Haha.. come on Obama, the prospect of a Democrat being elected led to a reduction in violence in Iraq?
Itll be
Obama/Hillary and Richardson (1st option)
Obama/Hillary and Biden(2nd option)
Richardson will be the first choice for VP for both Hillary and Obama. If he declines the VP will be Biden.
I think Obama might go for Biden since he is a traditional type of candidate. Him and Richardson might be shaking things up too much, plus Richardson isn't nearly as good a speaker.
I think they'd be a fool to select Edwards as their VP after the way he sabotaged Kerry.
I'm hoping it'll be Biden or Richardson (Obama/Biden or Hillary/Richardson), but who knows.
I think Biden balances out the Obama ticket more than Richardson would.
Bitek
Lifer
- Aug 2, 2001
- 10,676
- 5,239
- 136
Watched most of the rep debate and all the of the Dem.
Overall this was an excellent debate and great format. Good and lively discussions w/ enough moderation to keep it on focus and a little heat to candidates when they dodged.
The rep debate was a frag-fest, and is emblematic of how the party is fracturing into smaller constituencies, and operationally broken. Fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, libertarians, hawks and Reaganites. The only one really trying to be "Regeanesque" in his positions was Romney, and has been a complete BS artist in doing so. His petty attacks on everyone else came back to him hard tonite and and ate sh!t from everyone, some all at the same time. Huckabee did well, and was prolly lucky all the neg attention on Romney spared him after the big win in Iowa. McCain did well as well, also benefiting from the Romney beating. He noticeably stayed quiet for most of it (smartly) as his one attempt at humor (agent of change) backfired, funny tho it was.
Thompson was a flop IMO. He was good at ball busting others, but never had good responses to counter their ideas. Huckabee and McCain most profit from him as he just tears down everyone else (including himself.)
Guliani...the candidate if you loved W and want WW3 w/ Iran.
Paul again was pretty good*, but the others on stage are just obtuse to his POV. They are dying to write him off as a nutter, but in doing so they are missing out on opportunities to revitalize their party with fresh ideas that can excite people (like Obama is doing). Most of the rest are trying to resurrect Reagan, but Reagan is dead and not coming back, and they Reps are lost and look archaic in trying to. Looking back to the past and the cold war is not the direction the electorate is going and won't ever for a while. I see a long term problem for the Reps until they can find a new identity to coalesce around and a new charismatic leader that can inspire and develop these ideas.
*Paul is communicating very inspiring and creative ideas, but the rest are too stupid or stuck to see it. Imo Paul is somewhat the Howard Dean (or kinda even Nader) of the Republicans. He inspires alot of people, has some great ideas, some ~kooky ones, but terrifies the rest of his party. Dean was undermined and swept out of the fore-front, but left a legacy that has empowered the Dem party, has been effective in implementing it as a behind the scenes DNC chairman. If the Reps are smart, they will incorporate Paul's ideas into new and better suited leaders that will be more effective in moving the agenda forward.
Very interesting too as Paul zagged on the "Obama Opinion" question at the end. The rest of the field just seemed to reiterate their Hillary attacks w/ Obama's name. Paul sees the writing and gives Barak his credit. Something big is happening, and again most are blind.
***However, I swear, in the interchange where all the Dems and the Reps are on stage I saw McCain say to Obama "I'm with you"..
pt 2 the Dems...
Overall this was an excellent debate and great format. Good and lively discussions w/ enough moderation to keep it on focus and a little heat to candidates when they dodged.
The rep debate was a frag-fest, and is emblematic of how the party is fracturing into smaller constituencies, and operationally broken. Fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, libertarians, hawks and Reaganites. The only one really trying to be "Regeanesque" in his positions was Romney, and has been a complete BS artist in doing so. His petty attacks on everyone else came back to him hard tonite and and ate sh!t from everyone, some all at the same time. Huckabee did well, and was prolly lucky all the neg attention on Romney spared him after the big win in Iowa. McCain did well as well, also benefiting from the Romney beating. He noticeably stayed quiet for most of it (smartly) as his one attempt at humor (agent of change) backfired, funny tho it was.
Thompson was a flop IMO. He was good at ball busting others, but never had good responses to counter their ideas. Huckabee and McCain most profit from him as he just tears down everyone else (including himself.)
Guliani...the candidate if you loved W and want WW3 w/ Iran.
Paul again was pretty good*, but the others on stage are just obtuse to his POV. They are dying to write him off as a nutter, but in doing so they are missing out on opportunities to revitalize their party with fresh ideas that can excite people (like Obama is doing). Most of the rest are trying to resurrect Reagan, but Reagan is dead and not coming back, and they Reps are lost and look archaic in trying to. Looking back to the past and the cold war is not the direction the electorate is going and won't ever for a while. I see a long term problem for the Reps until they can find a new identity to coalesce around and a new charismatic leader that can inspire and develop these ideas.
*Paul is communicating very inspiring and creative ideas, but the rest are too stupid or stuck to see it. Imo Paul is somewhat the Howard Dean (or kinda even Nader) of the Republicans. He inspires alot of people, has some great ideas, some ~kooky ones, but terrifies the rest of his party. Dean was undermined and swept out of the fore-front, but left a legacy that has empowered the Dem party, has been effective in implementing it as a behind the scenes DNC chairman. If the Reps are smart, they will incorporate Paul's ideas into new and better suited leaders that will be more effective in moving the agenda forward.
Very interesting too as Paul zagged on the "Obama Opinion" question at the end. The rest of the field just seemed to reiterate their Hillary attacks w/ Obama's name. Paul sees the writing and gives Barak his credit. Something big is happening, and again most are blind.
***However, I swear, in the interchange where all the Dems and the Reps are on stage I saw McCain say to Obama "I'm with you"..
pt 2 the Dems...
Bitek
Lifer
- Aug 2, 2001
- 10,676
- 5,239
- 136
Dems:
Very good and much more civil debate, but the early fight between Clinton/Edwards and Obama was just awesome. Some of the greatest theater I've seen. The question was how Edwards was going to respond to the Iowa win.. Clinton opened the door for him to attack Obama with her, but he slammed it in her face, and pushed hard to dismiss her from the race entirely. She was pisssssssssseeddd. The build-up of the Hillary tirade was mind-blowing. She F'ing cracked. Richardson deftly intervened, saving her further embarrassment, and actually did very well to make the experience argument himself ("when did experience become a bad thing...?")
That was it, she's done. I been carrying on since Nov that she's already lost the race but she doen't know it yet... but now it pretty much nailed. Nothing is ever certain, but damn, what a good show.
Overall everyone did well, tho I think Richardson and Edwards actually did the best. Not that Obama did bad, but his little swipe at Hillary about likability was a bit petty and undignified, so -1 pt for him on an otherwise solid night. He deftly parried Clinton's attacks, w/ the one stinger (people liked W the beer-buddy in 2000 too and look how his inexperience turned out.) Her attempts to swiftboat Obama as a flipflopper looked petty, but I doubt we'll see the last of this angle.
Richardson is a great peronality, and much more clever and sharp than is immediately obvious. He is a much better communicator than Hillary, but a bit too self-deprecating to be top shelf material. A great ally he would be. I've thought for a while he's been shilling for Clinton, attacking the others and schmoosing some far left positions to help Hillary out as a VP later on. He seems to be backing a bit off that, seemingly seeing the tide against Hillary. He won't win by a long shot, but he's not going away either.... I agree on a shortlist of VPs (tho I'm partial to Biden, but he's unlikely to get the VP spot IMO.)
Lastly, first debate I ended up not hating Edwards after. He actually seemed honest tonite, instead a a slimy soothsaying lawyer. Not that I'm going to vote for him. Richardson (again) had the best, but civil and muted critique: ie "the president can't just fight everyone, he has to be able to work w/ people and the Congress to get things done." Edwards is fired up and on a roll. I hope he just kills off Hillary for good and Obama brings in the nomination.
:thumbsup:
Very good and much more civil debate, but the early fight between Clinton/Edwards and Obama was just awesome. Some of the greatest theater I've seen. The question was how Edwards was going to respond to the Iowa win.. Clinton opened the door for him to attack Obama with her, but he slammed it in her face, and pushed hard to dismiss her from the race entirely. She was pisssssssssseeddd. The build-up of the Hillary tirade was mind-blowing. She F'ing cracked. Richardson deftly intervened, saving her further embarrassment, and actually did very well to make the experience argument himself ("when did experience become a bad thing...?")
That was it, she's done. I been carrying on since Nov that she's already lost the race but she doen't know it yet... but now it pretty much nailed. Nothing is ever certain, but damn, what a good show.
Overall everyone did well, tho I think Richardson and Edwards actually did the best. Not that Obama did bad, but his little swipe at Hillary about likability was a bit petty and undignified, so -1 pt for him on an otherwise solid night. He deftly parried Clinton's attacks, w/ the one stinger (people liked W the beer-buddy in 2000 too and look how his inexperience turned out.) Her attempts to swiftboat Obama as a flipflopper looked petty, but I doubt we'll see the last of this angle.
Richardson is a great peronality, and much more clever and sharp than is immediately obvious. He is a much better communicator than Hillary, but a bit too self-deprecating to be top shelf material. A great ally he would be. I've thought for a while he's been shilling for Clinton, attacking the others and schmoosing some far left positions to help Hillary out as a VP later on. He seems to be backing a bit off that, seemingly seeing the tide against Hillary. He won't win by a long shot, but he's not going away either.... I agree on a shortlist of VPs (tho I'm partial to Biden, but he's unlikely to get the VP spot IMO.)
Lastly, first debate I ended up not hating Edwards after. He actually seemed honest tonite, instead a a slimy soothsaying lawyer. Not that I'm going to vote for him. Richardson (again) had the best, but civil and muted critique: ie "the president can't just fight everyone, he has to be able to work w/ people and the Congress to get things done." Edwards is fired up and on a roll. I hope he just kills off Hillary for good and Obama brings in the nomination.
:thumbsup:
He has a point even though I think that he's just joking. Obama winning could hurt our relations with several countries, especially ones in Europe who are being governed by far-right political parties.
Imagine the KKK holding a diplomatic meeting with Obama. That's what it is going to be like. These political parties and politicians are white supremacists.
We shouldn't let them dictate our choice though. They should change, not us.
Bitek
Lifer
- Aug 2, 2001
- 10,676
- 5,239
- 136
Lastly, my predicts:
NH for Obama on strong independents and losses from Hillary. Edwards will bounce up as well. I think Obama will pull over a good number of otherwise Paul voters to join that movement, giving Paul good but not quite as good as expected #'s. Hopefully Reps will understand and learn from this...
SC will be interesting. Hillary will get more desperate, and after NH Edwards will target Obama to try and make stand in SC. If Hillary losses SC, she will shave her head and get institutionalized like Britney. Bill Clinton's legacy will be tarnished, but Hillary's collapse will make them square for Monica.
McCain is going to kill Romney. Romney is toast. SC is going to be a great fight between Huckabee and McCain and the others. Will be great to watch what happens, but its going to be a bloodbath on the Rep side.
NH for Obama on strong independents and losses from Hillary. Edwards will bounce up as well. I think Obama will pull over a good number of otherwise Paul voters to join that movement, giving Paul good but not quite as good as expected #'s. Hopefully Reps will understand and learn from this...
SC will be interesting. Hillary will get more desperate, and after NH Edwards will target Obama to try and make stand in SC. If Hillary losses SC, she will shave her head and get institutionalized like Britney. Bill Clinton's legacy will be tarnished, but Hillary's collapse will make them square for Monica.
McCain is going to kill Romney. Romney is toast. SC is going to be a great fight between Huckabee and McCain and the others. Will be great to watch what happens, but its going to be a bloodbath on the Rep side.
Originally posted by: Hafen
Watched most of the rep debate and all the of the Dem.
Overall this was an excellent debate and great format. Good and lively discussions w/ enough moderation to keep it on focus and a little heat to candidates when they dodged.
The rep debate was a frag-fest, and is emblematic of how the party is fracturing into smaller constituencies, and operationally broken. Fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, libertarians, hawks and Reaganites. The only one really trying to be "Regeanesque" in his positions was Romney, and has been a complete BS artist in doing so. His petty attacks on everyone else came back to him hard tonite and and ate sh!t from everyone, some all at the same time. Huckabee did well, and was prolly lucky all the neg attention on Romney spared him after the big win in Iowa. McCain did well as well, also benefiting from the Romney beating. He noticeably stayed quiet for most of it (smartly) as his one attempt at humor (agent of change) backfired, funny tho it was.
Thompson was a flop IMO. He was good at ball busting others, but never had good responses to counter their ideas. Huckabee and McCain most profit from him as he just tears down everyone else (including himself.)
Guliani...the candidate if you loved W and want WW3 w/ Iran.
Paul again was pretty good*, but the others on stage are just obtuse to his POV. They are dying to write him off as a nutter, but in doing so they are missing out on opportunities to revitalize their party with fresh ideas that can excite people (like Obama is doing). Most of the rest are trying to resurrect Reagan, but Reagan is dead and not coming back, and they Reps are lost and look archaic in trying to. Looking back to the past and the cold war is not the direction the electorate is going and won't ever for a while. I see a long term problem for the Reps until they can find a new identity to coalesce around and a new charismatic leader that can inspire and develop these ideas.
*Paul is communicating very inspiring and creative ideas, but the rest are too stupid or stuck to see it. Imo Paul is somewhat the Howard Dean (or kinda even Nader) of the Republicans. He inspires alot of people, has some great ideas, some ~kooky ones, but terrifies the rest of his party. Dean was undermined and swept out of the fore-front, but left a legacy that has empowered the Dem party, has been effective in implementing it as a behind the scenes DNC chairman. If the Reps are smart, they will incorporate Paul's ideas into new and better suited leaders that will be more effective in moving the agenda forward.
Very interesting too as Paul zagged on the "Obama Opinion" question at the end. The rest of the field just seemed to reiterate their Hillary attacks w/ Obama's name. Paul sees the writing and gives Barak his credit. Something big is happening, and again most are blind.
***However, I swear, in the interchange where all the Dems and the Reps are on stage I saw McCain say to Obama "I'm with you"..
pt 2 the Dems...
See Reagan successfully brought together the fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, and the hawks. The first time it was done, at the same time this pretty much booted out the libertarianesq republicans from the parties mainstream. Its always been a marriage of convience for the social conservatives and fiscal conservatives.
I cannot see how you think Romney is a Reaganite. He clearly screwed himself over, atleast in the republican party, during the healthcare segment of the debate.
I wish people would bust him on his misleadings when it comes to his comparisons of himself and others.
He goes on and on about his record in MA, how he didnt have to raise taxes to provide healthcare, etc, etc. It is wholly dishonest, because MA is most heavily taxed state in the country. He didnt have to raise taxes because taxes were already through the roof.
The only reason Romney has gotten to where he is in this campaign is the large amounts of personal money hes put into this race, and the $17million in loans to his campaign.
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
Am I the only one who is even remotely resembling disturbed that Kucinich was excluded from the ABC debate? Granted he is only polling 1%, but I still think he could provide some better answers that would have kept other democratic candidates more focused. I am very upset that none of the dems had any worries that our foreign policy meddling
in Pakistan could energize their radicals and discredit their moderates.
While the dems are still infinitely better than the GWB jr. GOP rivals, they show no insights into how fast we can again fall into the same Uncle Sammy knows best trap that has us mired in two failed occupations.
The fact is that Pakistan has arrested more Al-Quida operatives than all other countries combined. And we can't even manage an occupation in Afghanistan with Nato help.
And after all these years, Karzai is little more than mayor of Kabul while our Northern Alliance buddies have carved Afghanistan into private fiefdoms for the production of opium.
in Pakistan could energize their radicals and discredit their moderates.
While the dems are still infinitely better than the GWB jr. GOP rivals, they show no insights into how fast we can again fall into the same Uncle Sammy knows best trap that has us mired in two failed occupations.
The fact is that Pakistan has arrested more Al-Quida operatives than all other countries combined. And we can't even manage an occupation in Afghanistan with Nato help.
And after all these years, Karzai is little more than mayor of Kabul while our Northern Alliance buddies have carved Afghanistan into private fiefdoms for the production of opium.
if I were McCain, I'd be constantly reminding SC voters that they didn't pick him in 2000, and look where it left them
What you fail to realize is we are damned if we do and damned if we don't when it comes to Pakistan.
LMAO. Richardson just repeats the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over. Hes a 1 issue candidate and is obviously pandering to the anti-war left.
"Pull out of Iraq immediately!"
Bitek
Lifer
- Aug 2, 2001
- 10,676
- 5,239
- 136
Originally posted by: Wreckem
Originally posted by: Hafen
Watched most of the rep debate and all the of the Dem.
Overall this was an excellent debate and great format. Good and lively discussions w/ enough moderation to keep it on focus and a little heat to candidates when they dodged.
The rep debate was a frag-fest, and is emblematic of how the party is fracturing into smaller constituencies, and operationally broken. Fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, libertarians, hawks and Reaganites. The only one really trying to be "Regeanesque" in his positions was Romney, and has been a complete BS artist in doing so. His petty attacks on everyone else came back to him hard tonite and and ate sh!t from everyone, some all at the same time. Huckabee did well, and was prolly lucky all the neg attention on Romney spared him after the big win in Iowa. McCain did well as well, also benefiting from the Romney beating. He noticeably stayed quiet for most of it (smartly) as his one attempt at humor (agent of change) backfired, funny tho it was.
Thompson was a flop IMO. He was good at ball busting others, but never had good responses to counter their ideas. Huckabee and McCain most profit from him as he just tears down everyone else (including himself.)
Guliani...the candidate if you loved W and want WW3 w/ Iran.
Paul again was pretty good*, but the others on stage are just obtuse to his POV. They are dying to write him off as a nutter, but in doing so they are missing out on opportunities to revitalize their party with fresh ideas that can excite people (like Obama is doing). Most of the rest are trying to resurrect Reagan, but Reagan is dead and not coming back, and they Reps are lost and look archaic in trying to. Looking back to the past and the cold war is not the direction the electorate is going and won't ever for a while. I see a long term problem for the Reps until they can find a new identity to coalesce around and a new charismatic leader that can inspire and develop these ideas.
*Paul is communicating very inspiring and creative ideas, but the rest are too stupid or stuck to see it. Imo Paul is somewhat the Howard Dean (or kinda even Nader) of the Republicans. He inspires alot of people, has some great ideas, some ~kooky ones, but terrifies the rest of his party. Dean was undermined and swept out of the fore-front, but left a legacy that has empowered the Dem party, has been effective in implementing it as a behind the scenes DNC chairman. If the Reps are smart, they will incorporate Paul's ideas into new and better suited leaders that will be more effective in moving the agenda forward.
Very interesting too as Paul zagged on the "Obama Opinion" question at the end. The rest of the field just seemed to reiterate their Hillary attacks w/ Obama's name. Paul sees the writing and gives Barak his credit. Something big is happening, and again most are blind.
***However, I swear, in the interchange where all the Dems and the Reps are on stage I saw McCain say to Obama "I'm with you"..
pt 2 the Dems...
See Reagan successfully brought together the fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, and the hawks. The first time it was done, at the same time this pretty much booted out the libertarianesq republicans from the parties mainstream. Its always been a marriage of convience for the social conservatives and fiscal conservatives.
I cannot see how you think Romney is a Reaganite. He clearly screwed himself over, atleast in the republican party, during the healthcare segment of the debate.
I wish people would bust him on his misleadings when it comes to his comparisons of himself and others.
He goes on and on about his record in MA, how he didnt have to raise taxes to provide healthcare, etc, etc. It is wholly dishonest, because MA is most heavily taxed state in the country. He didnt have to raise taxes because taxes were already through the roof.
The only reason Romney has gotten to where he is in this campaign is the large amounts of personal money hes put into this race, and the $17million in loans to his campaign.
I agree w/ you 100%. Just trying to draw the distinction between "is" and "wants to be".
The only thing I see Romney as is FOS and a panderer to the image of Reagan, irrespective of what his record is.
Thats what you hear, because the rest of his stances are EXTREMELY moderate. Hes tried to get the left part of the party to support him, to bad for him Obama has a similar stance Iraq and is much more liberal on the issues.
The reason Richardson is bandied about as VP is because he is moderate and tones down both the Hillary or Obama ticket.
Bitek
Lifer
- Aug 2, 2001
- 10,676
- 5,239
- 136
That's why I think he has been shilling for Hillary all this time, to balance out her ~centrist and more hawkish war positions in the hope he could pull back the far left in the general, to avoid a 2000 repeat, w/o actually having to give them something. Combine that w/ the latino vote and he holds alot of cards.
The fact that he was in Bill's admin shouldn't be dismissed either.
The crack about the Obama/Richardson ticket may be a bit too "brown" may not be out of left field tho....
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
Originally posted by: loki8481
if I were McCain, I'd be constantly reminding SC voters that they didn't pick him in 2000, and look where it left them
Why trade a headache for an upset stomach? On military might, MCcCain is only a slightly smarter GWB jr. The dumb idiot still has not figured out why we lost in Vietnam.
Is there a complete Youtube of both debates yet? I missed them and would like to watch both int heir entirety.
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Originally posted by: loki8481
if I were McCain, I'd be constantly reminding SC voters that they didn't pick him in 2000, and look where it left them
Why trade a headache for an upset stomach? On military might, MCcCain is only a slightly smarter GWB jr. The dumb idiot still has not figured out why we lost in Vietnam.
if McCain were in the white house, we'd have never gone to Iraq in the first place.
Well, theres more than a little hearsay on him directing his supporters towards Obama, so I dont think hes been shilling for Hillary.
On the experiance issue, he has the most experiance out of anyone currently running, Dem or Repub. He has extensive domestic and foreign policy experiance. He has both legislative and executive experiance.
4 years as a State Department Staffer
14 years in the House
4 years in the Clinton White House
6 years as Governor of New Mexico
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter