Will Barack Obama replace Joe Biden as VP?

I agree, but I think Hillary would reel in some on-the-fence moderates.

I agree it's not going to happen.

 

Thin-skinned bitch.

Of course, he's all for gay rights, now . . . just as Nancy is all for stem-cell, 'cause of Hubby.

Most righties speedily do 180s off the established Luddite, social-conservative nonsense when their own oxes are being gored.

 

Barry Goldwater's son was gay. Goldwater was one of the strongest voices for gays in the military. Laura Bush offered to host Ellen Degeneres's wedding at the Crawford Ranch. Rush Limbaugh had Elton John perform at Rush's wedding. The issue in the 2004 VP debate wasn't gay rights - it was the scumbag tactic of Edwards of trying to drag someone's daughter into the political discourse. Edwards was rights called for being a scumbag on that (and as history proved - he was a scumbag).

It is much easier for a Republican to be for gay rights than it is for a Democrat to come out against abortion. I can give lots of examples of Republicans supporting gay rights - how many elected Democrats can you name that are on record as being pro-life?

And as an aside Fred Phelps, founder of Westboro Baptist Church of God hates fags fame ran for office several times - as a Democrat.

 

I never understood why Edwards was out of line for bringing up Cheney's daughter. The Republican platform, voted on at the convention -- the same convention that nominated Cheney for VP -- was against gay marriage. Cheney's daughter was not only a lesbian but one who publicly advocated for gay rights, one who made herself a public figure on the issue. To say that was below the belt was ridiculous. It absolutely should have been asked. However, I think Cheney was completely prepared for that question and had planned to call out Edwards and anyone else on it and make them look slimy -- genius strategy because it made Cheney look pro strong family and it took the gay part of the issue out of the debate.

As for the current VP, I think that the only reason to replace Biden would be to start thinking of 2016 and have an heir apparent in the party. The Republicans didn't have one with Cheney, and I'm not sure Biden would be the next in line (if Obama wins). That's why it won't be Huntsman or Gates. It's gotta be a Dem.

I also have to laugh at all the hypotheticals about Hillary and how she'd "reel in some on-the-fence moderates," and others who have buyers remorse about Obama and wish Hillary would have been the candidate in 2008. Don't you think she would have been painted in the same crazy, socialist, liberal brush that Obama's been painted with? Repubicans HATED her more than the unknown Obama for years. Remember when McCain called her "the bitch" in a pubilic forum a year before the election -- a statement that no one called him out on? (Think he should have been asked about that when he tabbed Palin?) I think Clinton's been an excellent Sec. of State and has really found her niche there and previously in the Senate, but I'm not ready to get in the time machine and discover a world in which the Dems and GOP are holding hands and singing Kumbaya because Hillary Clinton became president.

 

EVERYBODY's pro-life.

Not everybody's in favor of forced birth, even if raped. But there are those who are, and I'm not interested in any such characters being in charge of running my life, or the lives of my loved ones.

There's a huge gulf, there.

 

So what you are saying is that there is no room in your Democratic Party for anyone who is in any way anti-abortion.

 

I prefer the term "anti-abortion," but we'll let that one go.

As of 2009, there were at least 19 of them. You might remember that this was a big sticking point in the health care overhaul.

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2009/07/antiabortion_democrats_in_cong.html

(Also worth noting: Ace is good enough to have written the story above.)

 

Sure, there is . . . anyone who doesn't want to contiunue to be unduly abused by anti-labor lawmaking, posturing and legislation would be well-served to stop encouraging the barbarians = voting for the GOP . . .

 

Lanky - Nice article. Thanks

Ben - thanks. Now that I know that you are that closed minded - I won't bother. I will however think of you as this

 

I'll do you a favor and not even peek at the YouTube.

Agree w/the GOP on a number of their prevailing economic-policy positions. Alas, the two positions which once served the GOP well for decades -- relative fiscal conservatism, and a general posture of not looking to invade people's private lives -- were (a) punted by Ronnie, and both Bushes . . . all drunken sailors, and (b) has been flushed down the toilet by the social conservates the GOP currently genuflects to . . .

And as long as that's the case, I'll crawl over ground glass to vote against the GOP. The courts are too important, and GOP control of them does the broad swath of Americans no good whatsoever.

 

You lie.

You know you'll click the Youtube link.

Liar

 

You don't know me, senor. Never presume, and never be too quick to adapt the playbook of some South Carolina redneck. It isn't becoming.