OK, Dems you've had your fun. Now, who would HRC choose as a running mate?

One more time, for the folks in the cheap seats.

Obama was talking about elections and political acumen. What he said is that Reagan funadmentally changed the course of this nation politically in a way that neither Nixon nor Bill Clinton did.

This is a demonstrable fact. It was a shot at Bill, sure. But it's true. And anyone looking for some kind of dogwhistle appeal to the GOP is really missing the point. The underlying message is that he, Senator Obama, is the kind of candidate that can once again fundamentally change the political course of this country.

As to the GOP being the party of ideas in the the 80's and 90's, well, that isn't anything that Al From and Bill Clinton didn't say hundreds of times when they were stumping for the DLC. Hell, it isn't anything Pat Moynihan didn't say often, either. Crticizing Obama for repeating it is just silly.

He didn't say they were good ideas. He said they drove the discussion. And they did. And again, the underlying message is that the DLC had their shot to beat that back, and they failed miserably. Now, we can try to be the party of ideas again, but it's going to take electing someone new instead of cowering in the corner and hoping Hillary can eke out an electoral win in the 13 states left that it's acceptable for Democrats to campaign in.

 

I've read some outlandish things on these boards, but HejiraHenry has blown everything to come before it out of the water. I would really, really like to think you just forgot to use the blue font there, Henry. Otherwise...wow. Just...wow.

 

Who's we?

 

The terrorists.

 

Well I've had my fun, I have something like 40 inches to write before I go home.
Be safe out there

 

Disregarding, for now, the parallel conversations this thread has inspired, we have finally gotten down to business

It took a while. Thank you.

This was, on point, the issue that was puzzling me.

Why would Obama take the back seat to people who have tried to destroy him? Is he that ambitious?

Why not sit this one out? She loses -- and she does lose -- and he's the head of the party going into the 2012 races.

If he loses on the ticket, given the Dems' own recent election logic (see Gore, Kerry, Edwards, etc.) then he's hopelessly used up as an electable candidate.

 

Sorry, I think I have been misperceived. I thought everyone on here would know that Sept. 12 was Leonard Peltier's birthday.
My apologies.

 

Congrats, Henry. You've officially entered Yawn territory, only worse, because no one thinks you were joking or playing a character. I hope that post follows you around every time you post here, and with anyone on here who knows you in real life.

 

No way in hell will the Veep-ship be offered to Obama, nor would he accept it. Having to answer to two Clintons would pretty much remand him to what a vice president used to be: largely ceremonial, always warming up in the bullpen.

For better or for worse, Cheney really changed the outward face of that job, making it an incredibly powerful job in the eyes of the public. Certainly in my recollection, the most powerful cabinet member a sitting president has ever had.

Of course, that greases the skids for someone like Bill Clinton to come in, campaign and not shy away from the fact that he'll have a voice once again, if HRH HRC is elected.

My money's on General Clark, Biden or Richardson.