I agree. I think Obama has great cross-over appeal. Hillary has the ability to unite a lot of disparate groups against her.
Several months ago I decided that Hillary is the "electable" candidate in the mind of many... like John Kerry was.
Obama is the kind of candidate that comes around only every 40 years or so...
I don't think that combining them as a team would work because Bill will be in the thick of things. Again, we have term limits for a reason. And if Bill came into office after 4 years of the elder Bush, many felt that electing the younger Bush was the cure-all for the non-stop trouble and corruption of the last years of the Clinton administration. We have had a Bush or CLinton in office ofr 20 years now. I have never had an opportunity to vote in a presidential contest without a Bush or Clinton on the ballot.
The country needs a change. The country needs Obama.
I think the voters that the two of them together would bring in would more than negate any losses of republican votes. They would complement each other very well: the visionary Obama and the play-the-politics and get it done Clinton; they wouldn't diminish each other, just the opposite, IMHO.
i just don't think this country would go for it. aside from that i don't think they would pick each other anyway. which is why they are wooing edwards.
We need better judgment. Hillary's Iraq vote is endemic of her triangulating on issues rather than taking a stand.
Electing Hillary also sends the wrong message to countries that have new democracies. 20 years of the same two families in office is not very American. 24 years is something you expect to find in a banana republic.
But the question that weighs heavy on many of us is:
Who will Chuck Norris endorse when Huckabee drops out?
People are really underestimating the republican party here - remember the last 2 elections the country split 50/50 - Obama can tip it say 53/47, but Hillary I just think will drive people towards the not voting, or a moderate (which both Romney and McCain are) and we may see another 50/50 republican win.
Well, this "20 years of two families" just doesn't wash with me. Who cares how many years it is, if the person is worthy of the office? I would have gladly had 8 years of Robert Kennedy, coming soon after John: he was much better than his brother, and the next couple of decades would have turned out quite differently.
Judge the person, not the family (Bill and Hillary are not blood anyway, they are just legally married). Plus, if Barack is heading the ticket, it's not "20 years of two families". None of you give Hillary enough credit to her ability to just GET THINGS DONE (read the recent New Yorker article on her), but I'm just whistling in the wind at this point.
i'm going under the assumption that there's not a snowball's chance in hell that obama decides to run with hillary.
it's antithetical to his whole appeal, that is to say, real opportunity for change.
you may think that hillary has a play-the-politics and just get-it-done ability, but she's also got a really sort of conniving egoiste that would completely turn off lots and lots and lots of obama supporters, myself included.
it would defeat the purpose of an obama campaign to partner with a clinton...an edwards on the other hand, or a bloomberg...now we're talking.
much as i'm becoming more and more of a vocal obama fan, i have a dream of a completely independent ticket...mike bloomberg and bernie sanders, the independent senator from vermont.
Again, the system in our country works the same (President, Congress, House of Representatives) not matter who's in office. I reapeat, judge the person, not the family...oh, forget it, I give up. I have to listen to an argument that says that the first black man that actually has a chance to be elected president or vice-president would bring in 53 percent of the vote, but if you add the first woman that actually has a chance to be elected president or vice-president, it would bring in less votes instead of making it an unbeatable ticket...that makes no sense.
It makes sense when you see that the 3% cross overs would vote Obama thus 53% pop vote while Clinton Theoretically could drive away an unknown % of moderates and cross overs - this assumes of course the republicans come out en masse again to vote this year eaqual tot he democratic's primary swell
Look, your argument that Hillary could drive away people (by her "Clintonism") could be made for Barack (by his race). A prejudice is a prejudice, so either of them will lose a certain amount of voters because people are how they are. But, in many people's eyes (and they are usually different people, as shown in this thread), they both represent change and possibility, they are a positive (in Hilary's case, the fact that she's a woman is stronger than her being a Clinton), so to say that combining them does not give you a stronger ticket is dubious. But I do admit that Obama might not want the baggage of the Clintons (including Bill) if he heads the ticket and he'll look elsewhere. If Hillary heads the ticket, though, that's a different story.
FWIW, MoveOn.org just announced the results of their poll for their primary endorsement. A couple weeks ago they had a similar poll with Barack and Hillary pretty much even, and Edwards rounding out in third place. Now, Obama has won with 70.4% vs. Hillary's 29.6%. As such, MoveOn.org has endorsed Obama.
Obama seems to be in the unique position of attracting die-hard liberals as well as independents and crossover Republicans, while Hillary is seen by liberals as too wishy-washy and by independents and Republicans as the devil incarnate.
If it came down to Obama vs. McCain, I think a lot of young voters and progressives would have a huge turnout while the evangelical right stays home. However, if it's Hillary vs. McCain, I suspect a lot of liberals would stay home while the right-wingers would turn out in droves to vote against Hillary.
i think what is intriguing to note hear is the fact that by and large, most conservative pundits are actively advocating that Hillary Clinton is the inevitable winner, we need to ask why that is. is it simply an effort to get her the nomination so they can have the fight they can win, climbing into the snake pit, or is it the case that sincerely cannot accept the obvious paradigm shift happening now?
Oh, Billary Schmillary...and MoveOn Schmoveon. Let's talk delegate counts. Let's talk coalitions. As of Wednesday, it was:
Clinton: 249
Obama: 181
Edwards: 56
Now, Super Tuesday has not happaned yet (and Edwards is gone), so that will change, but no matter what happens, both Obama and Clinton will have a large number of delegates. Now, at the Convention, there will be a lot of manouvering, especially by Clinton to bring in the Florida delegates. It will make much sense to either candidates to join forces, and that's not an angel sitting down with a devil, it's just political reality. And no, I don't think Hillary's name on the ticket would drive more people away than it would bring in (I would vote for such a ticket in a heartbeat).
now, now vamure, let's be honest. of those listed above you are counting super delegates, and those can change with the whiff of a fart. that's why the NYT is so cool, they know that too and choose to list only the delegates that are committed from the votes actually cast.
Might want to check that, Beta... I think Ann Coulter is really just making political commentary about all that... she's attempting to point out that McCain is no conservative. She's pretty hard on ol' McCain...thinks he's a liar.
and, yes, Coulter's drooling at the thought of having a Clinton on the other side of the ticket, which, inspite of my voice-of-reason approach here, is why Hillary is probably not a good idea to head it: she just elicits too many "either-this-or-that" reactions, no actual examination of what she's proposing (which, if you listened to the debate, is not that different from Obama).
yeah that's current from the times...i believe the AP video is, as beta mentioned, counting unconfirmed delegates which is entirely misleading.
in my mind there's a big difference between clinton and obama ideologically, at least thus far. we'll see what a run-up to a general election turns the candidates into, but here's my thought:
nobody, and i mean nobody, knows exactly RIGHT NOW how they're going to solve all of the nation's problems. what we need is not someone who claims to have all the answers which is what most of them do most of the time. anybody who says they know already how to fix everything is lying to your face.
what we DO need right now is someone who is savvy and subtle enough to understand that complex issues take time to measure through and understand. and perhaps most importantly the ability to respond when "new shit comes to light" as the dude would say. hillary is way too caught up in her own painfully shallow ambitions to have that level subtlety and nuance.
that's the real rub - the ability to respond and change approaches when new shit comes to light. something sorely lacking on either bush or clintons side of the power play, where they all just
at least obama shows (much like kerry did, to his eventual downfall...) the ability and desire to work through issues and THEN find the solutions, rather than creating a solution based on no programming other than that which will win votes, and then forcing it down the throats of american citizens.
he's not usually claiming to have all the answers already like billary...he's claiming the ability to get all the people that do have the answers in a room together and figure out how to coordinate them. that's what i like.
as architects, i'd think you all would be able to appreciate that, no?
btw - times link [ur;=http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/index.html]here.[/url]
Ok, just heard it on NPR: the count I quoted includes "super-delegates", like beta said (you try to figure that system out), so Obama is leading in the actual count. Anyway, as the pundits on NPR are pointing out as I write this, the race is likely not to be decided on Tuesday and maybe not until the Convention.
None of the delegates from Michigan or Florida count and the Super Delegates are not counted in the numbers until dust settles. That's where the NY Times figures come from.
"the ability to respond and change approaches when new shit comes to light..." Yes, that was a problem with Hillary during Bill's time in office, but she has vastly improved - if you read up on her record as the Senator from New York (see the New Yorker profile for example, which is not a fluff piece by any means).
Again, that reaction is a "I-hate-the-Clintons-and-that's-that" one. What I saw last night is TWO people who are "savvy and subtle enough to understand that complex issues take time to measure through and understand".
He basically sold his influence to a Canadian business so he could win a contract with a 3rd world despot in return for a $100 million donation to his foundation.
Late on Sept. 6, 2005, a private plane carrying the Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra touched down in Almaty, a ruggedly picturesque city in southeast Kazakhstan. Several hundred miles to the west a fortune awaited: highly coveted deposits of uranium that could fuel nuclear reactors around the world. And Mr. Giustra was in hot pursuit of an exclusive deal to tap them.
Unlike more established competitors, Mr. Giustra was a newcomer to uranium mining in Kazakhstan, a former Soviet republic. But what his fledgling company lacked in experience, it made up for in connections. Accompanying Mr. Giustra on his luxuriously appointed MD-87 jet that day was a former president of the United States, Bill Clinton
Obama is the antidote to this tired, corrupt, quid pro quo that has gone on in Washington too long.
Dont forget Bill and hillary have $10 million dollar a year legal representative contract with Abu Dahbi on forign trade with the US. Cause that aint special intrest nuh uh
what really pisses me off about the ny times right now is that after that piece was on the front page for only about an hour, they fucked around with the permissions and started requiring log-in to see it, and hours later it was buried on the politics page.
i think they feel obligated to report it, but a little sheepish about having just endorsed these frauds.
c'mon ny times! step to the plate and grow a pair!
Yes, makeA, that's the shit from Bill that's pretty much going to make it impossible for Hillary to get anywhere, but here's some news: HE WAS PRESIDENT 8 YEARS AGO!!! But what you're doing is mudslinging by association (like, if your wife or husband did something sleazy, that would of course make you a total sleaze bag).
But this is getting tired, so I'll say this one last time here, for myself and for anyone in this forum who feels the same: I don't GIVE A SHIT that Hillary is a Clinton, I just look at if she's qualified for the job or not. And most of you would agree with that sentiment (which is one that I think Obama would also agree with), if your weren't just blinded by "anti-Clintonism". Ok, that's that. Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama in November, LET'S GO!!!
Obama '08
plus there is no way we could make that much history at once. it's just too much
I agree. I think Obama has great cross-over appeal. Hillary has the ability to unite a lot of disparate groups against her.
Several months ago I decided that Hillary is the "electable" candidate in the mind of many... like John Kerry was.
Obama is the kind of candidate that comes around only every 40 years or so...
I don't think that combining them as a team would work because Bill will be in the thick of things. Again, we have term limits for a reason. And if Bill came into office after 4 years of the elder Bush, many felt that electing the younger Bush was the cure-all for the non-stop trouble and corruption of the last years of the Clinton administration. We have had a Bush or CLinton in office ofr 20 years now. I have never had an opportunity to vote in a presidential contest without a Bush or Clinton on the ballot.
The country needs a change. The country needs Obama.
I think the voters that the two of them together would bring in would more than negate any losses of republican votes. They would complement each other very well: the visionary Obama and the play-the-politics and get it done Clinton; they wouldn't diminish each other, just the opposite, IMHO.
which if u continue the math...if Hillary got elected that would be potentially 32 years of two families running this country
Ah, aking, you want change, but only so much change...
i just don't think this country would go for it. aside from that i don't think they would pick each other anyway. which is why they are wooing edwards.
We need better judgment. Hillary's Iraq vote is endemic of her triangulating on issues rather than taking a stand.
Electing Hillary also sends the wrong message to countries that have new democracies. 20 years of the same two families in office is not very American. 24 years is something you expect to find in a banana republic.
But the question that weighs heavy on many of us is:
Who will Chuck Norris endorse when Huckabee drops out?
;-)
People are really underestimating the republican party here - remember the last 2 elections the country split 50/50 - Obama can tip it say 53/47, but Hillary I just think will drive people towards the not voting, or a moderate (which both Romney and McCain are) and we may see another 50/50 republican win.
Well, this "20 years of two families" just doesn't wash with me. Who cares how many years it is, if the person is worthy of the office? I would have gladly had 8 years of Robert Kennedy, coming soon after John: he was much better than his brother, and the next couple of decades would have turned out quite differently.
Judge the person, not the family (Bill and Hillary are not blood anyway, they are just legally married). Plus, if Barack is heading the ticket, it's not "20 years of two families". None of you give Hillary enough credit to her ability to just GET THINGS DONE (read the recent New Yorker article on her), but I'm just whistling in the wind at this point.
20 years of two families...
Look at Cuba. One family has controlled that place since 1959.
We are a representative democracy, not a dynastic, quasi-monarchy.
Anyone over the age of 35 who was born in the US has the right to be president. It's not limited to Bush and Clinton. And it shouldn't be.
Romney '08.
i'm going under the assumption that there's not a snowball's chance in hell that obama decides to run with hillary.
it's antithetical to his whole appeal, that is to say, real opportunity for change.
you may think that hillary has a play-the-politics and just get-it-done ability, but she's also got a really sort of conniving egoiste that would completely turn off lots and lots and lots of obama supporters, myself included.
it would defeat the purpose of an obama campaign to partner with a clinton...an edwards on the other hand, or a bloomberg...now we're talking.
much as i'm becoming more and more of a vocal obama fan, i have a dream of a completely independent ticket...mike bloomberg and bernie sanders, the independent senator from vermont.
bloomberg & bernie!!
kind of rolls off the tongue, no?
it'll never happen.
Again, the system in our country works the same (President, Congress, House of Representatives) not matter who's in office. I reapeat, judge the person, not the family...oh, forget it, I give up. I have to listen to an argument that says that the first black man that actually has a chance to be elected president or vice-president would bring in 53 percent of the vote, but if you add the first woman that actually has a chance to be elected president or vice-president, it would bring in less votes instead of making it an unbeatable ticket...that makes no sense.
It makes sense when you see that the 3% cross overs would vote Obama thus 53% pop vote while Clinton Theoretically could drive away an unknown % of moderates and cross overs - this assumes of course the republicans come out en masse again to vote this year eaqual tot he democratic's primary swell
Can you really separate Bill from Hillary?
Obama can bring new voters to the booths and give the US a new face that will do wonders for our international reputation.
no.
more.
clintons.
Look, your argument that Hillary could drive away people (by her "Clintonism") could be made for Barack (by his race). A prejudice is a prejudice, so either of them will lose a certain amount of voters because people are how they are. But, in many people's eyes (and they are usually different people, as shown in this thread), they both represent change and possibility, they are a positive (in Hilary's case, the fact that she's a woman is stronger than her being a Clinton), so to say that combining them does not give you a stronger ticket is dubious. But I do admit that Obama might not want the baggage of the Clintons (including Bill) if he heads the ticket and he'll look elsewhere. If Hillary heads the ticket, though, that's a different story.
Ann Coulter is supporting Hillary Clinton and Moveon.org is supporting Obama.
Agreed... Billary is a package deal.
FWIW, MoveOn.org just announced the results of their poll for their primary endorsement. A couple weeks ago they had a similar poll with Barack and Hillary pretty much even, and Edwards rounding out in third place. Now, Obama has won with 70.4% vs. Hillary's 29.6%. As such, MoveOn.org has endorsed Obama.
Obama seems to be in the unique position of attracting die-hard liberals as well as independents and crossover Republicans, while Hillary is seen by liberals as too wishy-washy and by independents and Republicans as the devil incarnate.
If it came down to Obama vs. McCain, I think a lot of young voters and progressives would have a huge turnout while the evangelical right stays home. However, if it's Hillary vs. McCain, I suspect a lot of liberals would stay home while the right-wingers would turn out in droves to vote against Hillary.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/01/moveon-endorses-obama/index.html?hp
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/
too damn funny.
Does Coulter actually support Hillary, or does she just want the Dems to set themselves up to lose in November? I suspect the latter.
i think what is intriguing to note hear is the fact that by and large, most conservative pundits are actively advocating that Hillary Clinton is the inevitable winner, we need to ask why that is. is it simply an effort to get her the nomination so they can have the fight they can win, climbing into the snake pit, or is it the case that sincerely cannot accept the obvious paradigm shift happening now?
Oh, Billary Schmillary...and MoveOn Schmoveon. Let's talk delegate counts. Let's talk coalitions. As of Wednesday, it was:
Clinton: 249
Obama: 181
Edwards: 56
Now, Super Tuesday has not happaned yet (and Edwards is gone), so that will change, but no matter what happens, both Obama and Clinton will have a large number of delegates. Now, at the Convention, there will be a lot of manouvering, especially by Clinton to bring in the Florida delegates. It will make much sense to either candidates to join forces, and that's not an angel sitting down with a devil, it's just political reality. And no, I don't think Hillary's name on the ticket would drive more people away than it would bring in (I would vote for such a ticket in a heartbeat).
now, now vamure, let's be honest. of those listed above you are counting super delegates, and those can change with the whiff of a fart. that's why the NYT is so cool, they know that too and choose to list only the delegates that are committed from the votes actually cast.
And, on top of that, they looked so cute together last night...
Ann Coulter is a disgrace to my gender.
Might want to check that, Beta... I think Ann Coulter is really just making political commentary about all that... she's attempting to point out that McCain is no conservative. She's pretty hard on ol' McCain...thinks he's a liar.
vamure, what are you talking about?? where are those numbers from?
here's the delegate count from the NY Times, as of TODAY.
and, yes, Coulter's drooling at the thought of having a Clinton on the other side of the ticket, which, inspite of my voice-of-reason approach here, is why Hillary is probably not a good idea to head it: she just elicits too many "either-this-or-that" reactions, no actual examination of what she's proposing (which, if you listened to the debate, is not that different from Obama).
Now look at that, Mighty Little...they pushed my guy Dr. Paul right off the edge of the graphic. Oh now that hurts...
mightyl, that's curious. Are you sure that count was from an updated site? I got mine from an AP video here. Will have to check further.
yeah that's current from the times...i believe the AP video is, as beta mentioned, counting unconfirmed delegates which is entirely misleading.
in my mind there's a big difference between clinton and obama ideologically, at least thus far. we'll see what a run-up to a general election turns the candidates into, but here's my thought:
nobody, and i mean nobody, knows exactly RIGHT NOW how they're going to solve all of the nation's problems. what we need is not someone who claims to have all the answers which is what most of them do most of the time. anybody who says they know already how to fix everything is lying to your face.
what we DO need right now is someone who is savvy and subtle enough to understand that complex issues take time to measure through and understand. and perhaps most importantly the ability to respond when "new shit comes to light" as the dude would say. hillary is way too caught up in her own painfully shallow ambitions to have that level subtlety and nuance.
that's the real rub - the ability to respond and change approaches when new shit comes to light. something sorely lacking on either bush or clintons side of the power play, where they all just
at least obama shows (much like kerry did, to his eventual downfall...) the ability and desire to work through issues and THEN find the solutions, rather than creating a solution based on no programming other than that which will win votes, and then forcing it down the throats of american citizens.
he's not usually claiming to have all the answers already like billary...he's claiming the ability to get all the people that do have the answers in a room together and figure out how to coordinate them. that's what i like.
as architects, i'd think you all would be able to appreciate that, no?
btw - times link [ur;=http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/index.html]here.[/url]
oops...here it is.
Ok, just heard it on NPR: the count I quoted includes "super-delegates", like beta said (you try to figure that system out), so Obama is leading in the actual count. Anyway, as the pundits on NPR are pointing out as I write this, the race is likely not to be decided on Tuesday and maybe not until the Convention.
None of the delegates from Michigan or Florida count and the Super Delegates are not counted in the numbers until dust settles. That's where the NY Times figures come from.
Anyone else going to be at the Obama event on Tuesday evening?
Primary Night Party with
Barack and Michelle Obama
Hyatt Regency Chicago
Enter at Riverside Center Exhibition Hall
151 East Wacker Drive
Chicago, Illinois
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Doors open: 6:00 p.m.
You have to reserve a spot and rsvp to be allowed entry.
this guy is unstoppable...even his smoking habit is appealing...
"the ability to respond and change approaches when new shit comes to light..." Yes, that was a problem with Hillary during Bill's time in office, but she has vastly improved - if you read up on her record as the Senator from New York (see the New Yorker profile for example, which is not a fluff piece by any means).
Again, that reaction is a "I-hate-the-Clintons-and-that's-that" one. What I saw last night is TWO people who are "savvy and subtle enough to understand that complex issues take time to measure through and understand".
Anyone see this piece about Bill Clinton in the NY Times the other day?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31donor.html?ex=1359608400&en=8ba93680397669fd&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
THIS is no fluff piece.
He basically sold his influence to a Canadian business so he could win a contract with a 3rd world despot in return for a $100 million donation to his foundation.
This is Marc Rich all over again!
Can you say Ground Hog Day?
Obama will put an end to this quid pro quo.
I know that Archinect Paul already posted in the news section, but I saw a wall plastered with these on the way to work today...
Late on Sept. 6, 2005, a private plane carrying the Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra touched down in Almaty, a ruggedly picturesque city in southeast Kazakhstan. Several hundred miles to the west a fortune awaited: highly coveted deposits of uranium that could fuel nuclear reactors around the world. And Mr. Giustra was in hot pursuit of an exclusive deal to tap them.
Unlike more established competitors, Mr. Giustra was a newcomer to uranium mining in Kazakhstan, a former Soviet republic. But what his fledgling company lacked in experience, it made up for in connections. Accompanying Mr. Giustra on his luxuriously appointed MD-87 jet that day was a former president of the United States, Bill Clinton
Obama is the antidote to this tired, corrupt, quid pro quo that has gone on in Washington too long.
How 'bout Shoppin' a smoke into his chops, there, Mdler?
I'm not promising anything, but that just might cause me to vote his way...
Dont forget Bill and hillary have $10 million dollar a year legal representative contract with Abu Dahbi on forign trade with the US. Cause that aint special intrest nuh uh
what really pisses me off about the ny times right now is that after that piece was on the front page for only about an hour, they fucked around with the permissions and started requiring log-in to see it, and hours later it was buried on the politics page.
i think they feel obligated to report it, but a little sheepish about having just endorsed these frauds.
c'mon ny times! step to the plate and grow a pair!
Yes, makeA, that's the shit from Bill that's pretty much going to make it impossible for Hillary to get anywhere, but here's some news: HE WAS PRESIDENT 8 YEARS AGO!!! But what you're doing is mudslinging by association (like, if your wife or husband did something sleazy, that would of course make you a total sleaze bag).
But this is getting tired, so I'll say this one last time here, for myself and for anyone in this forum who feels the same: I don't GIVE A SHIT that Hillary is a Clinton, I just look at if she's qualified for the job or not. And most of you would agree with that sentiment (which is one that I think Obama would also agree with), if your weren't just blinded by "anti-Clintonism". Ok, that's that. Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama in November, LET'S GO!!!
C'mon, try to deny that they looked cute together last night...you can't.
no no no vamure, not true.
we wouldn't care about bill if he HADN'T BEEN PRESIDENT.
I just wanted to squeeze their cheeks....
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.