The FYM Democratic Primary - Part 3 (Fixed) - Page 4 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
View Poll Results: Who Will You Vote For, Democrats?
Hillary Rodham Clinton (Senator - New York) 12 16.90%
Mike Gravel (Former Senator - Alaska) 1 1.41%
Barack Obama (Senator - Illinois) 56 78.87%
Other (Indicate Via Post) 2 2.82%
Voters: 71. You may not vote on this poll

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-12-2008, 12:30 PM   #46
ONE
love, blood, life
 
U2isthebest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vision over visibility....
Posts: 12,332
Local Time: 09:21 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Diemen


No, that would be Monica Lewinsky.
__________________

__________________
U2isthebest is offline  
Old 02-12-2008, 10:26 PM   #47
The Male
 
LemonMelon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hollywoo
Posts: 65,805
Local Time: 05:21 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
You've gone back to this now since it's been declared that your man isn't presidential?
No one in this race is presidential. Obama lacks experience, Clinton is a crybaby, and McCain is an embarrassment to the human race.

Experience can be acquired though. Obama FTW.
__________________

__________________


Now.
LemonMelon is online now  
Old 02-15-2008, 07:05 PM   #48
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,237
Local Time: 07:21 PM
Rumsfeld had tons of experience, and look how swimmingly he worked out. Cheney too.
__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 02-18-2008, 10:38 PM   #49
Refugee
 
dazzlingamy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: The city of blinding lights and amazing coffee - Melbourne.
Posts: 2,468
Local Time: 12:21 PM
Hi

I was just wondering, say if Obama or Clinton get elected in the primaries does that mean the other one becomes their "vice president" or do they choose that person? Could it be John Edwards or can it be someone who hasn't even had a run at president in the primaries?

It just seems really weird to me at how attacking politicians are that are on the same side of the fence. It seems sort of counter productive to have people who are on the same team trading blows with each other and then afterwards come out and support each other.

I mean I guess thats the way its always been but it just seems such a horrible way to run a campaign. I'm used to have two parties where everyone most of the time back each other up and has this big comraderie going about we're better then them sort of thing.
__________________
dazzlingamy is offline  
Old 02-18-2008, 11:42 PM   #50
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,685
Local Time: 07:21 PM
They definately have the choice to choose whoever they want for VP...

At one point I really would have thought Edwards would have been a great VP with Obama, but that's not going to happen now.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 02-20-2008, 03:15 PM   #51
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Jeannieco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: A HEART THAT IS BROKEN IS A HEART THAT IS OPEN
Posts: 4,954
Local Time: 05:21 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
They definately have the choice to choose whoever they want for VP...

At one point I really would have thought Edwards would have been a great VP with Obama, but that's not going to happen now.
I was hoping for that also, why do you think it won't happen?
Because he won't endorse? Just curious.
__________________
Jeannieco is offline  
Old 02-20-2008, 06:09 PM   #52
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 08:21 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by dazzlingamy
Hi

I was just wondering, say if Obama or Clinton get elected in the primaries does that mean the other one becomes their "vice president" or do they choose that person? Could it be John Edwards or can it be someone who hasn't even had a run at president in the primaries?

It just seems really weird to me at how attacking politicians are that are on the same side of the fence. It seems sort of counter productive to have people who are on the same team trading blows with each other and then afterwards come out and support each other.

I mean I guess thats the way its always been but it just seems such a horrible way to run a campaign. I'm used to have two parties where everyone most of the time back each other up and has this big comraderie going about we're better then them sort of thing.
Yeah, the Vice President thing is usually an interesting choice. There is no requirement for who they have to pick as their VP, so it's not a situation where the second place primary person automatically becomes the running mate.

In this case, I'd say there's no chance that either one of them would be VP for the other, since they seem to disagree so much.

Obama's been thinking about the governor of Virginia (is his name Kane? I think so) as his VP, if I've heard correctly.
__________________
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 04-12-2008, 02:05 AM   #53
Refugee
 
U2387's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,217
Local Time: 08:21 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Jeannieco


I was hoping for that also, why do you think it won't happen?
Because he won't endorse? Just curious.
I would say that he wont endorse and the fact that Edwards is the underachiever of the century. Good looking, Southerner, self made man who has a good looking Harvard Grad school daughter, 2 adorable younger kids, a strong, inspirational woman as a wife, lots of money and is intelligent. Despite all of that, the guy brought absolutely nothing to the Kerry ticket in 2004, has not learned his foreign policy, and could not even make the case for his broad appeal in the primaries against high negative, divisive Hillary and inexperienced, say alot of stupid stuff Obama. Edwards got all kinds of media attention, the kind the best candidates, Biden and Richardson deserved and did not get and he still could not get out of third place in the primaries. Obama, though not my favorite guy, is very smart and has run a good campaign with great advisers who, rest assured, have told him anyone but Edwards. Some possibilities:
1.) Governor Tim Kaine of Virginia
2.)Senator Jim Webb of Virginia*
3.)Fmr, Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia*
4.)Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebellius
5.)NM Governor Bill Richardson*
6.)MT governor Brian Schweitzer
7.)Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano.

I put asterisks next to the 3 most likely, as I feel these people with ample foreign policy/national security experience will be able to provide something Obama lacks. They are all geographic balancers too- Obama north, those guys, South and West. If I were the betting type, my bet would be on Richardson: chief executive who knows how to run a government/has had success on economy, energy/health care/crime, hands on foreign policy experience, experience in congress and finally, he is a Westerner, the fastest growing area of our country in general and for the Democrats in particular. He is also a Hispanic- may help with this fast growing group that Obama has had trouble with.

Just my two cents, sorry if it was long!
__________________
U2387 is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 06:20 PM   #54
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
2861U2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: watching the Cubs
Posts: 4,253
Local Time: 08:21 PM
Yeah, I've heard Richardson's name a lot recently, too. I wonder how successfully that would be. I can't help but think a ticket without a white male would have a hard time winning.
__________________
2861U2 is offline  
Old 04-16-2008, 10:23 PM   #55
Refugee
 
U2387's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,217
Local Time: 08:21 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 2861U2
Yeah, I've heard Richardson's name a lot recently, too. I wonder how successfully that would be. I can't help but think a ticket without a white male would have a hard time winning.
True. Though I think people look more at the top of the ticket when they make their decisions. If they wont vote for a woman or a black male in the first place, then it will not matter who the running mate is. I think the race of the running mate will be largely irrelevant for voters who base their decisions on it. In their minds, I would say that the decision is already between Hillary and McCain. Your overall point seems to be that many people, though they do not say it openly and would not, are not going to vote for a woman or a minority when it is just them alone in the voting booth. I COULD NOT AGREE MORE. There are a good portion of people who just will not, period. Not saying its right, but its true.
__________________
U2387 is offline  
Old 05-20-2008, 09:13 PM   #56
Refugee
 
Slipstream's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: British Columbia
Posts: 1,474
Local Time: 06:21 PM
From the polls I've read and the primaries left it looks like Hillary is leading in Montana, Puerto Rico, and then in Michigan* and Florida*. This would leave South Dakota to Obama. Is this race going the distance then? If she wins those 4 and especially the two very big ones, isn't she looking very much a good argument for the nomination?

This comes from an outsider perspective.
__________________

__________________
Slipstream is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:21 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com