News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.9K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5.1K     0 

Who will be the next US president?

  • John McCain

    Votes: 8 7.8%
  • Barack Obama

    Votes: 80 77.7%
  • Other

    Votes: 15 14.6%

  • Total voters
    103
Some VP options and comments:

1) Ed Rendell
- Could help Obama get that blue-collar white guy vote.
- Somewhat of a sleezeball with his eye on the senate. Might not want it

2) Hillary Clinton
- Could help Obama get that blue-collar white guy vote.
- Lots of the electorate hates her. Lots won't be comfortable with a black guy and woman on the ticket.

3) Jim Webb
- Was Republican once. Will steal the centrist vote from McCain, leaving him... nothing.
- Military experience, son in Iraq..

4) Wesley Clark
- Has military know-how and will appeal to McCain supporters.
- Almost started WWIII by randomly and dangerously directing NATO to "meet" the Russians at the Pristina Airport (Kosovo war). Was overruled by a British General.

5) Bill Richardson
- Has executorial experience, and can court the hispanic vote.
- Might help guard against the assassination of Obama, because having a Mexican as President isn't much better.

6) John McCain
- Asked if he could run with his good friend Kerry in '04.
 
2 more:

Janet Napolitano: popular AZ governor.

Kathleen Sibelius: " " KS governor.

My money's on Webb though. He moves a big demographic, and puts Virginia into play.
 
2 more:

Janet Napolitano: popular AZ governor.

Kathleen Sibelius: " " KS governor.

My money's on Webb though. He moves a big demographic, and puts Virginia into play.

Sibelius is a good one.

The problem with Webb is that the Dems will have to give up his seat.. and it could swing the other way.
 
I didn't know anything about the 1992 election until really going back and reading some articles. Bill Clinton didn't win the nomination until well into the process, and he only won like 55% of the popular vote. It was a very contested election and the Democrats went on to win the election and beat Bush I when he actually was POPULAR for the success of Iraq War I.

It was just the economy and dissolution in the Republican party (the libertarians went Perot, the old style Republicans went Bush).

Today we have a failed war, a failed economy, a split Republican party, and a Republican that isn't loved by the base.

The more I objectively look at things maybe Obama should stick to the gameplan of focus on change.

Here's an interesting blast from the past:




http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...3A25754C0A964958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

THE 1992 CAMPAIGN: Democrats; CLINTON SELECTS SENATOR GORE OF TENNESSEE AS RUNNING MATE

By GWEN IFILL,
Published: July 10, 1992

Gov. Bill Clinton of Arkansas today selected Senator Al Gore of Tennessee to join him as his Vice-Presidential running mate when he receives the Democratic nomination for President in New York next week.

In making the much-anticipated announcement on the lawn of the Governor's mansion here, Mr. Clinton emphasized Mr. Gore's experience in foreign policy and the environment. And with their wives and children arrayed behind them in the baking noonday sun, both men spoke of their commitment to family values.

Mr. Clinton offered Mr. Gore the position during a 20-minute conversation shortly before midnight on Wednesday. Relative Youth Stressed

If elected, Mr. Gore, 44 years old, and Mr. Clinton, 45, would be the youngest team to make it to the White House in the country's history.

Aides to the Arkansas Governor emphasized their relative youth as a positive factor in an election year that has turned on which candidate can offer the best formula for change, a pointed to reference to President Bush, 68, who has been a member of the Washington establishment for more than two decades.

"Throughout American history, each generation has passed on leadership to the next," Mr. Gore said. "That time has come again, the time for a new generation of leadership for the United States of America." Ready to Battle in South

In selecting a fellow Southerner, Mr. Clinton cast aside traditional strategies for choosing a Vice-Presidential running mate that have dictated the need for geographical diversity to balance the ticket.

The choice also signaled that the Democrats were ready to battle the Republicans to regain control of the South and gather the support of swing voters who are concerned about the environment.

"The running mate I have chosen is a leader of great strength, integrity and stature, a father who like me loves his children and shares my hunger to turn this economy around, to change our country and to do it so that we don't raise the first generation of children to do worse than their parents," Mr. Clinton said to a crowd of supporters and friends.

But the wisdom of Mr. Clinton's choice was immediately questioned by the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who has twice unsucessfully sought the Democratic nomination for President and has on several occasions offered himself as a Vice-Presidential running mate. "I have deep concerns about the ticket. It takes two wings to fly and here you have two of the same wing."

And Republican campaign officials quickly denounced Mr. Gore as a liberal and said the Clinton-Gore combination would be far out of the mainstream.

"We think it shows Clinton is operating from weakness," said Frederic V. Malek, the manager of the Bush campaign. "And he's chosen somebody to cover those weaknesses -- his lack of a military record, his association with liberal social values, and his need to strengthen himself in the South, his own home region."

Ross Perot, the still-undeclared independent candidate for President, has focused most of his attacks on Mr. Bush and had only kind words for Mr. Gore today. "He's a fine man, wonderful family, and I think he's an excellent choice."

Mr. Gore, who like Mr. Clinton has tried to position himself in the moderate wing of the Democratic Party, sought the Presidential nomination in 1988 on much the same model as Mr. Clinton chose this year. By seeking to prove that Democrats can be strong on the military as well as supportive of social programs, he is among younger Democrats who have sought to prove that they can regain the White House by retaking the middle ground.

Mr. Clinton and Mr. Gore are both active members of the Democratic Leadership Council, a group of mostly Southern Democrats who organized in 1985 with the mission of guiding their party toward more centrist ideals. 'Long Hard Fight'

Nearly a year ago, Mr. Gore decided not to run in 1992, saying he was concerned that a grueling campaign could harm his family. His son, Albert 3d, who is now 9 years old, was seriously injured in an automobile accident in Baltimore in 1989 but is now fully recovered.

Mr. Gore said today that he looks forward to a "long hard fight" in the general election campaign. He also took up the Clinton campaign's theme that the ticket would point the country in a new direction.

"I believe in my heart that this ticket gives our country the best chance for the change we so deperately need, to move foward again," Mr. Gore said.

Successive Republican administrations, he said, have "driven this country into the ditch."

"I believe very deeply that this nation simply cannot afford another four years of the kind of leadership that we have now," he said. "They've run out of ideas, they've run out of energy, they've run out of the ability to inspire people."

Mr. Gore spoke with some force today in denouncing the Bush Administration, which he said "has been trying to divide us for too long." Some campaign advisers commented approvingly afterward that the Tennessee Senator's reputation for substance would contrast favorably with Vice President Dan Quayle.

Mr. Clinton has shown a renewed determination in recent days to challenge the President on the issue of what constitutes family values. In public remarks today, both he and Mr. Gore made special mention of their school-age children and of their wives, Tipper Gore and Hillary Clinton.

The Clintons -- who today stood beaming alongside their 12-year-old daughter, Chelsea -- had to fight backaccusations of marital infidelity and Mrs. Clinton's image as a woman who chose career over family early in the campaign.

The timing of the announcement reflected the campaign's concern that the selection would leak out and its desire to enter next week's convention with a ticket already in place. Campaign officials said this would help them avoid unnecessary distractions during a week that they hoped would focus on a unified party, with Mr. Clinton at its head.

Mr. Clinton called Mr. Gore to offer him the spot on his ticket at 11:15 P.M. Wednesday after meeting with three of his closest aides for about two hours at the Governor's mansion to go over the final list of choices.

Clinton campaign officials confirmed today that the other finalists were Senators Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, John D. Rockefeller 4th of West Virginia, Harris Wofford of Pennsylvania, Bob Graham of Florida and Representative Lee H. Hamilton of Indiana.

In the end, Mr. Clinton went for the allure of youth. If elected, the combined ages of Mr. Gore and Mr. Clinton would make them the youngest Presidential team to enter the White House. President Ulysses S. Grant, who was 46 years old when he assumed offfice in 1869, and his Vice President, Schuyler Colfax, who was also 46, held the record previously.

As a courtesy, Mr. Clinton called Mr. Graham, who had to decide by Friday whether to run for re-election to his Senate seat, shortly before he called Mr. Gore. Today, before making the announcement, he called the other contenders, as well as Democratic Party leaders.

Mr. Clinton's list of finalists did not include either Senator Bill Bradley of New Jersey or Gov. Mario M. Cuomo of New York, apparently because both men had repeatedly said they did not want to be considered for the post. From 40 Names to 6

Former Gov. Madeleine Kunin of Vermont, who served on the selection team that was headed by the Los Angeles lawyer Warren Christopher, said in a telephone interview that Mr. Gore's name "would come up again and again" as they worked to winnow an initial list of about 40 names to the 6 from which Mr. Clinton ultimately chose.

Ms. Kunin said the choice of Mr. Gore was an important one for Mr. Clinton because the Democratic nominee would be "defined by the choices he makes."

Campaign officials said they expected the selection of Mr. Gore to be especially helpful in California, where voters express special concern about the environment. Mr. Gore, who has long been a champion of environmental issues in Congress, wrote a a best-selling book, "Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit" (Houghton Mifflin, 1992), that made it to The New York Times best-seller list.

Stan Greenberg, the campaign's poll taker, said the all-Southern ticket would put states like Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee and North Carolina "readily in reach" for Democrats for the first time since Jimmy Carter was elected in 1976.

He said Mr. Clinton's Southern roots alone might not have been enough to win the South because of the virtual certainty that Mr. Perot, the billionaire from Texas, would be in the race along with President Bush, who also calls Texas his home.

Mr. Clinton and Mr. Gore will hold a joint news conference here on Friday before Mr. Gore and his family return to Tennessee. They plan to campaign together in Nashville on Saturday before flying to New York for the Democratic National Convention. After the convention, the two men will travel together on a five-day bus tour from New York to St. Louis.

Correction: July 11, 1992, Saturday

An article yesterday about the selection of Senator Al Gore as Gov. Bill Clinton's running mate misstated his age and President Bush's in some copies. Mr. Clinton is 45 years old, not 46; Mr. Bush is 68, not 67.















Republicans are going to use the same old tired tactics again and again.

Obama is "too liberal"

Obama is "out of the mainstream"

Obama is "weak on national defense"

Obama is "not experienced"

Obama will "raise taxes"

There's zero reason for Obama to have Hillary on his ticket, it defeats the purpose, there will be no Obama-Hillary ticket. The 1992 election proves there is no need to have a particular alliance between them. And as far as the Republican attacks? They won't work.
 
Bill Richardson would dampen the 'experience' critique levied by Hillary and the Republicans - he has a lot of executive and foreign policy experience. Being Hispanic and from the all-important South West would be an asset. Downside is that he isn't as good at attacking the other ticket as Webb would be...

Jim Webb, a very highly decorated Vietnam vet, would help strengthen the ticket's national security credentials (former 'Secretary of the Navy' under Reagan). Would fill the role of attack dog that compliments Obama's soft-spoken style well. Downside is that he might be seen as too 'green' (inexperienced in national office).
 
Bill Richardson would dampen the 'experience' critique levied by Hillary and the Republicans - he has a lot of executive and foreign policy experience. Being Hispanic and from the all-important South West would be an asset. Downside is that he isn't as good at attacking the other ticket as Webb would be...

Jim Webb, a very highly decorated Vietnam vet, would help strengthen the ticket's national security credentials (former 'Secretary of the Navy' under Reagan). Would fill the role of attack dog that compliments Obama's soft-spoken style well. Downside is that he might be seen as too 'green' (inexperienced in national office).

I don't like Jim Webb as a runningmate. Doesn't fit well with Obama's image of change in my opinion. But, he does fit the bill geographically and demographically. Jim Webb creates a big problem on another front: his loss in the Senate would likely be a Republican replacement when a special election is called next year. Democrats don't need to lose a seat from a very red state, and its possible Obama's first 100 days will be *very* rocky due to circumstances faced overall. If Democrats lose popularity after they gain total power, and VA holds a special election, Democrats have just lost a Senate seat that has 4 more years from a very red state where we need to retain power.

Richardson poses a problem of sorts in that he's not much of a debator, he doesn't seem to position his beliefs well, and being a Mexican-American may be a liability in terms of having a double-minority ticket. America is ready for a minority on the top, but on the second position I don't think we should also install someone for strategic reasons. Its like having Hillary run with an openly gay man as her VP. Would be nice, but not something middle America will go well with.

John Edwards is old news, he's never won any Presidential run and he lost with Kerry four years ago. Edwards ran in both 2004 and 2008 for the top position, and since he's never gotten more than a few percent I don't see how he possibly could be good for popularity. That, and Edwards hasn't got a record worth referencing. He was against universal health care during his entire Senate career and didn't support the idea as a Presidential candidate in 2004, and he didn't mention health care in universal terms as VP for the 2004 race. He's an empty politician IMO.

Obama is going to have to look outside the box that most people have suggested thus far.
 
Since the election is down to three can the poll be changed to reflect that?
 
I don't like Jim Webb as a runningmate. Doesn't fit well with Obama's image of change in my opinion. But, he does fit the bill geographically and demographically. Jim Webb creates a big problem on another front: his loss in the Senate would likely be a Republican replacement when a special election is called next year. Democrats don't need to lose a seat from a very red state, and its possible Obama's first 100 days will be *very* rocky due to circumstances faced overall. If Democrats lose popularity after they gain total power, and VA holds a special election, Democrats have just lost a Senate seat that has 4 more years from a very red state where we need to retain power.

Though given the Dems' present red-state strategy as well as overall DC-fueled purpleish demographic trends in Virginia, how inevitable is a special-election Senate loss? IMO it's less "implausible" than the recent special election gains in Mississippi and Louisiana...
 
You may be right, but Jim Webb doesn't represent Obama's civility tone. Webb is outspoken, he is a relatively conservative Democrat (although for Virginia sounds to be one of the more liberal members of their Democratic delegation).

Virginia doesn't strike me as being as purple as the statistics suggest, that's why I think Webb would lose. The type of Democrats Virginia has been electing lately are of the very conservative, DLC type. They aren't normally what I consider full bred Democrats, Webb himself is an ex-Republican, ex-military guy who has already had scandals about his novels where he describes female rape and male dominance...

For some reason that image doesn't mix with Obama very well, still think he's a bad choice even if they replaced him with a Democrat in a special election for his Senate seat.
 
Well so much for the idea of "genteel" Kentucky...it voted pretty much the same way as West Virginia!

While I think Virginia is likely to stay in the GOP camp, it is interesting to note that this time around Virginia is more likely to go Democrat than West Virginia.
 
Well so much for the idea of "genteel" Kentucky...it voted pretty much the same way as West Virginia!

While I think Virginia is likely to stay in the GOP camp, it is interesting to note that this time around Virginia is more likely to go Democrat than West Virginia.

Speaking of West Virginia, look at Mr. Byrd's emotional speech about Kennedy on the Senate floor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCwwCCQozPM

And yes, Robert Byrd doesn't come without his own shortcomings:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FIBJt-c2o0&feature=related
 
politicians should really stop going to church.


-------------------

McCain rejects pastor's backing after Hitler remark

1 hour, 53 minutes ago

By Steve Holland

UNION CITY, California (Reuters) - Republican presidential candidate John McCain on Thursday rejected the endorsement of a Texas preacher after the pastor was discovered to have made derogatory comments about Jews.

"Obviously, I find these remarks and others deeply offensive and indefensible, and I repudiate them," McCain said of the remarks by John Hagee. "I did not know of them before Reverend Hagee's endorsement, and I feel I must reject his endorsement as well."

McCain's rejection of the Hagee endorsement drew comparisons to controversy surrounding the longtime pastor of Democratic front-runner Barack Obama. Obama cut ties with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright last month over his former pastor's racially charged remarks.

McCain's statement came after The Huffington Post Web site reported on a late 1990s sermon Hagee gave in which he quoted from the Bible to make the argument that God's will had its influence on Nazism.

"'And they the hunters should hunt them,' that will be the Jews. 'From every mountain and from every hill and from out of the holes of the rocks.' If that doesn't describe what Hitler did in the Holocaust, you can't see that," Hagee had said.

Hagee is staunchly pro-Israel and is the founder and national chairman of Christians United for Israel. In his many writings he sees historical and contemporary events, especially in the Middle East, as unfolding biblical prophecy.

McCain had until now been forced to distance himself from Hagee, founder of Cornerstone Church of San Antonio, Texas, but still accepted his endorsement because of Hagee's influence with evangelical Christians.

But after the Huffington Post's report, including a statement from Hagee in which he did not seem to apologize for the sermon, McCain took a stronger stand.

In his statement, McCain raised the issue of Obama's former pastor, who often delivered racially charged sermons.

"I have said I do not believe Senator Obama shares Reverend Wright's extreme views. But let me also be clear, Reverend Hagee was not and is not my pastor or spiritual advisor, and I did not attend his church for twenty years. I have denounced statements he made immediately upon learning of them, as I do again today," McCain said.

Hagee issued a statement saying he was withdrawing his endorsement of McCain because of the distractions.

"Ever since I endorsed John McCain for president, people seeking to attack Senator McCain have combed my records for statements they can use for political gain. They have had no qualms about grossly misrepresenting my position on issues most near and dear to my heart if it serves their political ambitions," Hagee said.

"I am tired of these baseless attacks and fear that they have become a distraction in what should be a national debate about important issues. I have therefore decided to withdraw my endorsement of Senator McCain for president effective today, and to remove myself from any active role in the 2008 campaign," Hagee said.

(Additional reporting by Deborah Charles; Editing by Eric Beech)

(To read more about the U.S. political campaign, visit Reuters "Tales from the Trail: 2008" online at http:/blogs.reuters.com/trail08/)


http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/080522/us/politics_usa_politics_mccain_pastor_dc
 
I loved Stephen Colbert's take:

Obama was endorsed by Ted Kennedy
Ted Kennedy is a Catholic
Catholics are headed by the Pope
Ratzinger was a member of Hitler Youth
Therefore Obama loves Hitler

Obama loves Hitler?
I guess that makes him an Illinois Nazi. I hate Illinois Nazis.
 

Back
Top