Can Hillary Win?

iceclone · 11-27-2007, 09:04 AM

Originally Posted by Angie

I know a lot of you guys (i.e. almost all) don't think so, but I think Obama with Hillary as his running mate could take the election. Even if you don't agree with their politics, a large number of swing voters are women and/or minorities.

Currently, I'm worried that Hillary will take the Dem nomination and that she'll be far too liberal for the swing voters.

Obama-Richardson is my ticket.

Yes, yes, they both have flaws, but I like them.

Stormin · 11-27-2007, 10:12 AM

Originally Posted by herbiedoobie

This one still ticks me off. Every unit that rotated back from Iraq during OIF I got this "Mission Accomplished" banner. GWB had nothing to do with it, and it wasn't meant to insinuate the war was over, and the speech which was intended to signal the "end of major combat action" was just that. The transition to... well, whatever it is we are doing.

You can't be serious. A GWB staffer put up the banner stating "Mission Accomplished". And GWB gave every insinuation that the whole war was over. It was a photo op that has backfired. This ticks me off too. If the freaking Mission is Accomplished it is over. Done. Bring the troops home. The spin "end of major combat action" came out long after the speech.

By the way, whatever happened to the mantra "This war will be paid for by Iraqi oil revenues." Or was GWB misquoted again. From the ever changing reasons for going to war, to the ever changing reasons for our present mission there. This Foreign Policy has been a total disaster. We have been lied to, misled, and manipulated. That is why we have no credibility with the rest of the world. You really need to quit drinking the Kool-Aid HerbieDoobie.

alaskaguy · 11-27-2007, 10:46 AM

Originally Posted by Stormin

You can't be serious. A GWB staffer put up the banner stating "Mission Accomplished". And GWB gave every insinuation that the whole war was over. It was a photo op that has backfired. This ticks me off too. If the freaking Mission is Accomplished it is over. Done. Bring the troops home. The spin "end of major combat action" came out long after the speech.

By the way, whatever happened to the mantra "This war will be paid for by Iraqi oil revenues." Or was GWB misquoted again. From the ever changing reasons for going to war, to the ever changing reasons for our present mission there. This Foreign Policy has been a total disaster. We have been lied to, misled, and manipulated. That is why we have no credibility with the rest of the world. You really need to quit drinking the Kool-Aid HerbieDoobie.

The "Mission Accomplished" banner certainly is a matter that has dogged GWB.

Navy Commander and Pentagon spokesman Conrad Chun have both said the banner referred specifically to the aircraft carrier's 10-month deployment (which was the longest deployment of a carrier since the Vietnam War) and not the war itself.

The Democrats contend otherwise for obvious reasons.

Link:
CNN.com - White House pressed on 'mission accomplished' sign - Oct. 29, 2003

There was a debate within the Administration as to the cost of the occupation. General Eric Shinseki predicted a heavy cost while Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz argued otherwise. I recall Wolfowitz asserting that Iraq's oil revenues would pay for the cost of reconstruction in Iraq when being interviewed on 60 Minutes.

I can not find support that GWB stated, "the war will be paid by Iraqi oil revenues." Nevertheless, in retrospect it is clear that the Administration grossly underestimated the cost of the occupation.

brianhos · 11-27-2007, 11:42 AM

Originally Posted by Johnny Tremain

Well, brianhos, I thought that right-wing braggadocio (that means empty boasting in geek parlance) over past presidential elections, namely the 2000 election, was behind us years ago. I guess not.

Lets review the 2000 presidential election:
(1) The popular vote was won by Gore-Lieberman by 543,816 votes: Gore-Lieberman - 51,003,926, Bush-Cheney - 50,460,110. The last time a president (Benjamin Harrison)won the electoral college vote without winning the popular vote was in 1888. (2) The electoral vote was won by Bush-Cheney with 271. Florida's 25 electoral votes gave Bush a total of 271 (270 elecctoral votes are needed by either candidate to win). (3) Now than, lets go toBush vs. Gore. It was and is the greatest legal disaster in United States history. By a 5-4 vote, where the majority justices "decided as they did because of the personal identity and political affiliation of the litigants", stopped the recount that was occurring in Florida and allowed Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris's previous certification of George W. Bush as the winner of Florida's electoral votes to stand.

In answer to your question. No, I am not one of those who actually thinks Gore won. It was a GWB victory by a landslide of one vote in a Supreme Court squeaker.

Here is how a British news source, The Guardian Unlimited viewed our 2000 presidential election: Can a system which allows the winner to lose go unreformed? | Special reports | Guardian Unlimited

Ok, I am not sure I get your point? You know, I think ISU scored more baskets in their last game, but lost. Because most of their baskets were 2 pointers instead of 3 pointers. Everyone knows the rules going into the election, so there is no use complaining that Gore won the popular vote, because popular vote means nothing. Fact of the matter is, Democrats are republicans best friends, because they keep putting horrible candidates foward, which makes the party a joke.

Johnny Tremain · 11-27-2007, 02:48 PM

Originally Posted by iceclone

The Supreme Court should never have gotten involved, and Gore should never have challenged the count in the first place. Errors occur in every election. When you are on the loosing end of a suspect election, the right thing to do is to graciously accept defeat and move on for the good of the country.

Furthermore, in my opinion, if Gore would have simply accepted defeat, the Democrats would have won in 2004. Preoccupation with the 2000 election was a major problem within the party in 2003-4, and it still lingers even today.

On the other hand, Brian’s original argument, to which Johnny responded and started this whole discussion, is not valid. As Johnny later pointed out, it is a better counterargument to point to the fact that Gore did win plurality of the popular vote.

My last word on the presidential election of 2000. I promise.

I agree completely that the US Supreme Court should not have intervened. (If you are interested, for an in depth account and analysis on the Supreme Court's motives and machinations for their intervention in the 2000 presidential election, read Part II, Chapters 11, 12, and 13 of Jeffrey Toobin's recent book The Nine.)

Lets assume for the moment that it is appropriate to describe Al Gore as ungracious for exercising his legal right to challenge a very close and a disputed (systemic) vote in a state where the election process is under the jurisdiction of his opponent's brother. Given that assumption, what words would you use to describe GWB in the exercise of his legal right to appeal the adverse (to him) decision of the Florida Supreme Court?

Finally, viewing in hindsight the deeds of the GWB administration to date, to say that ceding defeat (to GWB) was(is) "for the good of the country" is the misnomer of the day.

brianhos · 11-27-2007, 03:14 PM

Originally Posted by iceclone

Obama-Richardson is my ticket.

Yes, yes, they both have flaws, but I like them.

After Obamas sock it to the middle class social security tax plan, I could never vote for him.

wonkadog · 11-27-2007, 03:20 PM

Not even if Oprah told you to??? Come on man!!!

alaskaguy · 11-27-2007, 03:41 PM

Let's compare

Obama gets Oprah
Hillary has Barbara Steisand
Huckabee gets Chuck Norris
Romney gets Hulk Hogan
Fred Thompson gets Ted Nugent
Giulinni has Dennis Miller.
Kucinich has Sean Penn
Edwards has Jackson Browne
Ron Paul has John Mayer

Any others?

cmoneyr · 11-27-2007, 03:56 PM

And we all get screwed.

brianhos · 11-27-2007, 03:57 PM

Originally Posted by wonkadog

Not even if Oprah told you to??? Come on man!!!

All the more reason to note vote for him... the most racist woman in america supports him.

neo · 11-27-2007, 04:14 PM

Originally Posted by brianhos

All the more reason to note vote for him... the most racist woman in america supports him.

If the Great Oprah commands us to vote for Obama, who are we to question?

Oprah Viewers Patiently Awaiting Instructions | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

cmoneyr · 11-27-2007, 04:27 PM

Originally Posted by brianhos

All the more reason to note vote for him... the most racist woman in america supports him.

You sound like a fun guy. Can I subscribe to your newsletter?

Cyclonepride · 11-27-2007, 04:32 PM

An Obama/ Clinton ticket in either order goes down completely in flames. It would active "fly over country" like nobody's business.

alaskaguy · 11-27-2007, 06:09 PM

Originally Posted by Cyclonepride

An Obama/ Clinton ticket in either order goes down completely in flames. It would active "fly over country" like nobody's business.

A ticket that combines the two demo candidates that poll best does not go down in flames. Although you may not support either Obama or Hillary, it is evident that both candidates have significant public support. Consequently, I believe a Clinton/Obama ticket would fly.

Cyclonepride · 11-27-2007, 06:27 PM

Originally Posted by alaskaguy

A ticket that combines the two demo candidates that poll best does not go down in flames. Although you may not support either Obama or Hillary, it is evident that both candidates have significant public support. Consequently, I believe a Clinton/Obama ticket would fly.

It would rally assloads of democrat support, but it would rally anyone center and right against it.