Do you think it could happen?

President Obama
Vice President Clinton

3/31/2008 12:04:05 PM

nope.

3/31/2008 12:05:43 PM

yep.

3/31/2008 12:09:49 PM

Nah, and if I was Obama, I wouldn't even put that bitch in my cabinet.

3/31/2008 12:15:34 PM

not a chance


[Edited on March 31, 2008 at 12:16 PM. Reason : nope]

3/31/2008 12:16:35 PM

heeeeeeeeell no

3/31/2008 12:21:54 PM

i was thinking about this earlier today

it could happen, but the current bickering doesn't suggest it -- things can turn on a dime though


if Obama can convinvce her to join him, it would be pretty neat

3/31/2008 12:25:54 PM

Who knows. This primary has defied all conventional wisdom.

I suppose it wouldn't be a bad election-run idea. I mean, from Obama's standpoint it might help him keep the hillary votes (something like 20% of hill supporters say they would vote McCain if she lost the primrary). And the sooner he gets the nomination wrapped up, the sooner he can start with McCain. Plus, you won't find a more effective attack dog than hillary. That could come in handy when Obama wants to keep "stay above it" but doesn't want his opponents to say whatever they want.

Of course, I wonder if the honeymoon would end by next January? I mean, Hillary wasn't willing to stay quiet as first lady, why would she keep to the background as VP? Who knows.

It doesn't really matter. McCain will cream them both.

3/31/2008 12:26:30 PM

^ yeah, the huge influx of new registered democrats and party affiliation switches from rep to dem definitely indicates McCain winning in a landslide!!!

3/31/2008 12:29:17 PM

Quote :

"(something like 20% of hill supporters say they would vote McCain if she lost the primrary)."

Every election cycle where there is a contested race people say this, but when it comes to vote, only a small percentage actually stand by what they said. As James Carville said, "On May 7th, we'll be united."

3/31/2008 12:33:29 PM

is the United States finally ready for a black president? how about a female president? well even if the answer is yes, the united states is not ready for a presidential ticket with no white males on it, and that is why you wont see either obama or clinton seek the other as their vp candidate, regardless of which one of them is the nominee

3/31/2008 12:34:47 PM

I actually agree with nuts. Most people whine when thier candidate doesnt get choosen, but when it comes to it they will vote for the party. Hell, I said I wouldnt vote for mccain, but Ill have to when it comes to the general.

3/31/2008 12:36:03 PM

terpball the Democrats are engaged in the most exciting (and dare I say important) primary of the past 40 years. I'm not suprised that a lot of people are wanting to be a part of it. Hell, I already know that I am voting for McCain in the general election but I am voting in the NC Dem primary for Hillary.

But the election is a long way away. We got a long series of debates where Obama's novice understanding of the issues will come shinning through (if McCain stays on his toes).

It's one thing to run a speech and a slogan when all your voters essentially agree on the big issues. It's quite another thing to defend one's vision against someone who's views and beliefs are fundamentally different. I don't think Obama is up to it.

But I guess we will see.

[Edited on March 31, 2008 at 12:37 PM. Reason : ``]

3/31/2008 12:36:32 PM

they should have sex scandal together

3/31/2008 12:45:33 PM

Quote :

"they should have sex scandal together"

True. Id rather them fuck eachother than the rest of us.

3/31/2008 12:51:22 PM

The tax raises you guys have been quoting all along have been completely false, at least for Obama's part. He's keeping most of bushed income tax cuts, he's only rolling back the ones for over 200K.

3/31/2008 1:07:34 PM

^LOL, I guess that will cover that close to 800B in additional spending too..

Capital gains increase?

3/31/2008 1:21:38 PM

800 billion in additional spending? You think he's going to take office and just spend an "additional" 800 billion dollars? wow, you seem smart!

3/31/2008 1:56:03 PM

The term is educated terp. Meaning you actually LOOK at what some idiot is proposing and question it.

Just do a quick google, geez, research is SO hard these days.

obama will spend an EXTRA 800B in his 4 years. SO he is adding around 200B a year.

A $65 billion-a-year health plan
$15 billion in green energy spending
$85 billion in tax cuts and credits
A $25 billion-a-year increase in foreign aid
$18 billion a year in education spending
$3.5 billion for a national service plan

Of which his healthcare is the biggest lowball ive seen since the iraq war cost.

And your tax on the "rich" will raise about 40B a year. Yeah, how "smart" of me to assume others will have to pay too. But I guess in your world its ok to treat people differently anyway, or at least those over 200k a year. Why is that?

3/31/2008 2:09:56 PM

Seems like a good strategy to not factor what he's cutting back, what lots of that spending will take place of, and how much that spending will return into the budget on the other side of the ledger. No, just throw up arbitrary numbers, good plan. I see what you did there.

Quote :

"The term is educated terp."

depends on who you think you're fooling

3/31/2008 2:13:26 PM

what is he cutting, do tell wise one.

3/31/2008 2:20:48 PM

Quote :

"Of which his healthcare is the biggest lowball ive seen since the iraq war cost."

you mean obama's healthcare is gonna cost over 13x more than he is proposing?

3/31/2008 2:23:10 PM

Quote :

"what is he cutting, do tell wise one."

I'm not the type to google something, find some random numbers, then throw them on a message board to make it look like I know what I'm talking about. I'll just call you out for when you're being a retard/

3/31/2008 2:29:10 PM

well it cost almost about 800B on healthcare for the elderly and poor. I doubt the majority of the population can be done for 65. Just a hunch.

Terp, go look at Amendment 4246. A republican senator introduced a bill that would fund 111 of the 188 spending proposals Obama has suggested. He did so to illustrate how ridiculous it is.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1985726/posts

"Obama’s promise to raise taxes just on the Democrats’ “attractive target” of people earning over $250,000, will only generate $225 billion over 5 years, far short of the $1.4 trillion which Obama’s proposed programs (actually only 60% of them) would saddle taxpayers with during that same time frame." -Richard Burr

Burr sure has you pegged there terp.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1985726/posts

3/31/2008 2:29:34 PM

eyedrb,

He is going cut spending plenty! He's going to pull out of Iraq immediatley, remember? Well, maybe. That isn't what he said in 2006 and it wasn't what his senior foreign policy adviser Samantha Powers said earlier this year. But it's kinda what he's saying on the stump. Or at least that's sometimes how he makes it sound....sometimes.

Anyways, when we do pull out of Iraq it surely free up boat loads of money! Almost the entire Iraq War has been covered by borrowing from investors. So by pulling out of Iraq we make it possible to borrow for these programs!!!

See, so your accusation that Obama is somehow proposing new programs without a plan to cover the new spending is looney.

Step 1) Pull out of Iraq So We Can Stop Borrowing Money
Step 2) Increase Spending On Health Care, Education, etc.
Step 3) Reduce the Budget Deficit and the Federal Debt

This is all really easy.

[Edited on March 31, 2008 at 2:34 PM. Reason : ``]

3/31/2008 2:29:43 PM

You're right, Obama has no plan to balance the budget.

3/31/2008 2:36:21 PM

^and you offer nothing terp

3/31/2008 2:40:22 PM

^ Exactly! In fact, he's said that balancing the budget would have to wait for at least several years.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/695811,dem121307.stng

So why did you balk when it was suggested that Obama's spending increases would not be met by his tax increases? Why did you remind us to look after the spending he would cut?

3/31/2008 2:41:37 PM

MCCAIN'S PASTOR IS EVEN CRAZIER

3/31/2008 2:42:14 PM

I'm not going to argue about this, I just want to let it be known that you guys have been putting up bullshit numbers for months to try to prove your point.

3/31/2008 2:45:13 PM

Quote :

"you mean obama's healthcare is gonna cost over 13x more than he is proposing? "

show me where he said anything that even slightly suggested that.

3/31/2008 2:48:21 PM

Quote :

"I'm not going to argue about this"

Thats probably bc you cant.

3/31/2008 2:53:02 PM

hahaha, maybe you think a little much of yourself if you think i'd even rather argue with you on the internet than do my fucking job.

3/31/2008 2:56:50 PM

Quote :

"I care so little about this topic, this board, and the internet as a whole that I just thought I would post to tell you about it. "

Why won't anyone admit they post here for the same reason everyone else does?

A combination of 1) frustrated rage seeking an outlet and 2) the cheap thrill of "winning" an "intellectual" argument.

It's sad and simple. Deal with it.

PS* Think of it this way: people don't solve puzzles because they're fun, they solve them for the tiny feeling of accomplishment that comes at the end.

[Edited on March 31, 2008 at 3:15 PM. Reason : ``]

3/31/2008 3:07:02 PM

Quote :

"Hell, I already know that I am voting for McCain in the general election but I am voting in the NC Dem primary for Hillary."

Socks``

Ha-ha--me too! It's not quite an Operation Chaos tactic, but it'll suffice.

Look, Hillary and Obama have large constituencies. The two candidates have have to form a ticket to capitalize on the synergy of those constituencies--I don't see any other workable scenario. The Democrats need healing and unity in their party.

Neither Hillary nor Obama would give up the top of the ticket for, say, Al Gore. I think that scenario is a pipe dream of some. And Edwards could swoop in to take the VP slot, but I don't think his bump would be as significant as some think.

Some party elders are seriously calling for unity:

Quote :

"Another party elder, former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo, proposed Saturday that Clinton and Obama avert a 'disaster' by agreeing to share the ticket, with the delegate winner running for president and the loser for vice president. 'If, on the other hand, the candidates refuse to work out a way to keep both constituencies firmly in the Democratic camp for the general election,' Cuomo wrote in the Boston Globe, 'the 2008 primary may be the story of a painfully botched grand opportunity to return our nation to the upward path and [instead] leave us mired in Iraq and government mediocrity.'"

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/la-na-dems30mar30,1,2252654.story

And don't forget that Nader's going to siphon off some of your votes--you need all the unity you can get.

3/31/2008 5:29:50 PM

Quote :

"show me where he said anything that even slightly suggested that."

Quote :

" his healthcare is the biggest lowball ive seen since the iraq war cost."

3/31/2008 5:34:57 PM

Quote :

"^ yeah, the huge influx of new registered democrats and party affiliation switches from rep to dem definitely indicates McCain winning in a landslide!!!"

terpball Ummm, do you really think all those new voters are sincere?

I have two words for you,

OPERATION CHAOS

While it is true that the conservatives in this country would rather nominate a festering pile of dog vomit than McCain, they still want HRC and BO to lose. That is more likely the source of these new party switchers. Its to keep the bloodbath that is HRC vs. BO alive.

As Rush has pointed out, McCain will not fight BO or HRC as vigorously as is needed. We need them to expose each other for what they are so that McCain will not have to (since he will not anyway, just listen to his silence on the cornucopia of suck that the dems have provided of late, where is the criticism from the republicans?)

3/31/2008 5:41:11 PM

^^SINCE


as in, he directly stated that the Iraq was costs were more understated than these terrible healthcare ideas.


^ why in the hell would McCain spend his own campaign money to drag his own name into a shit-throwing fight, when his opponents are more than happy to cover each other in shit on their own dimes?

[Edited on March 31, 2008 at 5:43 PM. Reason : and God forbid that McCain run a respectable campaign. that just won't do!]

[Edited on March 31, 2008 at 5:43 PM. Reason : asdf]

3/31/2008 5:41:27 PM

Respectable? Really? What was respectable about teaming up with Huckabee to stomp out Romney? I get it now that he is against the democrats its time to be respectable. Well I guess that is consistent with his senate hi jinx of that last decade or so. Nevermind.

3/31/2008 5:56:44 PM

^ OMG THE REPUBLICANS ARE GOING TO TEAR THEMSELVES APART!!!!!!11

3/31/2008 5:59:42 PM

I think the operation chaos people are all scum for Americans. Every one of them, led by the fat piece of shit one and only. They and other GOP blow hards like to call themselves patriotic, but that's about as unpatriotic as it comes to play and game intensive and inclusive politics to further a totally separate agenda late this year. Voting is not 'so you can win' it's so you can be represented. And even if it was a game, that dirty tactic in my mind is a load of crock.

Not that it will matter b/c Obama will cream Hillary and her retarded Limbaugh idiots here, but I'm just saying that I got no respect for anybody that would do it. Democrat, Republican, Independent, doesn't matter. When the intent is to sabotage you are immediately not worthy of any respect here.

3/31/2008 6:01:18 PM

^ So as an unaffiliated voter, I can't go in and vote the way I want? I say you trying to get into the voting booth with individuals is "not worthy of any respect here." Is it okay with you if I vote the way I fucking want to?

The voting laws are what they are, man--I didn't write them. If you don't like them, work to get them changed. But for God's sake--stop fucking whining about it.

4/1/2008 5:09:41 AM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080331/us_nm/healthcare_usa_doctors_dc

4/1/2008 5:21:00 AM

Quote :

"unpatriotic as it comes to play and game intensive and inclusive politics to further a totally separate agenda late this year. Voting is not 'so you can win' it's so you can be represented."

I just repeat what I said. I'm not whining I'm just stating my opinion on it, this is a freaking message board. Might want to check who is really whining.........about another's post.

4/1/2008 8:08:03 AM

^ Oh, I'm going to represent. My "agenda" is that McCain is better for America than either Hillary or Obama.

So I will vote for Hillary--who I view to be the weaker candidate--in the primary and McCain in the general election. What's wrong with that?

4/1/2008 8:32:52 AM

how are you a repub and view clinton as the weaker candidate? that doesnt make sense

4/1/2008 8:38:07 AM

^ I'm not a Republican--that's your own concocted idiotic stereotype, drunkndowny. And one has but to look at the delegate count, the polls, funds (or lack thereof), and momentum to see that Clinton's the weaker candidate.

4/1/2008 11:06:11 AM

4/1/2008 11:10:18 AM

Two things:

1) I can't imagine Hillary Clinton taking a knee to become Obama's Vice President. In my opinion, she is more likely to try and negotiate a stronger role in the Senate, perhaps as the Senate Majority Leader where she can have greater influence.

2) Even if she's willing, I would rather not see her as VP. Dick Cheney has demonstrated how much chaos a VP can create, and given her and her husband's ambitions, I can see them tinkering a lot in Obama's administration from the shadows, perhaps even running a whole parallel organization that could create chaos and aggravate factionalism.

While I understand the Democrats concerns about losing Hillary supporters, I would rather Obama have the nomination outright and make the administration his own rather than have to deal with the Clintons waiting in the shadows.

4/1/2008 11:41:32 AM

hooksaw isn't a republican just like bill o'reilly isn't a republican.

4/1/2008 11:41:54 AM