|
|
#41
06-19-2007, 12:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: WJC: Gore/Obama very likely
Obama would be a much better VP candidate than Richardson. Generally, the strategy of using the VP slot to target a specific state or region is outdated; people are much less likely to vote for someone just because they are a "favorite son" now that fifty years ago. Who won New York in 1996, or Tennessee in 2000, or North Carolina in 2004? Instead, you want a VP who is going to move the needle nationwide, even if it is only by 1% or 2%, and fills in the gaps in what will be the "story" of the coming administration.
Bill Richardson is popular enough in NM that he would win it as VP. But that's only five EVs, and he doesn't really do that much to guarantee AZ or NV, as he really isn't that well known outside his state. He is Hispanic, but is not really seen as a national leader of the Hispanic community. Also, none of the GOP candidates seem to want to appeal to Hispanic voters this time around, and even if they wanted to, a candidate will probably have to express such a hardline anti-immigration stance to win the GOP nomination next yeat that they will essentially be conceding the Hispanic vote whether the Dems have an Hispanic on the ticket or not. Additionally, Richardson's foreign policy credentials don't really add anything on top of what Gore already brings. He would be a much better running mate for Obama or Edwards, candidates with less experience. Gore should choose a running mate the will highlight his positioning as a "candidate of the future" rather than a "candidate of the past". It would be a mistake to take someone with too much experience. I'm not a supporter of Obama for President, but he would be perfect in this role. 
|
|
#42
06-19-2007, 01:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: WJC: Gore/Obama very likely
Right now Gore is the only Democrat with a snowball's chance in hell of winning the presidency. Gore/Obama is probably the strongest ticket the Democrats can put together. I basically hate Al Gore but he is the only Democrat with a passionate agenda. All of the other Dems are basically running on an anti-Bush agenda. Gore also doesn't have the stain of the Iraq war on his track record. This is something both Obama and H. Clinton have to account for. Remember, they both supported the war at first. But then when things to difficult they bailed.
|
|
#43
06-19-2007, 01:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: WJC: Gore/Obama very likely
[ QUOTE ]
Gore also doesn't have the stain of the Iraq war on his track record. This is something both Obama and H. Clinton have to account for. Remember, they both supported the war at first. But then when things to difficult they bailed. [/ QUOTE ] In what ways did Obama support the war in the beginning? He wasn't in the Senate when they voted on the authorizing resolution, and was always publicly opposed to the war during his Senate campaign, and has been consistantly opposed to it while in office. Also, if you think none of the Democrats currently running have a chance to win the general election, you don't have a very good grasp on American politics. Really, the only Dem who might start the general election campaign as an underdog would be Hillary.
|
|
#44
06-19-2007, 04:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: WJC: Gore/Obama very likely
[ QUOTE ]
All of the other Dems are basically running on an anti-Bush agenda. [/ QUOTE ] It worked pretty well in 2006, and half of the Republicans are also using this strategy (at least in terms of foriegn policy).
|
|
#45
06-19-2007, 04:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: WJC: Gore/Obama very likely
[ QUOTE ]
This is something both Obama and H. Clinton have to account for. Remember, they both supported the war at first. But then when things to difficult they bailed. [/ QUOTE ] Nope
|
|
#47
06-20-2007, 08:22 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: WJC: Gore/Obama very likely
[ QUOTE ]
That must have been a typo, maybe he meant Edwards. [/ QUOTE ] Boris...I'd actually like you to come back and answer this. I don't, actually, give you the benefit of the doubt that you typed O-B-A-M-A when you meant to type E-D-W-A-R-D-S. Were you just talking out of your ass when you said Obama would have to answer for his support of the war? Be honest.
|
|
#48
06-20-2007, 01:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: WJC: Gore/Obama very likely
ok I made a factual error regarding Obama. He wasn't in the Senate when we made the decision to invade Iraq. I guess that kind of let's him off the hook in that he wasn't in a position to make take an official stand. Do any of you Obama supporters want to make an argument that he would have argued strongly against the invasion had he been in the senate in 2003?
|
|
#49
06-20-2007, 01:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: WJC: Gore/Obama very likely
[ QUOTE ]
ok I made a factual error regarding Obama. He wasn't in the Senate when we made the decision to invade Iraq. I guess that kind of let's him off the hook in that he wasn't in a position to make take an official stand. Do any of you Obama supporters want to make an argument that he would have argued strongly against the invasion had he been in the senate in 2003? [/ QUOTE ] This is awesome...do you want to make an argument that he would have supported the invasion? The only evidence we have points to the contrary, but I suspect you'll come up with some creative response.
|
|
#50
06-20-2007, 01:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: WJC: Gore/Obama very likely
[ QUOTE ]
Do any of you Obama supporters want to make an argument that he would have argued strongly against the invasion had he been in the senate in 2003? [/ QUOTE ] Yes. From a speech at an anti-war rally in 2002: [ QUOTE ] That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. [/ QUOTE ]
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
