adma
Superstar
Yeah, but it's Bill who draws all those squealing hillbilly daughters on-side...
|
|
|
- Thread starter Admiral Beez
- Start date
Yeah, but it's Bill who draws all those squealing hillbilly daughters on-side...
urbandreamer
recession proof
^Hey hillbillies are cool! My dream is to live in my own "shack" in hillbilly country: the Deep South. I love it down there!
Roy G Biv
Senior Member
You know, the more I hear about Obama, the more I can't wait 'til Mccain wins! I'm a Ron Paul/Libertarian supporter, but I think i'm voting for Mccain, just as a big ____ salute to the Democratic elite.
It would be interesting, however, to see how accurate this poll is, ultimately.
Ron Paul has some of the best and worst ideas I've ever heard.
Abolishing the IRS?
Brandon716
Senior Member
detroitbootybass
Active Member
Spam.
Three posts from this new 'member' and they are all the same 'cut & paste' advertising for a candidate that is DONE.
Brandon716
Senior Member
Getting back on topic, I hope the US Presidential candidates focus on some of the overriding issues. The US economy is horridly on the wrong track for so many reasons. Bad trade policy (and I don't think this means NAFTA, but more the WTO and our dealing with the Middle East via the Iraq war and Afghanistan, etc), excessive spending where the US doesn't need it (again, Iraq), a lack of spending where its needed (domestically).
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080510/economic_mirage.html
Analysis: Good economic news something of a mirage
Analysis: Some good economic news is a mirage masking weakness in national economy
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The unemployment rate drops. Productivity grows. The trade deficit shrinks. Sounds great, right? Not so fast.
Borrowing radio broadcaster Paul Harvey's signature saying: let's hear the rest of the story.
Some seemingly good economic numbers can be something of a mirage masking weaknesses in the national economy.
Let's take the unemployment rate, which dipped to 5 percent in April, from 5.1 percent in March. A closer look reveals that the decline in unemployment is not as good as it looks at first blush. The drop came as the number of people holding part-time jobs for economic reasons swelled to 5.2 million in April, up sharply from 4.4 million a year earlier.
The dip in the unemployment rate also occurred as employers cut jobs for the fourth month in a row, pushing up total losses beyond the quarter-million mark -- to 260,000. Wages barely grew and workers' hours were trimmed. Taken altogether, these things point to a tepid picture of employment conditions nationwide.
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and his colleagues recently used the word "softened" to describe the labor situation.
U.S. productivity -- an important ingredient to the country's long-term vitality -- grew solidly in the first three months of this year. That efficiency gain, however, came at the expense of workers.
"Productivity gains were due primarily to declines in hours worked," the Labor Department's Bureau of Labor Statistics explained. Those hours fell at a 1.8 percent pace, the biggest drop in five years. Employers also shed workers in the first quarter. Thus, companies were able to produce more with fewer workers, and that boosted productivity, the amount an employee produces for every hour of work.
"American workers, you just got to love them," said Joel Naroff, president of Naroff Economic Advisers. "They just seem to produce more and more and more. That was the case in the first quarter of the year as fewer workers working fewer hours managed to produce more," he said.
Still, healthy efficiency gains are important for the economy because they can blunt inflation; that's good for companies' profits and good for those earning paychecks.
Let's take a closer look at the nation's trade deficit. It shrank to $58.2 billion in March as the United States' appetite for imports fell faster than foreign demand for U.S. exports.
A drop in the United States' foreign oil bill -- reflecting less oil being imported -- played an important factor in the decline in imports. However, demand for foreign-made autos, furniture, toys, clothing and other goods also waned, underscoring the strains faced by U.S. consumers.
Consumers have turned cautious, battered by housing and credit problems and high food and energy prices. Many -- watching their single-biggest assets, their home, sink in value are less inclined to spend. High energy and food prices are leaving people with less cash to buy other things. And, harder-to-get credit has made financing big-ticket goods, like cars, appliances and of course, homes, more difficult.
In the first quarter of this year, consumer spending increased at the slowest pace -- a mere 1 percent growth rate -- since the last recession in 2001. Consumer spending accounts for the single-biggest chunk of U.S. economic activity. Thus, how consumers behave shapes whether the country will survive the blows of the housing, credit and financial debacles or fall victim to them as many fear.
U.S. exports, meanwhile, have been helped by the falling value of the U.S. dollar. That makes U.S.-made goods and services less expensive to foreign buyers. But that weaker dollar also makes imported goods more expensive in the United States. That contributes to the surging prices for oil, food and other commodities.
And, while falling interest rates in the United States help ordinary people and businesses, it also contributes to the dollar's decline. Add to that the perception of economic weakness in the United States and the U.S. dollar has fallen to record lows compared with the euro.
Still, export growth played an important role in keeping the economy growing -- albeit slowly -- during the first quarter. "Exports are booming and helped keep GDP in the black," said Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez. Gross domestic product, or GDP, measures the value of all goods and services produced in the United States. It grew by a feeble 0.6 percent growth rate from January through March.
When exports and business' inventories are removed and imports are added in, economic activity actually contracted at a 0.4 percent pace in the first quarter. That figure shows that U.S. consumers have a dwindling appetite to spend.
Many economists -- and members of the public -- believe the economy is in a recession. Bernanke has said a recession is possible, while President Bush acknowledges the country is going through tough times. Both men hope the Fed's seven-month rate-cutting campaign and the government's stimulus package of rebates and tax breaks will lift the country out of its slump later this year.
Meanwhile, the mirage continues.
In another anomaly, consumer borrowing rose in March at the fastest clip in four months. It sounded like people were back in a buying groove, with credit card charges especially heavy. But building up the credit charge balances is another form of debt. Economists said people don't have a choice because their paychecks aren't going as far and they can't tap into their homes, as they did during the housing boom, for ready sources of cash.
So some silver linings are not so silver.
When you look closely, "you do see some dark economic clouds in the silver linings," said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Economy.com. "The darkness is much greater than any sunshine."
EDITOR'S NOTE -- Jeannine Aversa has covered economics for The Associated Press since 1999.
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080510/economic_mirage.html
Analysis: Good economic news something of a mirage
Analysis: Some good economic news is a mirage masking weakness in national economy
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The unemployment rate drops. Productivity grows. The trade deficit shrinks. Sounds great, right? Not so fast.
Borrowing radio broadcaster Paul Harvey's signature saying: let's hear the rest of the story.
Some seemingly good economic numbers can be something of a mirage masking weaknesses in the national economy.
Let's take the unemployment rate, which dipped to 5 percent in April, from 5.1 percent in March. A closer look reveals that the decline in unemployment is not as good as it looks at first blush. The drop came as the number of people holding part-time jobs for economic reasons swelled to 5.2 million in April, up sharply from 4.4 million a year earlier.
The dip in the unemployment rate also occurred as employers cut jobs for the fourth month in a row, pushing up total losses beyond the quarter-million mark -- to 260,000. Wages barely grew and workers' hours were trimmed. Taken altogether, these things point to a tepid picture of employment conditions nationwide.
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and his colleagues recently used the word "softened" to describe the labor situation.
U.S. productivity -- an important ingredient to the country's long-term vitality -- grew solidly in the first three months of this year. That efficiency gain, however, came at the expense of workers.
"Productivity gains were due primarily to declines in hours worked," the Labor Department's Bureau of Labor Statistics explained. Those hours fell at a 1.8 percent pace, the biggest drop in five years. Employers also shed workers in the first quarter. Thus, companies were able to produce more with fewer workers, and that boosted productivity, the amount an employee produces for every hour of work.
"American workers, you just got to love them," said Joel Naroff, president of Naroff Economic Advisers. "They just seem to produce more and more and more. That was the case in the first quarter of the year as fewer workers working fewer hours managed to produce more," he said.
Still, healthy efficiency gains are important for the economy because they can blunt inflation; that's good for companies' profits and good for those earning paychecks.
Let's take a closer look at the nation's trade deficit. It shrank to $58.2 billion in March as the United States' appetite for imports fell faster than foreign demand for U.S. exports.
A drop in the United States' foreign oil bill -- reflecting less oil being imported -- played an important factor in the decline in imports. However, demand for foreign-made autos, furniture, toys, clothing and other goods also waned, underscoring the strains faced by U.S. consumers.
Consumers have turned cautious, battered by housing and credit problems and high food and energy prices. Many -- watching their single-biggest assets, their home, sink in value are less inclined to spend. High energy and food prices are leaving people with less cash to buy other things. And, harder-to-get credit has made financing big-ticket goods, like cars, appliances and of course, homes, more difficult.
In the first quarter of this year, consumer spending increased at the slowest pace -- a mere 1 percent growth rate -- since the last recession in 2001. Consumer spending accounts for the single-biggest chunk of U.S. economic activity. Thus, how consumers behave shapes whether the country will survive the blows of the housing, credit and financial debacles or fall victim to them as many fear.
U.S. exports, meanwhile, have been helped by the falling value of the U.S. dollar. That makes U.S.-made goods and services less expensive to foreign buyers. But that weaker dollar also makes imported goods more expensive in the United States. That contributes to the surging prices for oil, food and other commodities.
And, while falling interest rates in the United States help ordinary people and businesses, it also contributes to the dollar's decline. Add to that the perception of economic weakness in the United States and the U.S. dollar has fallen to record lows compared with the euro.
Still, export growth played an important role in keeping the economy growing -- albeit slowly -- during the first quarter. "Exports are booming and helped keep GDP in the black," said Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez. Gross domestic product, or GDP, measures the value of all goods and services produced in the United States. It grew by a feeble 0.6 percent growth rate from January through March.
When exports and business' inventories are removed and imports are added in, economic activity actually contracted at a 0.4 percent pace in the first quarter. That figure shows that U.S. consumers have a dwindling appetite to spend.
Many economists -- and members of the public -- believe the economy is in a recession. Bernanke has said a recession is possible, while President Bush acknowledges the country is going through tough times. Both men hope the Fed's seven-month rate-cutting campaign and the government's stimulus package of rebates and tax breaks will lift the country out of its slump later this year.
Meanwhile, the mirage continues.
In another anomaly, consumer borrowing rose in March at the fastest clip in four months. It sounded like people were back in a buying groove, with credit card charges especially heavy. But building up the credit charge balances is another form of debt. Economists said people don't have a choice because their paychecks aren't going as far and they can't tap into their homes, as they did during the housing boom, for ready sources of cash.
So some silver linings are not so silver.
When you look closely, "you do see some dark economic clouds in the silver linings," said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Economy.com. "The darkness is much greater than any sunshine."
EDITOR'S NOTE -- Jeannine Aversa has covered economics for The Associated Press since 1999.
Brandon716
Senior Member
^BTW, I'm a full believer that when the United States has better policies for a strong economy, it helps Canada by default. This is particularly good for the Ontario industrial economy which produces a lot of products that Americans want. When the US economy is doing well, Americans can purchase more Canadian products and vice versa, it allows Canadians to purchase more US goods. While NAFTA isn't the root of better US-Canada relations, I do think if the US weren't bogged down in Iraq the economy would be much better positioned and it would reflect better on Canada in terms of NA trade.
Alberta produces oil, so Alberta disproportionately will do well even when the US has a bad economy, while in terms of trade policy the rest of Canada would be hurting. Vancouver, Toronto, and Montreal have more traditional business models in terms of banking/finance, high tech (think of all the game and computer application producers in the 3 cities), and the entertainment industries. Alberta really stands out in terms of what spawns its economy.
Alberta produces oil, so Alberta disproportionately will do well even when the US has a bad economy, while in terms of trade policy the rest of Canada would be hurting. Vancouver, Toronto, and Montreal have more traditional business models in terms of banking/finance, high tech (think of all the game and computer application producers in the 3 cities), and the entertainment industries. Alberta really stands out in terms of what spawns its economy.
Long Island Mike
Senior Member
The Democrats Must Unite....
Everyone: As said elsewhere: "It's The Economy,Stupid!!!" I feel that the US is in a recession- one main reason is the soaring price of oil because of its importance in our economies here in North America for both of our countries.
The Democrats must unite to provide a strong candidate to go up against John McCain-as said elsewhere he would be basically be four more years of GW Bush's policies-I would have to now agree. The Democrats should think-and I feel that they now realize-that statement "United We Stand" and Divided...You can draw your own conclusions. The Republican attack machine is ready to wage war-Can the Democrats fight it off? We NEED change in 2008! LI MIKE
Everyone: As said elsewhere: "It's The Economy,Stupid!!!" I feel that the US is in a recession- one main reason is the soaring price of oil because of its importance in our economies here in North America for both of our countries.
The Democrats must unite to provide a strong candidate to go up against John McCain-as said elsewhere he would be basically be four more years of GW Bush's policies-I would have to now agree. The Democrats should think-and I feel that they now realize-that statement "United We Stand" and Divided...You can draw your own conclusions. The Republican attack machine is ready to wage war-Can the Democrats fight it off? We NEED change in 2008! LI MIKE
Roy G Biv
Senior Member
To be fair, although fiscally responsible conservatism died with Reagan, McCain may be the best option for the US economy. Firstly, don't buy the hype, no candidate is pulling out of Iraq. Secondly, modern administrations are only fiscally conservative when the opposition holds the wallet. Clinton didn't get to spend on a lot of things he wanted to thanks to the GOP-controlled house and senate. When a party controls the Hill and the Whitehouse, they will spend. A Democratic President would have the power to spend (although $500 says no one even proposes Universal Healthcare, let alone implements it).
That being said, there's no way the average voter is going to think like this. They'll be much more likely to digest McCain's "I don't get the economy" soundbyte, which may prove to have been political suicide.
That being said, there's no way the average voter is going to think like this. They'll be much more likely to digest McCain's "I don't get the economy" soundbyte, which may prove to have been political suicide.
unimaginative2
Senior Member
Yeah, but about the worst thing for the economy is political stalemate, with bickering between the President and Congress stalling any initiatives. The best thing for a bad economy is good spending, and health care would be right at the top of that list.
Brandon716
Senior Member
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aGXXSyAl3qd0&refer=politics
Republicans Say House Loss May Signal More Setbacks (Update2)
By Laura Litvan
May 14 (Bloomberg) -- Some House Republicans criticized the party's agenda and leadership in the wake of a third special election loss, and one former leader warned that they might lose 20 House seats and six in the Senate in the November elections.
Representative Tom Davis of Virginia, who earlier served as chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, wrote in a memo to his Republican colleagues today that the party's message is ``stale'' and the ``congressional GOP brand tied to George Bush is struggling.''
``The political atmosphere facing House Republicans this November is the worst since Watergate and is far more toxic than the fall of 2006 when we lost 30 seats (and our majority) and came within a couple of percentage points of losing another 15 seats,'' Davis wrote.
The concern was sparked by Democrat Travis Childers's victory yesterday in the race for a Mississippi House seat that Republicans had held for more than 13 years, the third time since March that a Democrat won a Republican-held seat in a special election.
``There is a lot of heartburn and anxiety,'' said Representative Ray LaHood of Illinois. ``People are very concerned.''
House Republican Leader John Boehner said party leaders are discussing the impact of the Mississippi result and are beginning to roll out an election-year agenda. In response to a question, he said changes at the National Republican Congressional Committee, the party's candidate recruitment and fundraising arm, are under discussion.
`Discuss Changes'
``I expect we'll discuss changes that may be necessary to address the atmosphere we're facing,'' Boehner said. He called the election result a ``wake-up call,'' and said the problem is that voters don't see the Republican Party as a force for change.
Childers got 54 percent of the vote to 46 percent for Republican Greg Davis in the race to replace Republican Roger Wicker in northern Mississippi's 1st District. Wicker was appointed to the Senate last year.
The Democratic victory extends the party's majority in Congress to 37 seats. House Democrats hold a more than 6-to-1 cash advantage over Republicans, who have 26 lawmakers retiring. Both parties poured money into the Mississippi race, and Vice President Dick Cheney traveled to the state to campaign for Davis.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, a Maryland Democrat, told reporters today that the Mississippi race is ``a harbinger of things to come.''
His Strategy
NRCC Chairman Tom Cole in a conference call to reporters defended his strategy of working to link two Democratic special election candidates with Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama and the party's congressional leaders.
Still, he said, it is clear Republicans must rethink their strategy and agenda, because ``a large portion of the American people'' has lost faith in Republicans to address rising gas prices, a slowing economy and other issues.
Asked earlier this morning whether lawmakers are suggesting he resign his party post, he said, ``Nobody's talking to me about anything like that, yet. But I said yet.''
Arizona Representative Jeff Flake said that while Republicans are alarmed over their re-election prospects it's unlikely there will be a leadership ``coup'' before the elections.
``I think they realize, and everybody recognizes, that if there's a bloodbath in November, then nobody is safe,'' he said.
Vulnerable
Earlier this week, party leaders distributed a memo to Republicans that said Democrats are vulnerable this year because they have failed to lower gas prices and curb taxes for middle- class families.
Boehner is beginning to unveil elements of an election-year agenda that focuses on national security, boosting the economy through extended tax cuts, balancing the budget by 2012 and improving domestic oil production.
The nonpartisan Cook Political Report estimates that Democrats will pick up five to 10 House seats in the November elections. The House editor of the report, Dave Wasserman, said there are no immediate plans to change that estimate in the wake of the Mississippi election.
Davis told reporters today the party's position is ``underneath the floor,'' as he stamped his foot. He also said Republicans failed to rethink their approaches even after losing the House in 2006, and the party is like ``an airplane flying into a mountain.''
He said party leaders have fought Democrats on some of the wrong issues, including last year's decision to side with President George W. Bush against an expansion of the children's health-care program and a measure designed to help homeowners avert foreclosure.
``The caucus is going to have to look at itself and decide if they want to be a national party, or if they want to continue to contract,'' Davis said.
To contact the reporters on this story: Laura Litvan in Washington at llitvan@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: May 14, 2008 17:06 EDT
Republicans Say House Loss May Signal More Setbacks (Update2)
By Laura Litvan
May 14 (Bloomberg) -- Some House Republicans criticized the party's agenda and leadership in the wake of a third special election loss, and one former leader warned that they might lose 20 House seats and six in the Senate in the November elections.
Representative Tom Davis of Virginia, who earlier served as chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, wrote in a memo to his Republican colleagues today that the party's message is ``stale'' and the ``congressional GOP brand tied to George Bush is struggling.''
``The political atmosphere facing House Republicans this November is the worst since Watergate and is far more toxic than the fall of 2006 when we lost 30 seats (and our majority) and came within a couple of percentage points of losing another 15 seats,'' Davis wrote.
The concern was sparked by Democrat Travis Childers's victory yesterday in the race for a Mississippi House seat that Republicans had held for more than 13 years, the third time since March that a Democrat won a Republican-held seat in a special election.
``There is a lot of heartburn and anxiety,'' said Representative Ray LaHood of Illinois. ``People are very concerned.''
House Republican Leader John Boehner said party leaders are discussing the impact of the Mississippi result and are beginning to roll out an election-year agenda. In response to a question, he said changes at the National Republican Congressional Committee, the party's candidate recruitment and fundraising arm, are under discussion.
`Discuss Changes'
``I expect we'll discuss changes that may be necessary to address the atmosphere we're facing,'' Boehner said. He called the election result a ``wake-up call,'' and said the problem is that voters don't see the Republican Party as a force for change.
Childers got 54 percent of the vote to 46 percent for Republican Greg Davis in the race to replace Republican Roger Wicker in northern Mississippi's 1st District. Wicker was appointed to the Senate last year.
The Democratic victory extends the party's majority in Congress to 37 seats. House Democrats hold a more than 6-to-1 cash advantage over Republicans, who have 26 lawmakers retiring. Both parties poured money into the Mississippi race, and Vice President Dick Cheney traveled to the state to campaign for Davis.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, a Maryland Democrat, told reporters today that the Mississippi race is ``a harbinger of things to come.''
His Strategy
NRCC Chairman Tom Cole in a conference call to reporters defended his strategy of working to link two Democratic special election candidates with Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama and the party's congressional leaders.
Still, he said, it is clear Republicans must rethink their strategy and agenda, because ``a large portion of the American people'' has lost faith in Republicans to address rising gas prices, a slowing economy and other issues.
Asked earlier this morning whether lawmakers are suggesting he resign his party post, he said, ``Nobody's talking to me about anything like that, yet. But I said yet.''
Arizona Representative Jeff Flake said that while Republicans are alarmed over their re-election prospects it's unlikely there will be a leadership ``coup'' before the elections.
``I think they realize, and everybody recognizes, that if there's a bloodbath in November, then nobody is safe,'' he said.
Vulnerable
Earlier this week, party leaders distributed a memo to Republicans that said Democrats are vulnerable this year because they have failed to lower gas prices and curb taxes for middle- class families.
Boehner is beginning to unveil elements of an election-year agenda that focuses on national security, boosting the economy through extended tax cuts, balancing the budget by 2012 and improving domestic oil production.
The nonpartisan Cook Political Report estimates that Democrats will pick up five to 10 House seats in the November elections. The House editor of the report, Dave Wasserman, said there are no immediate plans to change that estimate in the wake of the Mississippi election.
Davis told reporters today the party's position is ``underneath the floor,'' as he stamped his foot. He also said Republicans failed to rethink their approaches even after losing the House in 2006, and the party is like ``an airplane flying into a mountain.''
He said party leaders have fought Democrats on some of the wrong issues, including last year's decision to side with President George W. Bush against an expansion of the children's health-care program and a measure designed to help homeowners avert foreclosure.
``The caucus is going to have to look at itself and decide if they want to be a national party, or if they want to continue to contract,'' Davis said.
To contact the reporters on this story: Laura Litvan in Washington at llitvan@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: May 14, 2008 17:06 EDT
Brandon716
Senior Member
^Just for reference, the northern Mississippi district is highly Republican in a region that has become a base for the Republican party. Suburban Memphis communities bordering the stateline and north Mississippi is one of the most Republican parts of the state.
I do think its pretty impressive that Republicans are losing their base. This is like Stephane Dion's Liberals winning a riding in Calgary at 54%.
Maybe we don't have much to worry about with Obama winning this fall afterall?
I do think its pretty impressive that Republicans are losing their base. This is like Stephane Dion's Liberals winning a riding in Calgary at 54%.
Maybe we don't have much to worry about with Obama winning this fall afterall?
Roy G Biv
Senior Member
McCain is in trouble. It'll take something Rovian to get him in office (and that is very possible).
-The Religious Right hates him, and gay marriage won't pull them out to vote (like in 2004.. Rove at his best).
-Ron Paul and Bob Barr will steal small-government conservative votes from him
-Obama might be able to steal some Southern states thanks to the black vote (Arkansas?)
- Major economists and past SEC names are backing Obama
allabootmatt
Senior Member
Edwards' endorsement of Obama yesterday was a big, big deal. That's more than a nail in Hil's coffin--more like a spear.
McCain is in deep doo-doo. Very easy to run against him: you just keep hammering that he's the second coming of GW Bush. His choices are to respond with a), "no I'm not," which alienates part of the hard right, or b) "yes I am," which has obvious implications when the president in question is the most unpopular in the history of opinion polling.
Between that and the Childers win in MS, it's gonna be a Dem carnival come November. Can't wait. I also hope that the likely Senate supermajority will a) allow the Dems to finally jettison Joe Lieberman, a true jackass who is actively campaigning for John McCain while sitting with the Democratic caucus, and b) launch some major investigations into the various laws broken by the Bushies. I am afraid, however, that Obama is a little too nice for point B.
McCain is in deep doo-doo. Very easy to run against him: you just keep hammering that he's the second coming of GW Bush. His choices are to respond with a), "no I'm not," which alienates part of the hard right, or b) "yes I am," which has obvious implications when the president in question is the most unpopular in the history of opinion polling.
Between that and the Childers win in MS, it's gonna be a Dem carnival come November. Can't wait. I also hope that the likely Senate supermajority will a) allow the Dems to finally jettison Joe Lieberman, a true jackass who is actively campaigning for John McCain while sitting with the Democratic caucus, and b) launch some major investigations into the various laws broken by the Bushies. I am afraid, however, that Obama is a little too nice for point B.
ShonTron
Moderator
It's looking quite positive.
I still can't believe that Al Gore chose Lieberman as his running mate. Who should be Obama's?
I have a few ideas:
- Bill Richardson, Governor of New Mexico. New Mexico is a state "in play", he's Hispanic, he's a moderate, and carries little baggage.
- John Edwards, Senator, North Carolina. Him as running mate and Obama's strong showing in NC puts that state, as well as perhaps other moderate Southern states (like VA) "in play".
- I've heard Michael Bloomberg, Mayor of New York, as a potential dark-horse, but he's more liberal than most, even as a Republican/Independant.
- Then there's HRC. She's trouble if she's on the ticket, as there's likely not a lot of love between them, and it many mean backroom fighting. Though it'd be a shame to throw her out completely.
If it was me, I'd give her a choice of helping to get her Senate Majority Leader, Secretary of Health and give her health plan as her legacy, Secretary of State, or even see if could squeeze her into the Supreme Court, or an ambassadorship to anywhere she wants. Could give her VP, with the health plan role as being the focus, but that's still problematic.
In 1960, Kennedy picked Lyndon Johnson. Johnson's a fascinating man. He kept his liberal views on civil rights low. He bargained with Kennedy to put him on the ticket, saying he would deliver Texas. As soon as he was president, he did more for civil rights than any other president, perhaps even including Lincoln. He was also deeply flawed as well, and got the US deep into the Vietnam mess.
I still can't believe that Al Gore chose Lieberman as his running mate. Who should be Obama's?
I have a few ideas:
- Bill Richardson, Governor of New Mexico. New Mexico is a state "in play", he's Hispanic, he's a moderate, and carries little baggage.
- John Edwards, Senator, North Carolina. Him as running mate and Obama's strong showing in NC puts that state, as well as perhaps other moderate Southern states (like VA) "in play".
- I've heard Michael Bloomberg, Mayor of New York, as a potential dark-horse, but he's more liberal than most, even as a Republican/Independant.
- Then there's HRC. She's trouble if she's on the ticket, as there's likely not a lot of love between them, and it many mean backroom fighting. Though it'd be a shame to throw her out completely.
If it was me, I'd give her a choice of helping to get her Senate Majority Leader, Secretary of Health and give her health plan as her legacy, Secretary of State, or even see if could squeeze her into the Supreme Court, or an ambassadorship to anywhere she wants. Could give her VP, with the health plan role as being the focus, but that's still problematic.
In 1960, Kennedy picked Lyndon Johnson. Johnson's a fascinating man. He kept his liberal views on civil rights low. He bargained with Kennedy to put him on the ticket, saying he would deliver Texas. As soon as he was president, he did more for civil rights than any other president, perhaps even including Lincoln. He was also deeply flawed as well, and got the US deep into the Vietnam mess.