnics do no work. I mean, that's they problem, really." "Overt racial prejudice. Impressive."

by vcalzone on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:08:36 PM EST

Re: President Clinton will introduce Hillary (2.00 / 1)

I believe Obama will announce within five days of "Hillary Night.

by Politicalslave on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:15:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: President Clinton will introduce Hillary as VP (2.00 / 5)

It makes sense and it would be a brilliant strategy on Obama's part. It's a dramatic way to introduce his VP pick, will get tons of news coverage, and would firmly establish that the Democratic party is running on "unity".

by LakersFan on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:13:08 PM EST

Re: President Clinton will introduce Hillary as VP (2.00 / 4)

Free coverage and McCain and Romney look like yesterdays news. How can they even come close to the attention a dream team would generate?

by Politicalslave on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:18:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

coul it be? (2.00 / 5)

Even though I don't find the arguments presented in this diary pursuasive, I have to admit it was my first thought when it was indicated that Bill would speak right before the Vice President's slot. It would seem to me that anyone other than Hillary speaking next would not make any sense at all.

The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers. -- Thomas Jefferson

by pollbuster on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:13:46 PM EST

Re: coul it be? (2.00 / 4)

I agree I haven't any proof but it all seems to fit together the 88th anniversary. Unity, Votes,
Just as Obama got on the plane today he was talking about the convention needing Energy and Excitement if it isn't Clinton it will be a knife fight and I say this as a long time Obama supporter.

by Politicalslave on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:22:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Amendment XIX ratified on August 18! (none / 0)

by ttmiskovsky on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:02:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hillary (2.00 / 1)

Waiting 'til the DNC to announce (after floating numerous other names) would certainly make Obama look magnanimous and gracious--as if he had planned it all along.

Who knows? Could it be?

by Will Graham on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:22:53 PM EST

Re: President Clinton will introduce Hillary (2.00 / 4)

Well given how close The Obama campaign has played this. Could the Hillary speech scheduled for Tuesday be a ruse? And she is not really speaking until after Bill?

Look at it this way it would really put the Republicans on their heels.

The Obama campaign has got everybody convinced it won't be her.

It would be one of the greatest political fakes of all time.

Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof.

by jsfox on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:27:08 PM EST

Re: President Clinton will introduce Hillary (2.00 / 1)

Yes it is!

by Politicalslave on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:39:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Would love it, and... (2.00 / 1)

I think that would be a great unifying move for Obama at the Convention. The polls coming out of the Convention are what will shape the "pace of the race" going into last 90+ days. Either he'll pull away or it will stay tight, and we'll all have to hang on for the ride.

Won't happen though, b/c she's not going to be the VP nomination.

Bill most likely will be introducing Bayh.

He that lives upon hope, will die fasting. -Ben Franklin

by TxDem08 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:28:53 PM EST

by ttmiskovsky on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:59:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What do you think of Pelosi's suggestion of Chet Edwards?

He that lives upon hope, will die fasting. -Ben Franklin

Chet is a great guy, and I know him well as his district cover a wide swath of rural and "country" folks, who will tell you they are gun toting and bitter.

But couldn't support anyone who supports drilling in ANWAR, and opening up more acreage for the oil companies to drill when they're not using what they've been alloted already. He's a big Nuke guy, but like everyone else doesn't know or for that matter seem to care what to do with the by product as long as it doesn't go in his district.

A very reasonable and even keeled man, who has what Washington needs...some good old fashioned common sense...for the most part.

However, he doesn't fit the mold of "change" that the ticket theme, as he has been in Congress since before the Clinton's.

Great guy, not a great add to the ticket.

by TxDem08 on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 01:13:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

by reggie44pride on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:09:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Bayh voted for the war.

He's been in Washington for 10 years.

The former undermines Obama's "you gotta be right from day one" meme. The latter undermines the "politics of change" meme, though the war vote is more problematic.

But, just like everyone here overlooked Clinton's Iraq war vote, I'm sure they will for Bayh too.

He that lives upon hope, will die fasting. -Ben Franklin

True, but I don't see Bill introducing Mcaskill, or Sebelius do you? Can you see Bill introducing Kaine? Bayh dropped out/didn't run b/c Hillary was running. I think Bill will be bringing out Bayh.

by TxDem08 on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:11:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

by reggie44pride on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 04:52:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

How do you select Bayh when he voted for the war?

Wasn't "being right on day one" the reason Obama was better than "being ready to lead on day one" as Clinton suggested described herself? Well, now Obama's second in charge was "wrong from day one" on the "most important foreign policy blunder of our time?"

How the hell do you justify that pick?

I mean, I know how the Obama fans will. I just don't know how one employing reason can.

Re: Would love it, and... (none / 0)

You raise a good point. Buy politicians have a way
of getting away with murder (just ask Bush) I understand what you are saying but they will "solve" problems like that. Or you may be right on and Obama will choose someone that fits the theme you brought up. We will know next week.
Cheers

by Politicalslave on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 10:10:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Careful PS... (2.00 / 2)

You are setting some high expectations here, check out the reactions of the Hillary folks....

I think this would be wonderful, but I think it's a long shot at this point....

Unless the Clinton's STILL don't know. Bill seemed not too enthusiased with the whole Obama thing the other day....

On Nov 4th, Barack Obama officially ends the Southern Strategy....

by WashStateBlue on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:35:06 PM EST

Re: Careful PS... (2.00 / 1)

I appreciate your comment and of course I could be wrong. I don't want anyone to feel bad if it doesn't happen. If you watch the media Bill is angry and Hillary wants a roll call. This is theatre. We see what were given. Thank you.

by Politicalslave on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:43:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Careful PS... (none / 0)

Obama absolutely should not pick her, that's my opinion. Unless he wants her plotting her shenanigans behind his back and manipulating things to his detriment for the next four years.

Bad idea, bad idea.

Killing me softly with his song

by Miles Outlandish on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:22:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Careful PS... (none / 0)

That's just silliness talking - and this from an Obama supporter who's taken a fair share of shots at Clinton.

Of course some horrible things were said during the primary, but that's a primary!

True: The Clintons are ultimately centrists and triangulators, much like Obama.
False: The Clintons are conspiring to overthrow Obama and take over the world.

Upshot: If Obama is a strong leader, which he's proven in his campaign, he'll be able to work productively with HRC.

by amsterdem on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 07:46:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Not in a million years (none / 0)

. . . unless Bill Clinton is a much, much better actor than I give him credit for. He still seems miffed. And you don't dodge a question about whether someone is prepared to be President if your wife will be VP. That was another reminder of why picking Hillary would be one thing, but picking Hillary and Bill is another. He can't help himself.

It'll be Bayh, the safe pick, or Biden.

by maconblue on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:39:27 PM EST

Re: Not in a million years (none / 0)

Thanks for the comment but what if Hillary and Bill don't know yet? Bill is a good actor just ask Ken Starr. But I agree he doesn't look happy.

by Politicalslave on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:47:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: President Clinton will introduce Hillary as Ob (2.00 / 2)

It COULD happen.

It would certainly be more exciting than introducing Evan Bayh!

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:48:14 PM EST

Re: President Clinton will introduce Hillary as Ob (2.00 / 1)

It would certainly be more exciting than introducing Evan Bayh!

Man I hope the CW is wrong about Bayh. How in the world would Obama deal with questions about this:

The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq (CLI) is pleased to welcome Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) as an Honorary Co-Chairman. Bayh becomes the third U.S. Senator to join the committee after Sens. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) announced their participation on January 28.

How many times did Obama say that the war "shouldn't have been authorized"? This guy not only voted for it, but he led a propaganda effort alongside the two most war-loving politicians in America.

Bush won Indiana by around 20 points four years ago. Bayh is worth a 20-point swing? He's that popular?

by Will Graham on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:03:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: President Clinton will introduce Hillary as Ob (none / 0)

Obama is a centrist moderate and has always been. He never claimed to be the progressive wonder=boy as many here claim. I don't know where these rumors started, but Obama has never been that.

He wasn't even against the surge so much, that is a media creation. Obama's judgement is impeccable, and that's what we need over McStupid's horrible judgement!

He's so old!

Killing me softly with his song

by Miles Outlandish on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:25:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: President Clinton will introduce Hillary as Ob (none / 0)

"He never claimed to be the progressive wonder=boy as many here claim."

Most liberal senator...

"He wasn't even against the surge so much"

absolute lie.

"Obama's judgement is impeccable"

Which one(s)? Hard to tell with a guy who cannot decide what he really feels about NAFTA, FISA, Off-shore drilling, the surge, Iraq success, etc.

by reggie44pride on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:12:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: President Clinton will introduce Hillary as Ob (none / 0)

Actually, that "most liberal senator" meme started at the National Review, who cherry picked 92 votes out of 466 cast, so they could portray him as most liberal. He's actually right in line with Hillary Clinton, and there are mmany other Senators with much higher progressive ratings than Obama or Clinton.
Here is Progressive Punch scores for all the Democratic Senators- Obama is in the lower part of the page.
Other Senators who rate higher?
Dick Durbin, Lautenberg, Schumer, Jack Reed, Barbara Boxer, Bernie Sanders, Levin, Kerry, etc.,etc.

"Who are you for? That is the wrong question. It should be who is for you?" HRC

by skohayes on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 07:30:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: President Clinton will introduce Hillary as Ob (none / 0)

Obama has been consistent on all of these issues. The right wing smear machine is trying to paint him as a flop flipper, but those in the know know better. McTrolls only lie and claim he is changing his positions, positions he's held since being a community organizer.

Killing me softly with his song

by Miles Outlandish on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 09:30:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: President Clinton will introduce Hillary as Ob (none / 0)

He's been consistent on off-shore drilling and FISA?

Wow. Consistency just became as wobbly as a bowl of jello.

by reggie44pride on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 04:49:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I could definitely dig it. (none / 0)

Rec'd!

Even John McCain lusts after teh engels.

by sricki on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:50:42 PM EST

Re: I could definitely dig it. (2.00 / 1)

Thank you Sricki. Are the cats enjoying their new place?

by Politicalslave on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:31:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I could definitely dig it. (none / 0)

Cats are loving it, but they're being a bit clingy. They follow me around all over. Thanks for asking!

Even John McCain lusts after teh engels.

by sricki on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 11:00:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I could definitely dig it. (2.00 / 1)

Ha Ha Really? Actually the cats said the same about you. She is walking around bumping into things all this before her first coffee. (I know it's true) Have fun and enjoy the new place.

by Politicalslave on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:36:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: President Clinton will introduce (none / 0)

Hey...
that would be the dream scenario...

I just have my primal thoughts in my gut..
that no...

(Could Diary folks please edit titles to under 50 so we don't have to go through the extra step?)

"harlequin speech of suicide, demanding instantaneous lobotomy"

by nogo postal on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:50:48 PM EST

Schedules can change (2.00 / 1)

It's not like Hillary's Tuesday slot can't be moved...

I've never personally been opposed to HRC as VP - and ideologically, she's actually my favorite on the shortlist.

My only opposition is tactical - I just don't think she helps in the most fertile red state flip opportunities -- the mid-atlantic and the northern plans.

I like her politics a lot better than Bayh's -- but I thin Bayh legitimately turns Indiana from leans GOP to directly toss-up, if not more.

I'm generally of a mind that veeps can't win states - but I think Bayh is one veep choice that I honestly DO think could swing his home state.

by zonk on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:55:37 PM EST

by Will Graham on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:24:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

but I think Bayh is one veep choice that I honestly DO think could swing his home state.

Really? Bush won Indiana by over 20 points four years ago. Bayh can make up a 20-point difference?

by zonk on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:52:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The polls show nothing even approaching Bush's 20 pt. win --- there are variables here you're not considering.

RCP actually has IN at dead-even, though we don't have any really current polls -- http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ 2008/president/in/indiana_mccain_vs_obam a-604.html

Obama has show extraordinary strength in the Great Lakes Illiana region -- he's turned Iowa from a battleground to a likely Dem state (it hasn't hurt that McCain has lots of disdain for IA and hasn't been shy about saying it), WI is pretty much out of reach.

Don't underestimate the provincial nature of mid-westerners (I'm a lifelong one myself, grew up in Indiana, lived in IL all of my adult life).

Hoosiers simply don't care for "easter coasters" - it's little surprise Kerry got swamped in the Hoosier state.

Obama has a serious chance to win Obama without Bayh, but with Bayh?

I'll take any even money bets right -- if Bayh is the veep -- that Obama wins Indiana.

by Will Graham on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 11:25:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I see what you're saying, but 20 points just seems like a huge swing from one presidential election to the next. The vast majority of those Republicans who voted overwhelmingly for Bush in 2004 are still alive and still Republicans presumably.

I have no doubt that Bayh would help in Indiana, but that's a lot of ground to make up.

If Obama picks Bayh to carry Indiana and post-convention polls show the race unchanged there, will Dems start to panic?

by Politicalslave on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 11:29:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I agree some people must be worried at how close it is.

by zonk on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 11:38:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Indiana's a strange state -- though they've got a GOP governor at the moment, it's a pretty recent occurrence for IN to be so GOP-ridden... They've always been willing to ticket split.

Evan Bayh isn't just a popular Indiana senator, he's the scion of the most famous political family in the state, a very popular former governor, et al.

He's got real pull in the state.

'course - all he does elsewhere is be non-offensive to anyone except progressives.

Like I said, I've got no love for Bayh's politics - just a bit of regionalism mixed in with an honest feeling that he can legitimately deliver a state.

...of course - when it's all said and done, I honestly don't really care who Obama picks (so long as he doesn't do something asinine/crazy and try to tab a Bloomberg or Hagel, which he won't).

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

That's interesting you say that. I would see Bloomberg as a far more progressive and useful pick than Bayh.

by Steve M on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 11:46:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by Will Graham on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 11:56:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Agreed. Even Chuck Hagel would be better. At least those guys would have some P.R. value in a "reaching across the aisle" sense.

by Will Graham on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 11:53:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

He's got real pull in the state.

Not to belabor the point, but Evan Bayh campaigned like hell for Hillary before the Indiana primary a few months ago and what was the result: Obama exceeded everyone's expectations and almost pulled out a shocking victory. This leads me to believe that Bayh may not have as much pull in Indiana as people might think. I mean, obviously Indiana Democrats weren't persuaded.

But who knows. At this point, I just hope it's someone/anyone else.