Um, he actually would be back in the White House. He gets to live there too.

you know Bill wants that b/c, come on, unlimited poontang

I'm pretty sure it would be unlimited no matter where he's living...

Thought it was always pretty clear: Clinton-Obama ticket. With an off-chance that Edwards will knock out one of the two. (And then guess there's a slimmer chance that if Obama won, he'd name someone other than one of the competing candidates since he's more likely to do so than the others.)

And Hillary the Antichrist? Pshah. I'd sooner have her over any more powergliding Repubs with all their apologist BS.

This is the US. Our elections have always been predominantly determined by fairly insipid factors like "because we ph34rz da gay marriage!" or "because he's black". Why is there any reason to believe it wouldn't be the case for a female president? Whenever the hell it happens, how would the first female president have run without her sex coming up as an issue. But to underestimate the likelihood of women to vote for Hillary simply because she's a woman strikes me as extraordinarily naive. If anything, I'm surprised she hasn't gotten a higher showing yet, but it's still early...

Obama and Edwards have a lot more in common on an ideological level than either Obama or Edwards does with Clinton. It would be a betrayal of everything Obama is standing for if he paired up with Clinton on a ticket. IMO

Yeah, but it's been the political trend to pick the next strongest candidate in your party. I'll say Obama and Clinton are currently most likely simply because they get the most press time. But Obama seems to be more the sort who's likely to buck trends so he might pick someone other than her if she's the next strongest.. or someone else entirely.

Although it might all be moot. The Dems have never won a presidency without the pres candidate being a southerner since Kennedy. Based on '04, it doesn't seem to be enough for the Dems' VP to be one either, especially if the Repub's pres candidate is also from the South. I suspect Huckabee will win because "he's a Southerner" and a Repub. You guys have too many electoral votes.

Hey, I've only lived in Texas for a year and a half...

Although I do think that Texas is more "Southwest" than "South"... it wasn't part of the old antebellum South with Scarlett O'Hara and Rhett Butler and birthin' babies and all of that.

But my opinion of Texas is skewed b/c I live in Austin, which is the one liberal area in the state.

ANYWAY, while I agree with your logic re: candidates and running mates, it would still be (IMO) an ideological betrayal for Clinton and Obama to be on the same ticket. I won't vote for any ticket with Clinton on it. MAYBE if she were VP.... but still, I dunno.

Personally, I think Edwards should drop out now and Obama should pick him up as his running mate.

Oh, it probably would be pretty contrary in ideologies. Not that that's ever happened before..


Think that'd be the best shot at the Dems winning short of Edwards actually managing to pull ahead somehow. On the other hand, I rather like the idea of an idealist like Obama in the driver's seat..

At least until he gets shot down (figuratively or literally)

And speaking of Texas...

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/datagra...f=0&elect=0

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/datagra...f=0&elect=0

Might interest somebody here...

Update for those totally not paying attention:

Democratic Delegate Count:

Clinton: 210
Obama: 123
Edwards: 52
Kucinich: 1

(2,025 wins it)

Republican Delegate Count:

Romney: 72
McCain: 38
Huckabee: 29
Thompson (just dropped out): 8
Paul: 6
Giuliani: 2
Hunter (out): 1

(1,191 wins it)

Paul is ahead of Giuliani? That sounds surprising. Didn't Giuliani take one of the states?

No, he's been waiting for Florida (it's winner-take-all and it's like 52 delegates) to get him some momentum. I think it may not have been the best strategy...

...To the detriment of both candidates.

And for those of us who were hoping that this tortured process would end on February 5th:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080124/D8UC7RDO0.html

I agree, I bet a lot of people interpret his absence from the other primaries as meaning he dropped out already.

Wow, Obama smoked the field in South Carolina.

Yeah he did. I found the differences in his speech here, and Clinton's in new Hampshire, to be striking. The first thing out of Clinton's mouth was "thanks for giving me this big win." Obama talked about changing the direction of the country.

In moments like this, I really feel like we may be witnessing something transformative in politics. I really do hope he wins the nomination. We've been suffering under divisive crap-slinging for too long.

As Obama said, this is a choice between the past and the future.

It's pretty sad Edwards couldn't carry his state, but I suppose he's on his way out anyway. But I agree...if Obama is indeed for real, he may be what America really needs. I wouldn't be surprised if the vote in my age group makes a difference this year too (eh, probably not).


I'd still go for a Huckabee/Colbert ticket. With Norris as his Secret Service detail.

Obama does really well with young voters. He seems to be the only candidate in recent memory who has been able to break through the typical "college students are apathetic" barrier. Perhaps because he is giving them something to care about?

BTW Obama got as much white male support as Clinton did. I only mention that because (unsurprisingly) all the news outlets can do is talk about race. "Who played the race card?" Hmm, I don't know, maybe CNN?

Not that I don't think Bill Clinton is a class-A douchebag. It's funny how a lot of Democrats are just now figuring that out.

Especially after this past week

I know that the media loves narratives, but one that might actually make sense to me was one they were discussing on Saturday night: they said that Obama's comments about Reagan really pissed Bill Clinton off b/c Obama was saying that Reagan was the last transformative leader in American politics.

And you know, Bill Clinton can say what he likes, but the fact is that his second term was one of the most disastrous in terms of partisan divisiveness that we've ever seen.

Wow, Ted Kennedy is going to endorse Obama:

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politi...ennedy_end.html

I'm surprised by that too, since it seems that most of the Democratic establishment wants Hillary to get the nomination.

And lol to Obama's Reagan comments. The only thing that Bill transformed was Monica's dress. And I liked the guy as Prez.

I agree with the Reagan sentiment. And Ted is behind Obama? Urk, I might try to keep my distance if I were him.

Ha! Ted's just a Washington Bobblehead. 2/3 of the stuff out of his mouth is rhetorical self serving spew. It so crazy he's endorsing him for the reasons he stated. I cant remember when in recent times HE did anything to bring the parties together.

I think Bill Clinton's awesome. I haven't kept up with all this hubbub, but after reading a few of the complaints, my opinion hasn't changed. As usual, it seems more like the voters and supporters are quick to misinterpret people's intentions and statements. And this really goes for all supporters/voters and all candidates out there. In the end, it sounds more like the media and the pundits were the ones making it about race than any of the candidates intended to. After all, how could the first election with a serious black candidate possibly go through without race being made an issue even if it has to be the media who's gonna do it?

And Bill's not acting like a president? Could it be because he's not a president anymore, but a private citizen? Who do you expect him to pull for between his wife and some other guy?

I'll vote for Obama. In spite of how much respect I have for Bill and how much stronger a candidate I think Hillary really is over any of the '04 guys (including Kerry), it's because I think Obama is just a better choice overall. It's not just about "hope" -- I think Obama has the potential to be a president that's truly unique and great in US history. But when it comes down to it, just pick the best candidate (of those who have a chance of winning). That's all that's really needed to guide the decision.

It should piss him off. Clinton did many things. Good? Bad? A lot of that is a matter of perspective. However, no one can deny he did A LOT. Its really not fair to overlook his presidency because of Monica Lewinsky. Such a minor thing to judge someone by when compared to events like Iran Contra, the Valerie Plame ordeal or the War in Iraq.

For one he got us out of debt. Something that offered all of us an economic future we'll prob never see again in the USA. We're hopelessly in debt to other nations now. Nations who have become our economic superiors since. He increased jobs, tried to deal with healthcare, and focused our country back on being civic minded. Clinton was also an amazing politician when it came to world affairs. He didn't take down Bin Laden, but our acceptance in the world was at a peak 8 years ago.

Look at us today. Its hard to believe it was just 8 years ago that things were that good. Reagan Started the recession in the 80s and GW Bush kept it rolling. Clinton got us out of it. All things considered, its remarkably short sighted of us to have spent all that and be in our current situation. To me, its results that really matter. Bill Clinton got them - like him or not.

Ted Kennedy is the longest-serving member of the Senate. And he's probably one of the only people on earth who has the right to compare Obama to JFK.

P.S. The whole thing about "the economy was/is better/worse under President ________" is a bit misleading, b/c the chairman of the Fed is really the person with the most direct influence over the US economy. There are so many outside factors affecting the economy. Sure, the economy did great in the 90's. The 90's also saw the rise of the Internet. And yeah, the economy tanked after Bush took office. 9/11 happened then as well. I'm not saying that US economic policy has no impact on the economy, just that it's not as simple as "this guy fixed the economy and that guy broke it".

9/11 did happen. And we began by retaliating appropriately and working to keep our nation safe. And then a year or two later we just took a little side trip to another country for no other reason than mopping up daddy's mess (and, of course, just spreading it around and mixing it with dirty mopwater to make an eve bigger mess). That cost us... how many billions of dollars again? True, the President doesn't have *that* much to do with the economy, but funneling our nation's money into a needless and unwinnable war makes a bad situation much, much worse.

What kills me is that this recession or pseudo-recession or whatever is a surprise to everyone. Between the housing bubble and the never-ending death spiral in Iraq it was pretty evident years in advance. But whatever, I gets me a check now!

Which gets to my point... Bush didn't cause the housing bubble. Again, I'm not trying to say that his economic policy priorities (or policy priorities in general) were/are wonderfully fantastic, just that the reality of economics is more complex than assigning blame (or giving credit) to a single person.

But anyway, I would like to keep focused on the 2008 race in this thread....

And speaking of which, Toni Morrison is going to endorse Obama today. For those of you who are unaware, she's the one who coined the phrase "America's first black president" in reference to Bill Clinton. Here's the full text of her amazingly un-prescient quote from 1998:

And he just keeps posting...

When Obama delivered his victory speech in SC, he said that he had the most delegates, and I was like

Turns out he's right... I still don't get the actual vs. ...non-actual? delegates thing, but here's the breakdown:

Obama: 63
Clinton: 48
Edwards: 26

On the Republican side:

Romney: 59
Huckabee: 40
McCain: 36
Paul: 4
Giuliani: 1

I don't totally understand the concept of "superdelegates"...

<_<

>_>

Add this to a delegate





So on NPR they were talking about what a snazzy Website Obama has, groovy. Indeed it is more stylish than the other candidates. So I've been a pretty solid Hillary fan but I thought I'd give this Obama guy another look so I click straight to issues.

The number one issue at the top of the page is Civil Rights. Now I'll admit that things probably aren't perfect, but that's totally not issue one on our plate right now. If I were a minority I'm pretty sure I'd find that insulting to my intelligence.

So his first 8 issues are this.

Civil Rights
Disabilities
Economy
Education
Energy & Environment
Ethics
Faith
Family

Seriously? Economy is #3? Energy #5!!!?


This list seems to be prioritized more closely to what my concerns are.

Strengthening the Middle Class
Providing Affordable and Accessible Health Care
Ending the War in Iraq
Promoting Energy Independence and Fighting Global Warming
Improving Our Schools
Fulfilling Our Promises to Veterans
Supporting Parents and Caring for Children
Restoring America's Standing in the World


and I would have said that even if I didn't know it was Hillary Clinton.

Maybe the list is just alphabetical.

edit: d'oh, beaten to it

I guess you missed that Obama's issues are just listed in alphabetical order? Right down to second and third letters. I refuse to believe in the coincidence that he would rank them in that order of importance, too. I think it's a "ease of finding stuff on the website" sort of choice.

ETA: Man, the three of us jumped right on that, didn't we?

Like any candidate is gonna be dumb enough to rank issues in terms of importance...

werd

Here's his site: http://www.barackobama.com/index.php

Wow, from Civil Rights all the way down to Veterans. Alphabeted.

I guess homeless xylophones aren't important? OBAMA I REFUSE YOUR CANDIDACY

In the "most tasteless question ever" department, here's someone asking Teddy Kennedy about whether he's afraid Obama will be assassinated:

http://media.newsbusters.org/stories/assas...ks-kennedy.html

Wow, what a d*ck.

Me neither, but this helps:

(from http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/edward...008-01-29.html)



Not sure that I'm too crazy about Edwards' tactics, if that report is accurate. Even though I'm an Obama supporter and Edwards would be more likely to throw his support to him, it still makes Edwards come off as a glory hound who wants to barter for a VP nomination. He knows that if he were out of the race, Obama would be getting most of his support -- he's keeping it close to position himself as kingmaker. Again, if the report is true.

Meh.

Maybe he'll trade his delegates for a few $400 haircuts.

Wow, when he really gets laughing, he reminds me of someone else...........

Coincidence?

I used to like Edwards, but between him and the whole superdelegate issue it seems that - while I don't support many of their policies - the Republicans have by far the more logical primary system. Yeah, I want Obama to get the nomination, but I'd rather the voters have their say than let Edwards play "kingmaker," even if they don't go with my guy. Plus I really don't need to see him as VP again.