If Hillary wins the nomination would Obama accept a VP? - Page 4

CharlieDontSurf · #31 06-10-2007, 05:30 AM

So then tell us with your infinte poltical wisdom..who do Hillary and Obama choose as their VPs?...
Clark would be better for Obama than Hillary but he would help both in so much as a VP can actually help a Pres canidate.
if not a white older quasi republican, former soldier who has won a war and is the only "democrat" who can talk about the war on terror/war in iraq and actually sound like he has a clue...then who?

Max Raker · #32 06-10-2007, 06:21 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I guess you haven't noticed, but the left (that doesn't mean all Democrats) has nothing but contempt for the military. I know...they say things like "We support the troops" and "They are brave men and women". Then they bar military recruiters from high school and college campuses, ban ROTC and try to cut the military budget in every way imaginable. But they really love the military, and believe it is honorable to serve. Just don't want it in their neighborhood.
Or they make remarks about how if students don't do well in school, they end up in Iraq (yeah, I know....that was just a botched joke....like when he said US soldiers in Iraq were "kicking in doors in the middle of the night, terrorizing women and children"....or when he said troops in Vietnam were maiming, killing and cutting off limbs of civilians. Just a misunderstanding. After all, how could someone who served have thoughts like that ? And he has said many times that he supports the troops.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the left really hated the troops we would put them in a war we didn't need to fight with no clear objective, and without enough armour to protect themsleves. I felt sick when I got my tax return this year.... I hope you did too.

4 High · #33 06-10-2007, 06:13 PM

Did Ruprecht just plagiarize Free Republic with that post? Could there be any more generalizations and stereotypes? Take that trash elsewhere.

Ruprecht · #34 06-11-2007, 03:46 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Did Ruprecht just plagiarize Free Republic with that post? Could there be any more generalizations and stereotypes? Take that trash elsewhere.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't get all pissy just because the liberals hate the military. And try not to confuse "military" with the men and women who serve in the military. (I know that is a lot of work for your tiny brain, but give it a try)
Then, when you learn how to find congressional voting records online, go and look up the voting records of the liberal members when it comes to the military. Print out the records, read them and learn, and then carefully stick them up your rectum.

Ruprecht · #35 06-11-2007, 04:16 AM

[ QUOTE ]
So then tell us with your infinte poltical wisdom..who do Hillary and Obama choose as their VPs?...
Clark would be better for Obama than Hillary but he would help both in so much as a VP can actually help a Pres canidate.
if not a white older quasi republican, former soldier who has won a war and is the only "democrat" who can talk about the war on terror/war in iraq and actually sound like he has a clue...then who?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't have infinite wisdom, and I don't know who Hillary will choose. But I am as sure as I can be that she will not choose Wes Clark.
I will try to explain why I am sure:
Wes Clark was a disaster as a candidate. He may have learned from his mistakes, but that is not certain.
Hillary has spent all of her years as a Senator (and especially since 9/11) trying to build her own reputation as someone who could, ALL BY HERSELF AND WITHOUT HELP FROM A MAN, be the Commander In Chief of the armed forces. She had her husband collect some political favors to get her on the Armed Services committee. To her credit, she has worked hard on that committee ( I am no fan of Hillary, but I try to be somewhat objective). To put Clark on the ticket would seem like an admission that she needed help on matters of national security. That is a perception that would hurt her badly. She knows that in order for any woman to be elected President, the voters must see her as FULLY QUALIFIED to be Commander-in-Chief.
Also, Wes Clark has no pizzazz. He may be a steak (I am unimpressed with him, personally, but that is not part of this discussion), but he has no sizzle.
Hillary has a problem with the left for her vote and support of the Iraq war. The left is consistently anti-war and anti-military. Putting Clark on the ticket would only aggravate that constituency.
The 2008 election cannot be seen as a re-run of the Clinton administration. Hillary knows she is up against it in the general election....her negatives are high, and about 50% of the country is telling pollsters they will never vote for her. She needs a fresh face, and someone who will help her seem less polarizing. She will need to look forward, not backward.
Obama may be the right guy at the right time, if his inexperience does not cause him to stumble too badly during the campaign. He might bring exactly what Hillary needs....freshness, positive (not polarizing) image,and wonderful charisma.

CharlieDontSurf · #36 06-11-2007, 01:27 PM

The left doesn't decide a general election. The middle does.

Ruprecht · #37 06-11-2007, 01:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The left doesn't decide a general election. The middle does.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have a point ? I didn't say the left decided anything, but if your best response is that elections are decided by the "middle", which would be over half the country, congratulations to you for figuring that out.

ShakeZula06 · #38 06-11-2007, 04:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The left doesn't decide a general election. The middle does.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have a point ? I didn't say the left decided anything, but if your best response is that elections are decided by the "middle", which would be over half the country , congratulations to you for figuring that out.

[/ QUOTE ]
No it's not

Ruprecht · #39 06-11-2007, 04:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The left doesn't decide a general election. The middle does.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have a point ? I didn't say the left decided anything, but if your best response is that elections are decided by the "middle", which would be over half the country , congratulations to you for figuring that out.

[/ QUOTE ]
No it's not

[/ QUOTE ]

Another post just doing ass-talking. Instead of just saying what any 3 year old can say..."No, it's not"...just tell us what the real % is, if you can. Let's see if you really know anything more than a 3 year old knows.

CharlieDontSurf · #40 06-11-2007, 04:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So then tell us with your infinte poltical wisdom..who do Hillary and Obama choose as their VPs?...
Clark would be better for Obama than Hillary but he would help both in so much as a VP can actually help a Pres canidate.
if not a white older quasi republican, former soldier who has won a war and is the only "democrat" who can talk about the war on terror/war in iraq and actually sound like he has a clue...then who?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't have infinite wisdom, and I don't know who Hillary will choose. But I am as sure as I can be that she will not choose Wes Clark.
I will try to explain why I am sure:
Wes Clark was a disaster as a candidate. He may have learned from his mistakes, but that is not certain.
Hillary has spent all of her years as a Senator (and especially since 9/11) trying to build her own reputation as someone who could, ALL BY HERSELF AND WITHOUT HELP FROM A MAN, be the Commander In Chief of the armed forces. She had her husband collect some political favors to get her on the Armed Services committee. To her credit, she has worked hard on that committee ( I am no fan of Hillary, but I try to be somewhat objective). To put Clark on the ticket would seem like an admission that she needed help on matters of national security. That is a perception that would hurt her badly. She knows that in order for any woman to be elected President, the voters must see her as FULLY QUALIFIED to be Commander-in-Chief.
Also, Wes Clark has no pizzazz. He may be a steak (I am unimpressed with him, personally, but that is not part of this discussion), but he has no sizzle.
Hillary has a problem with the left for her vote and support of the Iraq war. The left is consistently anti-war and anti-military. Putting Clark on the ticket would only aggravate that constituency.
The 2008 election cannot be seen as a re-run of the Clinton administration. Hillary knows she is up against it in the general election....her negatives are high, and about 50% of the country is telling pollsters they will never vote for her. She needs a fresh face, and someone who will help her seem less polarizing. She will need to look forward, not backward.
Obama may be the right guy at the right time, if his inexperience does not cause him to stumble too badly during the campaign. He might bring exactly what Hillary needs....freshness, positive (not polarizing) image,and wonderful charisma.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hillary is going to have to attack Obama severly in order to beat him...though it is still a possibility...I doubt she chooses him as her VP.

Hillary's biggest problem is she's viewed as a lefty and she's woman. A lot of men are going to feel uncomfortable voting for her just based on her gender.

the left will vote for her regardless of her VP. Its the indep and the moderate republicans she'll want to pull towards her. Clark and Obama would both help here. Clark is seen as having greater exp/skill/leadership/moderate values while Obama has personality and pisazz. I'm sure there will be other people on her list but Clark is defenitly on her top 3-5