The FYM Democratic Primary - Part 3 (Fixed)

[corianderstem]

Originally posted by diamond
She needs to stop crying everytime she loses, or feels pressure.

She's not presidentail.

dbs

That BS is really tired.

[MrsSpringsteen]

Yes it is. Conveniently left out is the context/caption for the photo

Democratic presidential hopeful, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., wipes her eye as she listens to a disabled U.S. veteran in the audience tell his story during a campaign stop at The City of Lewiston Memorial Armory in Lewiston, Maine., Saturday, Feb. 9th

Wow how pathetic to shed a tear over a disabled veteran.

http://www.sunjournal.com/story/2513...the_guard_dog/

After her speech, Clinton took questions from the audience for another 20 minutes. She brushed a tear from her eye while a disabled Maine veteran, who was using a crutch to walk after being told he was never going to, said he barely made it to the event because of a "terrible" migraine.

[Vincent Vega]

Presidential material does not know sympathy.

[phillyfan26]

Originally posted by diamond
She needs to stop crying everytime she loses, or feels pressure.

She's not presidentail.

dbs

Since you haven't the first clue about what's presidential, I'll take my chances.

[Diemen]

Originally posted by diamond
She's not presidentail.

No, that would be Monica Lewinsky.

[U2isthebest]

Originally posted by Diemen


No, that would be Monica Lewinsky.

[LemonMelon]

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.

[Diemen]

Rumsfeld had tons of experience, and look how swimmingly he worked out. Cheney too.

[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.

[BVS]

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.

[Jeannieco]

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.

[phillyfan26]

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.

[U2387]

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!

[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.

[U2387]

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.

[Slipstream]

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.