I myself am stunned and shocked. That I got in to post this. I feel like one of those losers on Failblog. (The first comment is always: "FIRST!")
It seems, at this early stage to me, to be a pretty canny choice.
THIRD!
yawn....
Crap, I was hoping I would be picked.
Doesn't do anything for me one way or the other, which I guess is kind of the point.
Oh, you colonials and your quaint colonial politics!
So now the big question is: How does he make the Hillary supporters happy and get them on his side?
Note: The obvious answer of "fuck 'em" could put McCain in the White House.
You know what I love about Biden? He's very clean.
Change you can believe in handle. For now. Baby steps, baby steps...
How does he make the Hillary supporters happy and get them on his side?
Me: You know, I kind of wish that Obama had at least vetted Clinton, because her die-hard pissed-off base is going to take that as a slap in the face.
My Dad: Honestly? I think if he had, they'd (correctly) accuse him of just going through the motions to appease them, so they'd be pissed off at that too. I don't think there's anything he could do to win with them, maybe not even if he picked her as his VP candidate.
Me: So you're saying that even though he didn't do anything to her, there's literally nothing he can do to make her strongest supporters happy, not even in the face of losing two Supreme Court seats to the Republicans?
My Dad: You're finally beginning to understand US politics.
You can't appease the irrational.
My impression is that both men present their speeches with the same droning, bombastic flair. A more emotional foil would have given people some much needed relief. Hillary, for example: her voice rises and falls with real feeling, by turns vulnerable, tough, pragmatic, but not often hollow or bombastic.
Of course FDR also sounds invariably bombastic, yet he made a good president. His VP presented a wholly different, spontaneous voice however. Harry S. Truman, that salty dog, offered considerable rhetorical relief.
You like Hillary? And you think she isn't hollow and bombastic? This seems odd to me because from my vantage point those are exactly the descriptions I'd use for her. But then politics is such a game of mirrors, things look different to different observers.
"Real feeling" is not a phrase I would have attached to Hilary Clinton.
Mind you, they're all pretty much hollow -- some them just hide it better.
A certain range of emotions and inflexion, not to mention pitch would have been better with Hillary added to humanize Obama; that's all. It's the tin ear delivery that seems as if it might wear thin with the current dyad.
Biden has had some very hard knocks, and I sympathize with his family. I know he's deep, I just haven't listened enough to hear it resonate in his voice. I'll give them both a whirl though, and see how well they play together, over and over.
In other words, Obama's PRESENTATION sounds WOODEN to me, so that a running mate that can show more feeling would make their message more compelling.
Fuck what they sound like, it's their policies that matter, and whether they have an IQ above that of an incontinent baboon. IMHO.
Hillary voted for the war, is a panderer, and a carpetbagger. Thumbs down. *raspberry sound*
The smartest guy with the soundest policies is absolutely useless if the proles don't vote for him.
This is America we're talking about, not a democracy. I dunno if you noticed, but it apparently doesn't matter who they vote for.
I think I have some bad news for you, Hank. Americans voted for Dubya. Twice.
They really are that stupid. (Yank monkeys excluded, of course)
Chimpy lost the 2000 election, he was placed in power by the Supreme Court. Gore actually won Florida by half a million votes. US President is put in power by the Electoral College. 2004 is more tricky, but given the Ohio voting shenanigans and the recent admission by the former Diebold company that their voting machines are critically flawed in just the ways "tinfoil hat conspiracy nuts" have been complaining about for years, plus the Bush Administration's penchant for lying, cheating, war crimes etc, I tend to think it was fucking rigged, but that's just me.
But I agree that there are a hideous number of morons in the US (Yank monkeys excluded, of course).
.
I had a long internal debate before chiming in on this old argument that can never be settled, but it still bristles me that when Mrs. Clinton speaks calmly she's labeled a robot, and when she speaks with emotion she's labeled hysterical. She could find the sure for cancer and she'd still somehow end up being that bad guy.
Chimpy lost the 2000 election, he was placed in power by the Supreme Court.
Yes and no. The Supreme Court just put a halt to the limited recount that Gore had requested. Final tallies show that if *that* recount had continued, Bush would still have won.
However, if a full recount of all Florida districts had been undertaken (which Gore never requested), Gore would have won by a couple of hundred votes.
Suffice to say they (US) have a uniquely fucked up system, and run it in a very fucked up manner, but the SCOTUS decision wasn't the deciding factor.
the SCOTUS decision wasn't the deciding factor.
How can you say that? It was sent to SCOTUS expressly to decide the issue, which it did.
The SCOTUS was asked whether the Florida Supreme Court decision to allow recounts in two counties was constitutional. They ruled that it wasn't and halted the recounts.
If they had upheld the desision and allowed the recounts, investigations after the fact showed that Bush still would have won.
That's what I mean by "it wasn't the deciding factor".
The same investigation found that if Gore had requested a state-wide recount, not only would he have won the election, the SCOTUS would have probably allowed the recount because it was the *limited* recount they had a problem with.
With all due respect and admiration for both TUM and Hillary, to use the vernacular of the week: Hillary won the silver medal. It is the gold medal boy that gets to be on the cereal box cover, and I am getting pretty tired of hearing about the 18 million votes that allow her to remain relevant, and how she needs to be given her due at the convention.
Another word for Silver Medalist is Loser. The Clinton dynasty is over, and it is high time for her party and all of us to move on. If they had any class, she and Bill would be nose to grindstone in getting Obama elected. Instead, we get this tepid bitterness.
I think that speaks volumes as to their character, regardless of whether they react calmly or with emotion. When Dr. Dean was ousted as the Democrat's nominee four years ago, he said something to the effect that, okay, only one of us can be quarterback. But there are plenty of other roles I can serve in to help move the ball forward.
Well put, Doc. Clintons, what role will/have you chose/chosen? Seems to me, nada.
My two cents.
I would think, that given her star-power and now-longer service in the Senate, that Hilary could become an A-list Senator, particularly given the absence of Teddy. And with it, effect more of the change she wants than if she were in the No.2 spot.
If that's what she wants to become, though. So far, I haven't seen any sign that that's OK by her.
In other words, Obama's PRESENTATION sounds WOODEN to me
Wow. Obama is one of the only politicians I've heard that has any kind of sincerity or emotion.
On the other hand:
Hillary won the silver medal. It is the gold medal boy that gets to be on the cereal box cover, and I am getting pretty tired of hearing about the 18 million votes that allow her to remain relevant, and how she needs to be given her due at the convention.
That sounds like the "get over it already!" attitude people have about the Supreme Court stealing the presidency from Gore.
Winning trumps stealing. This time, thankfully.
Hillary's supporters aren't happy, and:
1. Telling them to get over it won't help.
2. There's a good chance Obama will need their votes in November.
3. If McCain picks a female running mate (unlikely, I know) they'll vote Republican. Many will vote McCain even if he picks someone as bad as Romney.
Really, the only one who can get them on side is Hillary herself, and she's not doing it. We can insult her all we want (deservedly so) but if she stays silent, what is the Obama campaign doing to win their votes?
Many will vote McCain even if he picks someone as bad as Romney.
I'm not sure this is true. Stay home, maybe, but I'm not sure they'd actively vote for a Republican who would put pro-choice judges on the bench. Especially now that it's McCain 2.0, with even more party loyalty than the original.
I dunno. Honestly, I wonder how many women honestly (1) feel that pissed off about it and (2) blame Obama. Part of me suspects that both the news media and the Republicans have a vested interest in keeping this story alive and bigger than it really is, and that's why we keep hearing it.
MCT, most of me suspects that that's how the story began to begin with, back when her campaign first started.
I know it's no scientific measure, but check out the comments section of any CNN story about Obama. The pissed-off Clintonistas are either numerous or very, very vocal.
If it's a close race, which it looks like it will be, they could be the difference.
I know all too well what a pissed-off woman will do purely out of spite, even if it's self-defeating. They worry me.
"I know all too well what a pissed-off woman human will do purely out of spite, even if it's self-defeating."
Fixed that for you.
The fix in in. Alright, I can't leave that ambivalent, can I? Either candidate, the fix is in.
"Related: Anarchists And Police Clash In Downtown Denver Monday Night"
Related how?
What I hate the most is how unsurprising this is.
I know the man's not Santa Claus, but goddamn it, I'll probably cry a little if he gets elected, and I hope to God he makes the country just a little bit better in spite of these fuckers.
Sources told CBS4 police found two high-powered, scoped rifles in the car along with ... 44 grams of methamphetamine.
Presumably we have the crystal meth to thank for this guy being caught.
Jesus Christ, did Clinton knock that speech out of the park.
I think the speech was good -- I'm thinking that it will help appease her angry supporters. (Now Bill just has to not eff it up tonight.)
I was shocked, SHOCKED that while I was buying my donut this morning, the Fox News people were all talking about how the stadium was evidently jam-packed with Clinton supporters who were booing and lighting things on fire and burning their bras and chanting HAIL SATAN and molesting children. Go team.
Had Hillary spoken with such conviction earlier in the campaign, I think Obama wouldn't have been a player at the end of the game. That's one thing that always left me disappointed with Hillary during the entirity of her run - - the way in which she spoke just seemed shallow, and lacking some chutzpah. Now, it's too damn late. But yeah, that was a fine speech...
I'm not sure she didn't, smt. Once a speech has been chopped up into soundbites, it's not nearly as impressive. For me, it was the first time I've seen her deliver a speech, start to finish.
Luckily, it was a very good speech, but not one like Reagan gave in '76, leaving the delegates with the feeling that they picked the wrong guy. IMHO.
This was not the first speech I've heard her give start-to-finish, so I was unexpectedly surprised at how well she pulled it off. It made me wish that she had been able to express herself in similar fashion earlier in her campaign.
And on the contrary, I think many delegates may have been left with a feeling that they chose the wrong "guy". I was watching some interviews of delegates after last night's convention, and many were expressing that very point.
And since when did Chelsea become the looker??
From the numbers they reported on the ceeb this morning, 66% of Hilary supporters were going to support Obama, and 27% were going over to McCain. But I had a Q-tip in my ear, so I could be wrong.
And I think Chelsea became a looker once she turned 20 or so, but she definitely had better hair-action last night than I've ever seen her with.
The poll showed that 66 percent of Clinton supporters -- registered Democrats who want Clinton as the nominee -- are now backing Obama. That's down from 75 percent in the end of June. Twenty-seven percent of them now say they'll support McCain, up from 16 percent in late June.
And that's how the Democrats could lose this next election. Way to go!
I am amazed that my fellow Democrats could be feeling pessimistic when we have ahead of us tonight a speech by the always electrifying Joe "Mojo" Biden. I can feel the Jomentum building even now!
I'd like to say that they deserve what they'd get, but it would mean taking down the rest of us in the process.
Hehe, "Jomentum."
"The DNC really pushed [Barack Obama] on us. Now they've left us with two choices: somebody who has no substance or a Republican," said Jessi Cleaver, 35, of New York. "And these are terrible choices, and they worked hard to select this candidate. ... We're watching the DNC pick this candidate for us."
See, this is the part I don't understand. How did the DNC pick Obama? If anything, Clinton had the party machinery well under control, and Obama overcame that. Florida, Michigan -- under the established rules they shouldn't have counted at all, yet there was an accommodation made for Clinton. As for the superdelegates, (for the most part) they went with the expressed majority, which was the only fair thing they could do. I think the DNC got behind Obama once it was clear that he was going to be the nominee, and was interested in quelling dissent from that point on in the name of party unity. So how did the DNC pick Obama? Isn't is simply a case of him beating the Clinton Machine at its own game?
*sigh*
As for the whole 'lack of experience' argument, that's a load of bunk as well. There are just as many good presidents who had no experience as lousy ones who had plenty.
I don't know. Those quotes sound not entirely spontaneous. Call me tinfoil hatted, but self-identified Democrats being quoted at an RNC event might not actually be, you know, Democrats.
First off, let me say that I'm not totally thrilled with Obama or Clinton, but I considered Clinton the lesser of two evils because before this thing really heated up, I read a speech Obama gave to a church, in which he was clearly anti-choice. Now, more than a year later, no one brings that up, and I can't remember where I saw it, darn it.
Now with that out of the way, I have a story about how Obama got the nomination. I was a delegate for Clinton in our local precinct. You may all remember how that was a big deal here in Texas - something like one third of the delegates from the state were decided not by the voting, but by a separate caucus held several weeks later, in which we delegates had to go and cast our votes again, for our precinct.
Well, the caucus was a horror show. The entire thing was run by Obama supporters who made no attempt to even pretend that they were doing things fairly. I'll spare you the details of the biased comments they made from the stage, and go straight to the good stuff: After the delegate's votes were counted, there were challenges to a few of Clinton's delegates and a large number of Obama's. Delegates are challenged when someone says they don't have the right to be a delegate - because they don't live in the precinct they're voting for, or because they weren't actually elected to be a delegate, or some other reason they're not qualified.
It's important to note here that no one was checking credentials at the door. Anyone could have walked in and said they were a delegate, and that's exactly what happened. Obama's side was loaded with people who didn't belong there.
The delegates who were challenged weren't made to prove that they were actually qualified as delegates. It was decided by a verbal vote. Since Obama's camp had stacked the deck, you know what happened. All of the Clinton delegates got voted out, and the Obama delegates got voted in. In spite of not even residing in the proper precinct.
Additionally, during this process, the people running things flat out refused to explain the process to everyone, and when a Clinton supporter would call a Point of Order to challenge the way a particular procedure was being done, they literally said "We're not going to worry about that, we're just going to continue on".
I was flabbergasted. It was a blatant disregard for the truth. It was out and out cheating. I'm going to vote for Obama because no way in hell do I want a Republican president, but I am totally soured on the whole so-called Democratic Process.
However, in light of the Republicans fondness for cheating, I can only hope that Obama's supporters will use these same tactics against McCain.
And I have renewed my determination to move to Canada. Or New Zealand.
Sounds like Texas has a uniquely fucked up primary system...almost as brilliant as that whole electoral college thing.
I wouldn't worry too much about Obama being anti-abortion, though. I suspect he was just telling the church crowd what they want to hear. There's no chance he's appoint a SCOTUS judge who'd overturn Roe v Wade.
Thanks, mct. I kept hearing 'PUMA', and had no idea what it stood for. Couldn't find it anywhere.
And I have renewed my determination to move to Canada.
We'd be glad to have you, fairywench, but be advised that Canada's electoral system isn't without its faults, either.
It looks like we're about to have an early election, though nobody knows why.
Loved Michelle Obama's dress and both Clintons' speeches, not necessarily in that order. I can see either Clinton as Secretary of State.
Dear lord, the comments in both those links are depressing, mct.
Capt., Canada's electoral system may have faults, but what you don't have is Texans. Think how much better off the USA would have been for the last 8 years without Texans.
Well, FW, if you can figure out a way to make them into the In-dip-undent State of Texas, go right ahead! I, for one, will not miss them.
Hey, fairywench, I can understand you had a bad time, there (and I do agree that TX politics are at best colorful and at worst crooked (remember all the dead people who voted for LBJ!), but don't paint us all with the same brush!
-- sincerely, super-Lefty Texan
It would kill the Repubs' whole 'inexperienced' tack, though.
Plus, wouldn't it be seen as ouright pandering to PUMAs?
Former beauty queen, five kids, one with Down Syndrome, pro-life, pro-gun, pro-oil, young and fresh, girl-next-door.
Whom Biden's gonna have to destroy.
believe inhandle. For now. Baby steps, baby steps...womanhuman will do purely out of spite, even if it's self-defeating." Fixed that for you.