"the usual dishonest reasons." another helpful comment from the "tepid" Clinton supporter, Turkana. I read the article, and while one may disagree with some of the points put forward, I hardly see that as being dishonest. Unless of course, you are a "tepid" Clinton supporter.
Posted by T2 at May 20, 2008 10:06 AMand of course you would see nothing wrong with their "reasons." even though they're pure b.s.
Posted by Turkana at May 20, 2008 10:09 AMThe Hill reports that some Obama backers continue to oppose a dream ticket, and for the usual dishonest reasons. The headline says that these backers see the dream as a nightmare.
--Why is a ticket with Obama and Clinton a "dream ticket"? By whose definition?
--Is the idea that 2008 is somehow special enough that the precedent of the presidential nominee choosing the VP has to be discarded?
Perhaps an Obama/Clinton ticket would be good. Perhaps Obama, if he is nominated for president, will want to choose Clinton as VP. But I don't see why the talking heads, or Turkana, or I should get to insist that he make that choice. Nor, should Clinton become the presidential nominee, do I see why the talking heads, or Turkana, or I should get to insist that Obama be the VP.
Posted by joel dan walls at May 20, 2008 10:15 AMIn 1071, at the battle of Manzikert, the Byzantine Emperor Romanos ordered an attack, which his chief subordinate didn't execute since they were rivals and said rival wanted Romanos to fail so he could be Emperor in his place. So Romanos failed and the Turks took over Asia Minor except for the coasts. Lots of good reasons not to hug the Clintons too closely. 2012 is only 4 years off you know and if Obama wins this time, Clinton can't run in 2016 in all likelihood due to age.
Posted by JohnShreffler at May 20, 2008 10:17 AMjeez, the real outrage that is ANYONE would think of former Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Sam Nunn (D-Ga.) as being the VP nominee
what, is Zell Miller too busy?
Posted by Gay Veteran at May 20, 2008 10:18 AMyou obama supporters always represent yourselves and your candidate very well. here's a clue, joel- this is a political opinion site. the evidence suggests that the most likely winning ticket would include both candidates, both of whom are very popular, but with different demographics. put them together and you have a powerhouse ticket. a dream ticket. it's my considered opinion that anyone not suffering from cds or ods would understand that.
Posted by Turkana at May 20, 2008 10:19 AMgay vet,
agree completely. nunn is a borderline neocon. just what we'd need on the ticket...
Posted by Turkana at May 20, 2008 10:22 AMUsual Turkana 'cut and post' journalism -
(1) "Meanwhile, SurveyUSA shows her within striking distance of McCain in Kentucky, which might inspire her to spend resources there, to try to steal a state McCain needs".
Reminder Turkana, this is not the GE yet.
(2) "...some Obama backers continue to oppose a dream ticket, and for the usual dishonest reasons".
Of course 'The Hill' article you 'quote' out of context does not ascribe "dishonesty" to these Obama supporters as you erroneously (on purpose)claim.
Instead, the article suggests that they "...say the running mate needs to be “a fresh face” or should have better foreign policy and national security credentials than Clinton. They worry that Clinton, who was embroiled in bitter partisan disputes during eight years as first lady, would undermine Obama’s claim that he would unite people from across the political spectrum ...".
Other supporters suggest that "...it would make sense for Obama to choose from among the party’s “wide range of experienced foreign policy and national security experts" such as Sam Nunn.
Don't see any "dishonest reasons" here.
Ultimately, Obama will make the right descion for the Party and the nation.
Posted by pragmaticprogressive at May 20, 2008 10:26 AMusual drivel from pp- quite a morning, i see. you obamabots are doing a fine job pulling the party together. or something.
Posted by Turkana at May 20, 2008 10:28 AMTurk, I may be mistaken, but I could have sworn I saw that Obama was outspending Clinton 2 to 1 in Kentucky. The man pours a lot of money into states like PA, WV and KY and then gets crushed anyway. Seed-planting? Maybe, but I think he's actually making more of an effort than he'll admit to, hoping to make a respectable showing -- and failing, of course, as he will in November, but that's just an opinion.
As for Nunn, I think he'd be the perfect VP for Obama. He's going to need as many Republican crossover votes as he can get after he's alienated so many Democrats. This might seem unlikely now, but wait and see. It will ultimately be the only way he can get elected in November, should he get the nomination. The irony of a Democratic candidate winning because of his Republican appeal while having a substandard appeal to Democrats will be lost on him and his supporters, of course. As will his sad capitulations to Republicans once in office.
And so it goes.
Posted by dark1p at May 20, 2008 10:36 AMOT
Senator Kennedy diagnosed with malignant brain tumor.
This is very sad; hope we can stop this bickering and send some thoughts to Kennedy and his family.
Posted by Anjha at May 20, 2008 10:39 AManjha- WOW! hadn't heard that! horrible!
Posted by Turkana at May 20, 2008 10:43 AMdark1,
obama has so much money he can afford to spend it quite liberally. as for nunn, however, whatever crossover votes he might bring in would be more than balanced by the number of liberals who would jump ship. the last thing obama needs is a true conservative on the ticket.
Posted by Turkana at May 20, 2008 10:57 AMThe democrast should be glad, they have one candidate who is intelligent, accomplished, full of integrity, popular and would make an excellent president, and another that is worse than Nixon and maybe wants to continue Bush's policies. I guess that pairing the honest and dishonest one will be a wonderful thing.
Posted by tenacitus at May 20, 2008 11:09 AMI think that Hillary shot herself in the foot with this one, what with her comments about Obama failing the Commander in Chief test, etc. She's scripted too many GOP attack ads at this point.
Incidentally, it is a big mistake to assume that just because Hillary outperforms Obama in a given state, that she would be the best person to have on a ticket to win that state. Yes, Hillary crushed Obama in W. Virginia. That doesn't mean that Hillary is the favorite Democrat for West Virginians. Edwards would probably serve Obama better.
Posted by space at May 20, 2008 11:18 AMIIt's soooo hard to the influence that a VP will have on the election results. Common wisdom is that in the end the VP does little to help or hurt, even if the VP is Dan Quayle, but there are a few notable exceptions. Johnson almost certainly helped Kennedy -- not because of his appeal but because of his incredible ability to work the political machines. And in 2000, Cheney probably helped Bush in that moderates who voted for Bush thought Cheney would be a stabilizing influence (sigh).
For Obama, the choice seems to be between picking someone to help address his weakness with Clinton supporters versus picking someone to address his lack of foreign policy experience. One would think that Clinton as VP would help on the first point, but would an Obama-Clinton ticket make it harder to win independent voters? On the foreign policy front I've seen Jim Webb's name mentioned, as he has very strong national security cred, but without a whiff of neocon thinking (unlike, say, Nunn). But as Webb isn't very well identified on progressive causes, would that choice further offend Clinton's supporters?
On the other side, you have McCain's choice, which may be even more interesting. Does he try to placate the far right with, say, Huckabee or Romney, or does he go after the independent vote with, say, Lieberman? When you consider McCain's situation, it seems like it is to Obama's advantage to let McCain choose first, and then tailor his decision to counter McCain.
Posted by Anonny at May 20, 2008 11:24 AMTurkana, the b.s. is your "tepid" characterization. What is dishonest about "reasons" that you don't agree with. Geez, you sound like a republican.
Posted by T2 at May 20, 2008 11:44 AMyes, t2- anyone who doesn't bow down before the purity of the chosen one sounds like a republican.
Posted by Turkana at May 20, 2008 12:00 PM"Sam Nunn" doesn't sound like "hope and change" to me.....
Hard to see why a "presumptive nominee" should choose his / her VP when they can only win the nomination 51-49.....
Sounds like a second ballot decision at the convention to me...
What a "nightmare" -- winning both Oregon and Kentucky and securing an electoral victory in November!!!
Let's play to win Dems !!! We need to work together.....
I'm glad Turkana is an honest broker of political information...ROFLMAO!!! Such a great deal of bullshit in a skewed and worthless little post about how those with CDS just don't get it.
Posted by phidipides at May 20, 2008 12:41 PMAnd to think Obama drew 75,000 at a riverside park in Oregon park with 15,000 more being unable to get in. The man is barely coasting.
Posted by phidipides at May 20, 2008 12:51 PMphid-
for your sake, i hope it's curable. and obama has drawn huge crowds in states he ended up losing. it has to do with the demographics of his supporters. he'll get a solid win in oregon. she'll get a more solid win in kentucky. and people like you will continue to ignore what that means.
Posted by Turkana at May 20, 2008 01:02 PMHow is a state whose people are overwhelmingly white and not particularly affluent 'demographically favorable' to Obama?
Unless one means "not Appalachian."
And there are plenty of 'honest' reasons to oppose Clinton being on the so-called Unity ticket. But, then again it wouldn't be a post from Turk without a character attack on Obama supporters.
P.S. You sound stupid when promoting *UNITY* while consistently slamming 50% of the party.
Posted by Geek, Esq. at May 20, 2008 01:08 PMah- a word from geekoolaidesque. how sweet. would be king of the obamabots.
if you don't understand the demographics of oregon, i'm not going to bother helping you. it's about more than money and location. and i don't bash all obama supporters. i know, in real life, many sane ones. there are also some sane ones in the blogs, including among this site's commenters. but it is amusing that a post about a unity ticket brings out those lacking hinges. now, don't you have some slime to make up about hillary, to post at daily obama?
Posted by Turkana at May 20, 2008 01:13 PMTurkana the Wise One:
"...ah- a word from geekoolaidesque. how sweet. would be king of the obamabots."
Sorry (not really) to interrupt your childish ad hominum attacks with a reminder that you don't speak for Sen. Clinton or the majority of American women. Using your response style: 'You are a freak!'
We will be moving on sooner or later to a unified Democratic party. Your small and bilous voice will be reduced to the impact of a fart in a blizzard. The rest of us will be celebrating as contributing members of a new coalition.
Posted by pragmaticprogressive at May 20, 2008 01:39 PMunless it includes the clinton supporters, it will be neither pragmatic nor progressive. have fun with that. while it lasts.
Posted by Turkana at May 20, 2008 01:44 PMTurkana, geez louise, get a grip. Frankly, I'm voting Democratic in the fall regardless of who's on top of the ticket. And of course I understand the demographic argument behind the "dream ticket" idea. But I ask again, why drop the presidential nominee's traditional prerogative in choosing a VP? And I also ask, as do many others, is there simply too much ill will between Obama and Clinton now to make the dream ticket work? I hope to gawd that Obama and Clinton can patch things up so that, at a minimum, one of them will campaign for the other, dream ticket or not.
Changing direction, the suggestion in that "The Hill" article to pair up Obama with Sam Nunn was truly bizarre.
Posted by joel dan walls at May 20, 2008 02:07 PMObama has every right to pick whoever he wants. But Nunn?!!! What the Focg! The man who may himself into a media star by spitting at fellow Democrats and licking Ronald Reagan's ass? THIS is what the folk in Obama's campaign think to offer for VP? A retiree who's been a non-entity on the national scene for over ten years? Feh! I hope that's not actually people connected to the BO campaign talking.
Posted by Barry at May 20, 2008 02:11 PMjoel,
i have no doubt that the candidates will patch things up, and help each other in whatever ways are necessary. but i'm worried about the hardcore partisans, who might sit it out. and both candidates clearly have a great deal of support, across a very striking and obvious demographic chasm, so it seems obvious that the best ticket would include them both. obama will do whatever he wants, but his supporters need to recognize that november will not be easy, and that reconciling themselves to the possibility of a ticket that includes clinton has plenty of up side.
Posted by at May 20, 2008 02:17 PMJust to be clear, the person who uses language like "geekoolaidesque. how sweet. would be king of the obamabots" gripes about Obama supporters not being interested in unity.
Rather like a pit viper complaining about no one wanting to kiss it.
Posted by Geek, Esq. at May 20, 2008 02:22 PMwith all due respect, geek- and i do mean all due respect- after your behavior of the last several months, calls for unity from you are just self-serving twaddle. good thing some of us realize the candidates are not responsible for their supporters.
Posted by Turkana at May 20, 2008 02:30 PMI'm NOT calling for Unity ponies. Clinton supporters are legal adults and can make up their own minds as to whether they prefer to act that way, or if they'd rather vote for McCain to teach those Obama-loving kids a lesson.
My own approach is to welcome those who would support Obama, and treat those threatening to vote for McCain as the children they are.
Posted by Geek, Esq. at May 20, 2008 04:32 PMWe know why you're here, dickesque, to gloat like the asshole you are, since you don't have anyone left at dkos to gloat at, and once you've pissed someone off enough to say they won't vote for your savior, then you'll start the baby talk. Go back to your boss, and resume your sucking up in the hopes of becoming a front pager, ya knob.
Posted by iamcoyote at May 20, 2008 05:28 PMTurkana what are the usual dishonest reasons?
Posted by tenacitus at May 20, 2008 09:58 PM"...if you don't understand the demographics of oregon, i'm not going to bother helping you...."
from what I've read the economic demographics of Oregon and Kentucky are pretty similar.
Posted by Gay Veteran at May 21, 2008 10:38 AM