Official Biden for VP Thread

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: Vic
What 'middle America' is really not interested in, you might figure out if you could fscking learn to read peoples' posts and respond to them on topic, is the hate-filled, ultra-negative, ideology (and phony morality) -over-economy talk radio and religious fundie agendas that elected GWB twice in the first place. And whose votes McCain has been desperately pandering to lately.

Why do you suppose the talk radio shows you reference are so popular? Because everyone hates them? Or because they're saying what people want to hear?

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: winnar111
Middle America is not interested in the Obama-Pelosi agenda.

Well, then, it's a good thing that Obama and Pelosi do not share agendas.

What 'middle America' is really not interested in, you might figure out if you could fscking learn to read peoples' posts and respond to them on topic, is the hate-filled, ultra-negative, ideology (and phony morality) -over-economy talk radio and religious fundie agendas that elected GWB twice in the first place. And whose votes McCain has been desperately pandering to lately.

Could have fooled me.

Other than FISA, has Obama even taken an initial position (before he changed his mind twice) on anything contrary to the moveon base?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: winnar111
You can believe that if you wish. Humphrey came pretty damn close in 1968 after all...

A little help, though: People aren't buying that McSame garbage.

And Humphrey would have won if he had called for pulling out of Vietnam earlier in the campaign (instead of waiting until October to change his mind on that). There are videos of Humphrey speaking at rallies very late in the campaign where people are holding up signs saying "If you really mean it."
Even worse for your position though is that RFK almost certainly would have won had he not been assassinated.

And you missed what LL was trying to tell you. He said that the more that McCain goes negative, the more he makes himself into McSame. This is because, by going negative, McCain is pandering to that GWB base whose only opinion on politics is that Rush told them that "lib-uh-rals are bad."

Except....he isn't, and that's why he's either competitive or winning the latest polls in this election.

By going negative, he's pandering to the middle of the road crowd who is realizing that Obama is not fit to lead this nation. We already had this choice in 2004, people choose a man of conviction over a weather vane.

You clearly do not have the slightest clue what has been going on in American politics since 2004.

Just because you can repeat the same lie over and over again and believe it does mean that everyone else is the same way.
What McCain has demonstrated, by going negative, is that he needs to hide that he has completely changed himself and his positions since winning the Republican primaries.
It also demonstrates that he will change himself in this way in order to pander to that far-right talk radio crowd that most of America has come to hate with a passion.

For example, it has already been pointed out to you in other threads that McCain only changed his position on oil drilling after taking in $1.3 million in oil company money. For you to ignore this (on your supposed most important issue), and then call McCain a 'man of conviction' and Obama a 'weather vane' (for refusing to change his position until forced to politically) is only further revealing yourself to be a partisan hack, and further lowering what little credibility you already had here.

Really? Is that why McCain stuck with McCain Feingold after the GOP base rejected it in 2000? Is that why McCain stuck with McCain Lieberman after the GOP base rejected it as well, and still rejects global warming nonsense? Is that why McCain stuck with McCain Kennedy as the GOP primaries were kicking off?

Pal, you need to start actually reading my posts if you expect me to reply to them.

 

[dahunan]

http://www.truveo.com/Moment-o...-Lecture/id/1009520803

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: winnar111
You can believe that if you wish. Humphrey came pretty damn close in 1968 after all...

A little help, though: People aren't buying that McSame garbage.

And Humphrey would have won if he had called for pulling out of Vietnam earlier in the campaign (instead of waiting until October to change his mind on that). There are videos of Humphrey speaking at rallies very late in the campaign where people are holding up signs saying "If you really mean it."
Even worse for your position though is that RFK almost certainly would have won had he not been assassinated.

And you missed what LL was trying to tell you. He said that the more that McCain goes negative, the more he makes himself into McSame. This is because, by going negative, McCain is pandering to that GWB base whose only opinion on politics is that Rush told them that "lib-uh-rals are bad."

Except....he isn't, and that's why he's either competitive or winning the latest polls in this election.

By going negative, he's pandering to the middle of the road crowd who is realizing that Obama is not fit to lead this nation. We already had this choice in 2004, people choose a man of conviction over a weather vane.

You clearly do not have the slightest clue what has been going on in American politics since 2004.

Just because you can repeat the same lie over and over again and believe it does mean that everyone else is the same way.
What McCain has demonstrated, by going negative, is that he needs to hide that he has completely changed himself and his positions since winning the Republican primaries.
It also demonstrates that he will change himself in this way in order to pander to that far-right talk radio crowd that most of America has come to hate with a passion.

For example, it has already been pointed out to you in other threads that McCain only changed his position on oil drilling after taking in $1.3 million in oil company money. For you to ignore this (on your supposed most important issue), and then call McCain a 'man of conviction' and Obama a 'weather vane' (for refusing to change his position until forced to politically) is only further revealing yourself to be a partisan hack, and further lowering what little credibility you already had here.

Really? Is that why McCain stuck with McCain Feingold after the GOP base rejected it in 2000? Is that why McCain stuck with McCain Lieberman after the GOP base rejected it as well, and still rejects global warming nonsense? Is that why McCain stuck with McCain Kennedy as the GOP primaries were kicking off?

Pal, you need to start actually reading my posts if you expect me to reply to them.

You know, most candidates cater to the sides during the primaries, not afterwards. But read for yourself.

http://www.johnmccain.com/Info...-9cd3-f9ca5caba1de.htm

And watch:

http://hotair.com/archives/200...ing-but-in-a-good-way/

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Vic
What 'middle America' is really not interested in, you might figure out if you could fscking learn to read peoples' posts and respond to them on topic, is the hate-filled, ultra-negative, ideology (and phony morality) -over-economy talk radio and religious fundie agendas that elected GWB twice in the first place. And whose votes McCain has been desperately pandering to lately.

Why do you suppose the talk radio shows you reference are so popular? Because everyone hates them? Or because they're saying what people want to hear?

Well, liberals have a commanding presence on television, print, and the internet. The radio is the last redoubt of the conservatives. But I can't imagine a younger generation continue to listen to talk radio so it may die within one or two generation.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: winnar111
You can believe that if you wish. Humphrey came pretty damn close in 1968 after all...

A little help, though: People aren't buying that McSame garbage.

And Humphrey would have won if he had called for pulling out of Vietnam earlier in the campaign (instead of waiting until October to change his mind on that). There are videos of Humphrey speaking at rallies very late in the campaign where people are holding up signs saying "If you really mean it."
Even worse for your position though is that RFK almost certainly would have won had he not been assassinated.

And you missed what LL was trying to tell you. He said that the more that McCain goes negative, the more he makes himself into McSame. This is because, by going negative, McCain is pandering to that GWB base whose only opinion on politics is that Rush told them that "lib-uh-rals are bad."

Except....he isn't, and that's why he's either competitive or winning the latest polls in this election.

By going negative, he's pandering to the middle of the road crowd who is realizing that Obama is not fit to lead this nation. We already had this choice in 2004, people choose a man of conviction over a weather vane.

You clearly do not have the slightest clue what has been going on in American politics since 2004.

Just because you can repeat the same lie over and over again and believe it does mean that everyone else is the same way.
What McCain has demonstrated, by going negative, is that he needs to hide that he has completely changed himself and his positions since winning the Republican primaries.
It also demonstrates that he will change himself in this way in order to pander to that far-right talk radio crowd that most of America has come to hate with a passion.

For example, it has already been pointed out to you in other threads that McCain only changed his position on oil drilling after taking in $1.3 million in oil company money. For you to ignore this (on your supposed most important issue), and then call McCain a 'man of conviction' and Obama a 'weather vane' (for refusing to change his position until forced to politically) is only further revealing yourself to be a partisan hack, and further lowering what little credibility you already had here.

edit to your edit:

Originally posted by: winnar111
Middle America is not interested in the Obama-Pelosi agenda.

Well, then, it's a good thing that Obama and Pelosi do not share agendas.

What 'middle America' is really not interested in, you might figure out if you could fscking learn to read peoples' posts and respond to them on topic, is the hate-filled, ultra-negative, ideology (and phony morality) -over-economy talk radio and religious fundie agendas that elected GWB twice in the first place. And whose votes McCain has been desperately pandering to lately.

What I find interesting is how people reveal themselves to be getting their info from talk radio/right wing blogs/etc by the terminology they use. No normal person in conversation refers to the "moveon base", or the "Obama-Pelosi agenda". Those sorts of things come from being fed those ideas by someone else.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: winnar111
You can believe that if you wish. Humphrey came pretty damn close in 1968 after all...

A little help, though: People aren't buying that McSame garbage.

And Humphrey would have won if he had called for pulling out of Vietnam earlier in the campaign (instead of waiting until October to change his mind on that). There are videos of Humphrey speaking at rallies very late in the campaign where people are holding up signs saying "If you really mean it."
Even worse for your position though is that RFK almost certainly would have won had he not been assassinated.

And you missed what LL was trying to tell you. He said that the more that McCain goes negative, the more he makes himself into McSame. This is because, by going negative, McCain is pandering to that GWB base whose only opinion on politics is that Rush told them that "lib-uh-rals are bad."

Except....he isn't, and that's why he's either competitive or winning the latest polls in this election.

By going negative, he's pandering to the middle of the road crowd who is realizing that Obama is not fit to lead this nation. We already had this choice in 2004, people choose a man of conviction over a weather vane.

You clearly do not have the slightest clue what has been going on in American politics since 2004.

Just because you can repeat the same lie over and over again and believe it does mean that everyone else is the same way.
What McCain has demonstrated, by going negative, is that he needs to hide that he has completely changed himself and his positions since winning the Republican primaries.
It also demonstrates that he will change himself in this way in order to pander to that far-right talk radio crowd that most of America has come to hate with a passion.

For example, it has already been pointed out to you in other threads that McCain only changed his position on oil drilling after taking in $1.3 million in oil company money. For you to ignore this (on your supposed most important issue), and then call McCain a 'man of conviction' and Obama a 'weather vane' (for refusing to change his position until forced to politically) is only further revealing yourself to be a partisan hack, and further lowering what little credibility you already had here.

edit to your edit:

Originally posted by: winnar111
Middle America is not interested in the Obama-Pelosi agenda.

Well, then, it's a good thing that Obama and Pelosi do not share agendas.

What 'middle America' is really not interested in, you might figure out if you could fscking learn to read peoples' posts and respond to them on topic, is the hate-filled, ultra-negative, ideology (and phony morality) -over-economy talk radio and religious fundie agendas that elected GWB twice in the first place. And whose votes McCain has been desperately pandering to lately.

What I find interesting is how people reveal themselves to be getting their info from talk radio/right wing blogs/etc by the terminology they use. No normal person in conversation refers to the "moveon base", or the "Obama-Pelosi agenda". Those sorts of things come from being fed those ideas by someone else.

How many times have you used the word McSame?

 

[Socio]

They already have a new bumper sticker;



Bumper Sticker

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: Socio
They already have a new bumper sticker;



Bumper Sticker

SAD.. SO MANY STUPID FUCKING CITIZENS FOCUS ON TERRORISM.. Bush admin and rove have you licking their nuts

You guys are just like Crafstman Tools..

 

[CallMeJoe]

Originally posted by: Vic
As I recall, Clark didn't want the job (hasn't he been pushing Sebelius for VP?). Plus, he doesn't have any actual political experience.

I gather you have no idea what it takes to become a general officer in the modern military, or what is involved in the NATO office Supreme Allied Commander - Europe. This statement is on par with saying Dwight David Eisenhower gained little political experience as SHAEF Commander in the second World War.

Originally posted by: Drakkon
So the dems are willing to give up an incumbent seat that was solidly held for a VP candidate? Seems like a risky move with senate control in play.

Under Delaware law, Senator Biden can run for Vice President and U.S. Senate in the same cycle. If he were to win both elections, Delaware's Democratic Governor Minner would appoint his successor; the seat would then be contested again at the next general election (2010). Delaware is a solidly Democratic-leaning state, so there is little concern of the seat going Republican.

 

[TechAZ]

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: Socio
They already have a new bumper sticker;



Bumper Sticker

SAD.. SO MANY STUPID FUCKING CITIZENS FOCUS ON TERRORISM.. Bush admin and rove have you licking their nuts

You guys are just like Crafstman Tools..

I think you need to visit greatday.com and calm down. Kind of ironic that you link to a website with peaceful writings and inspirational stories yet talk like a UCBerkley nutjob activist.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Believe it or not, the numbers behind Biden made him the best choice for VP. From FiveThirtyEight......

Biden was strongest among Independents, higher than all other VP choices, and second only to Clinton among Democrats. What that translates to is a 2 point advantage by choosing him (a full 2.5 points higher than if he chose Clinton).

He was crazy not to pick Clinton, as much as I cannot stand her, and it would have made my voting against him easier, it would have won him the race, period...Biden is a variable whereas Clinton IMHO would have been a sure thing.

However I can understand why he did what he did, if I was an ego maniac as they all must be only interested in self aggrandizement then I wouldn?t want to share the limelight either.

what makes you think Hillary even wanted the job?

Clinton as VP is the worst case scenario for the Clintons... she'd have even less power/influence than she'd have as a senator (hell, probably less than she had as first lady) and her career would be intrinsically limited by Obama... if Obama were to lose, she'd be branded as a failure, and if Obama wins, she wouldn't be able to run again till 2016, at which point she'd probably be too old.

 

[GooeyGUI]

I've gone through 10 pages of this thread and I only found one link posted fairly early on about Biden's positions.
http://www.ontheissues.org/200..._Homeland_Security.htm

Afterwards I saw nothing else about his record or accomplishments. I saw nothing about what his strengths are. As far as I'm concerned, he was the best candidate for President if it was experience people wanted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J...#United_States_Senator
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...positions_of_Joe_Biden

 

[CallMeJoe]

Originally posted by: loki8481
what makes you think Hillary even wanted the job?
Clinton as VP is the worst case scenario for the Clintons... she'd have even less power/influence than she'd have as a senator (hell, probably less than she had as first lady) and her career would be intrinsically limited by Obama... if Obama were to lose, she'd be branded as a failure, and if Obama wins, she wouldn't be able to run again till 2016, at which point she'd probably be too old.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

Hllary's best move at this point is to plan her 2012 presidential campaign if Obama/Biden loses, and her campaign for Senate Majority Leader for the next Congress in case they win. She just has to make sure she covers all her bases in the remaining presidential campaign so that if the Democrats lose the White House (again) this cycle, she doesn't get the blame for the loss ("if only Hill had really worked for the ticket...")

Originally posted by: GooeyGUI
I've gone through 10 pages of this thread and I only found one link posted fairly early on about Biden's positions.
Afterwards I saw nothing else about his record or accomplishments. I saw nothing about what his strengths are. As far as I'm concerned, he was the best candidate for President if it was experience people wanted.

I expressed my opinion in the VP watch thread that this ticket was upside-down, and compared it to the Dukakis/Bentsen ticket in '88.

edit: added GooeyGUI quote & reply

 

[nageov3t]

I expressed my opinion in the VP watch thread that this ticket was upside-down, and compared it to the Dukakis/Bentsen ticket in '88.

I'm really hoping someone makes Biden/Obama bumper stickers

 

[Deliximus]

I supported full heartedly for Clinton. But she lost, fair and square. Simply because Obama was a much better campaign organizer than any other campaign thus far. He was able to get voters out in droves and better money-raising and expense apparatus in place.

Clinton in VP would be powerless. She could even be in his cabinet or even put up as a nominee for a Supreme Court Justice. Think about this. If Clinton becomes a SCJ, she'll be in there till she wants to retire. The power of the SCJ is massive compared to VP of only 4-8 terms.

Obama needs to win, i'm convinced America will get screwed badly if a trigger-happy unintellectual makes it into the Oval Office.

Obama does have good judgement and lacks experience. But NO PRESIDENT will ever make a decision without sound advise from his VP/Chiefs of Staff/NSA+FBI+CIA heads/Generals/Admirals/industry experts, period. That's why Biden is a good choice. On top of that, Biden is a crazy debater and I pity Romney (most likely GOP VP candidate) to have to debate him.

Look at the past elections, all younger/more unknown presidents have made VP choices that had experience. JFK/LBJ, Reagan/Bush, Clinton/Gore, Bush/Cheney.

 

[Conky]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: winnar111
No, not really. The worst thing that could happen is Clinton getting either spot, since the Clintons are actually winners, unlike the ObamaKerryDukakis crowd.

Biden actually appears to be a reasonable man, some of the time, and occasionally sets a toe beyond the left wing line. It's too bad he's a terrible politician and is now stuck carrying the biggest wimp to run for President in a very long time.

You see, it's these kind of thoughtful, impartial, unbiased comments that has enabled you to become such a well-respected poster here with so few posts.

I hate to inform you but postcount does not make you respected nor intelligent. I respect winnar111's posts far more than yours.

I can't believe you even went there but you liberal folks seem to have no boundaries. :laugh:

 

[Conky]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Originally posted by: daveymark
looks like the biden's articulate/black/clean comment is going to be brought out again

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It looks likely that every McCain vulnerability will be brought up also.

Whats new? But beware, Biden has more Senate experience than McCain, Hillary, and Obama combined, he bites back, and know where the bodies are buried.

The more McCain goes negative the more he gets associated with GWB, and that my GOP friends, is a sure way to lose.

The Biden position has evolved with the times, and McSame is still McSame. Intellectually lazy and unable to see a half a move ahead best describes McCain.

Because its not like George W. Bush won 2 elections, or anything like that....

Don't go bringing the truth into arguments like this! :laugh:

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: loki8481

I expressed my opinion in the VP watch thread that this ticket was upside-down, and compared it to the Dukakis/Bentsen ticket in '88.

I'm really hoping someone makes Biden/Obama bumper stickers

Wouldn't be a terrible idea. The man is reasonably hawkish, wouldn't take sh!t from Iran, and isn't a socialist.

 

[Conky]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: loki8481

I expressed my opinion in the VP watch thread that this ticket was upside-down, and compared it to the Dukakis/Bentsen ticket in '88.

I'm really hoping someone makes Biden/Obama bumper stickers

Wouldn't be a terrible idea. The man is reasonably hawkish, wouldn't take sh!t from Iran, and isn't a socialist.

Won't happen. Obama is too arrogant and Biden is too busy hoping somebody assassinates Obama. :laugh:

 

[Lemon law]

I suspect ole Conky will keep up his ridiculous rantings until Obama and Biden win on 11/4/08.

 

[Farang]

Great move.. it is pretty well accepted that VPs don't win states (Gore didn't even win his home state in 2000) nor do they really carry any major bloc in any predictable manner, as Cheney demonstrated they are best left to be attack dogs and Biden is a Doberman.

 

[Farang]

Also just a hypothetical here.. if in a month's time (so Biden is allowed to settle into his VP slot and get national recognition) Obama was assassinated, do you think the replacement nominee would be Biden or Clinton?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Farang
Great move.. it is pretty well accepted that VPs don't win states (Gore didn't even win his home state in 2000) nor do they really carry any major bloc in any predictable manner, as Cheney demonstrated they are best left to be attack dogs and Biden is a Doberman.

This is especially useful because Obama is not good in that role. In the first place it doesn't fit with the image he's running on, but it also doesn't fit with who I think he really is as a candidate. He's a nice guy, and while he did come up in the world of Chicago politics, I think the attack dog stuff is best left to the folks who enjoy it.