OBAMA SAID NO-The Nightmare Ticket Is Dead

(edited due to a more interesting scoop:)

The Nightmare Ticket Is Dead
By Al Giordano

The Field can now confirm, based on multiple sources, something that both campaigns publicly deny: that Senator Clinton has directly told Senator Obama that she wants to be his vice presidential nominee, and that Senator Obama politely but straightforwardly and irrevocably said “no.” Obama is going to pick his own running mate based on his own criteria and vetting process.

http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=1248



with an added treat:
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/05/22/not_the_ticket_of_dreams/

that two political national committees can play that game.

:headbang:
rocknation

"Off the record" stuff is also inflammatory.

I'm waiting for authoritative sources that can be researched and named.

But thanks for trying in the Blogosphere...

Cordially,

Radio Lady

NOT having Hillary on the ticket.

You really should read it all, if you haven't already.

Thank you.

Radio Lady

Radio Lady,

very difficult to trust everything in print.
Found this interesting as well.
You decide how much weight to give it.
I am just a cut & poster
kpete

found in a trash bin (of sorts)

...............

I don't ever post much, but I can make a quick comment. Let me just say that someone very close to me works for someone in Obama's inner circle, and let me stress that, as in his personal circle, which also will become part of his White House circle. The information from this person is always spot on.

Anyway, this is all bull coming out of the Clinton campaign. The Obama campaign has had their timeline set for weeks. Last Tuesday was to declare victory without officially declaring it, for nearly three weeks, the Obama campaign has had a guarantee from the Clinton campaign that she would drop out by the first week of June, preferably before the last primaries at the beginning of June. The thought of her dropping out before the last primaries would be to solidify the base and give Obama momentum. They were allowing her to leave on her own terms, but it was agreed that she would drop out.

The Clintons are despised in the Obama campaign from all that I know. It'll be a cold day in hell before Hillary Clinton is on the ticket. This is just more storytelling from the Clinton side.

If I get any more tidbits, I'll be glad to share.

That is an interesting tidbit. It doesn't say whether the deal to have her drop out at the end of the primaries is still on or not. Listening to Hilary, she seems to be turning this into a game of "Chicken". She is setting herself to look like a complete idiot if she drops out next week. If she really planned to drop out next week, she should be avoiding all that hot rhetoric about fighting this to the bitter end.

So my guess is that your source is accurate, AND that the Obama camp has now concluded that her word is no good, so they will no longer be extraordinarily conciliatory.

You have to believe that Deam has a lot of pressure on the key Superdelegates to come out immediately after the last primary. If you figure in a reasonable split of the remaining delegates, a settlement on FL and MI that give delegates half votes at the convention and gives Obama the MI uncommitteds, and the Pelosi Club superdelegates, Obama only needs 20-40 more Superdelegates to lock it up. These will probably come quickly after the last primary, which will also be after the rules committee meeting. I would not be surprised to see Obama talk openly about a runningmate at that time, and it won't be Hillary.

Obama has been kissing her ass, and this looks like he has run out of patience.

The hardball facts are these:

1) He has won the pledged delegates. If the party overturns that, we have a riot, and disaster in November. Hillary couldn't beat McCain if she got 90% of the black vote. If they screw Obama out of this thing, Hillary will get about 1% of the black vote. But it is MUCH bigger than that. There are MILLIONS of white people like me who will be right there with our brothers and sisters. No way I would support Hillary Clinton in this scenario.

and as if that nightmare scenario wasn't bad enough for any Superdelegate thinking about supporting Hillary,

2) Obama has the donor list with nearly 2 million supporters. Clinton has a campaign that can't even fund itself at the primary level, let alone at the level needed to compete with McCain in the GE.

So basically, Obama doesn't have to take any shit from the Clintons. He has been far too patient. I'm glad to see the hardball start.

As far as authoritative sources, well this isn't the sort of conversation that people normally have in public or on the record.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Tim Griffin

That will be money not spent on crucial Senate and House races.

:)

one punched a hole in my jean pocket. LOL! :rofl: :rofl:

And I was a chubby white kid.

I just found one one time and thought they were cool so kept it. Though I am familiar with the jewfro...

hey diy-http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4592415&mesg_id=4592415

seriously boomers, what else do you need?
the point where i started slapping people on ignore was when a hill supporter tried to tell me that stevie was not motown. just not spending time in alternate universes. i have enough trouble with this one.

an alternate universe.

I'll be back to them in no time..

Love the natural!

From Good morning America the Day she took off her wig and stated "I am not my hair"
OMGoodness I cried so much! I have never had cancer but I have had all my hair fall out more the once do to poor hair care

I tried to find the youTube clip to no avail

I saw India perform that song the night before I received the news I had Ovarian Cancer and would need Chemo!

AND i used to carry a copy of "Do It!" by Jerry Rubin everywhere i went.

AND i used to hang with C.O.R.E. members and the Black Panthers at the Student Union during the anti-war demonstrations... and i was in GRADE SCHOOL...

I had read "Nigger" by Dick Gregory in the 7th grade- it was an autographed copy, signed to me by the author when i met him. "The Autobiography Of Malcolm X" and "Steal This Book", "Our Bodies, Ourselves" and, let's see.... "Soul On Ice" by Eldridge Cleaver and the court transcript of the "Trial of The Chicago (Magnificent) Seven"... and...

"In His Own Write" by John Lennon, "By Little And By Little" by Dorothy Day, and many, many cherished copies of "The Catholic Worker" were all favorite readings when i was growing up.

... and i'm white.

Dude- Obama ain't scary- compared to me he's a fucking SAINT.

It would certainly explain a lot, wouldn't it?

That kind of rumor seems like a great one to float if you want Clinton supporters to feel even more angry and determined never to vote for Obama. Seems like something an enemy might drop in to the fray, pretending someone leaked it from the Obama team or worse still that they made it up. Deepens the outrage.

to get the worked up about something that isn't going to happen. I think it's better if OBama nips it in the bud. Her supporters might be supporting her continued divisive efforts because of the hope of forcing a VP. If it ain't gonna happen, perhaps they will rethink their support of her now.

That's what I think is most interesting about this rumor. Could be a Rovian move. Designed to make the Clinton fans more determined to support her. Like "HOW DARE the Obama campaign reject her?" Or, even -- "How dare the Obama team make up a rumor that she would beg for the VP nomination! We'll never vote for him ever!"

He would want, if anything, to create the illusion that he was considering her deeply for VP. Any other handling of the situation would indeed tick off her supporters. I think this is a BS rumor started by somebody with something to gain.

And wouldn't leave the issue alone, I could see them saying "no." Of course, neither camp would want that public: the Clinton people wouldn't want it known either that they looked for the VP slot, or that they got told off, and the Obama camp wouldn't want to look like they were dissing the Clinton supporters.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Experienced political types do not have fans or followers, they have supporters.

What Clinton supporters? About half of the Democrats voted for Clinton. Those people. The people you cannot alienate if you want to win in November.

Are you at all troubled by the exit polls in KY that show a huge percentage of her supporters wouldn't even vote Democratic in the GE?

Are you at all concerned by the exit polls in Indiana that show double digits of voters who were clearly Chaos voters?

At this stage, The Democratic Party is better off ending this thing and suffer whatever consequences that brings. If this means that only 10% lesbian couples over 50 will vote for Obama, we'll have to live with that. If that means only 5% of people with IQs under 90 vote for Obama, we can only hope that they can't figure out how to cast a vote for McCain. If this means that only one percent of the KKK sympathizers will vote for Obama, well, I think we knew that anyway.

I believe that most of the people voting for Hillary are reasonable people, completely unlike the Clinton agitators who hang out on this forum. I believe most Hillary supporters fundamentally believe in fair play and polls clearly show that huge majorities of them already understand and accept that Obama will be the nominee. I expect they will be with us in November.

The Al Gore advocates got over it. The John Edwards advocates got over it. The Dennis Kucinich advocates got over it. If a few Hillary supports can't, we'll just have to live with that and move on.

Your are absolutely right.. you can not only see the hand of the Republican National Committee and its minions trying to start something.. you can count the fingers.

How long will it be, before you hear the chattering classes of hate radio AM.. promoting something along the same lines to get the silt stirred up from the bottom??..

:)

We used to think Rove and his evil minions were so cunning and clever. Well, maybe
they were proficient at Swiftboatting Kerry, but the people who are coming out in
droves to vote in the Democratic primaries and sick and tired of politics as usual

We are voting for CHANGE. The mystique is now lacking from Swiftboatting. Everyone
understands this tactic and we want something better than a bunch of mud-slinging,
backbiting weasels.

People want real change. With the economy in the tank, the mortgage crisis, the
Iraq war worsening and talk of war with Iran--flinging poo at the candidates is
not going to resonate as it once did.

And what if there is no there, there? I don't care how super-awesome this
oppo-research guy is. If Obama is a person who has nothing Swiftboat-able, then
it doesn't matter.

Let these blathering blowhards swim in the sewer--we'll be out here in the sunlight talking
about ideas and real change.

They'll never win this way.

They've won twice this way.

Where have you been?

It's time for the Democrats to stop acting like a bunch of whiners and start playing the game dirty. Tit for tat.

tampering by Blackwell + the Supreme court.

For all of those, they needed the race to be close. It won't be.

They won in 2000 and 2004. We lost. End of story. It's time for the Democrats to grow a spine and start playing dirty. Tit for tat.

Look, you're obviously ignorant of the facts, and it's apparent that even if I offered to educate you, you'd outright refuse to even look, but if ever someone announced "I don't belong here on DU!", it was you, just now.

You can reverse that by saying "yes, I'd like to learn what it is that the vast majority of people here on DU have learned and/or studied ad-naseum and to the nth degree of certainty so I don't look like a raving freeper." anytime.

Just because most here aren't permanently hung up on the underhanded, deliberate, and blatant election fraud and tactics used by Republicans in the last few elections doesn't mean they don't know about it.

So, you wanna learn, or parade around telling people that you buy the right wing media talking points?

You can marginalize their victory all you'd like, but they are sitting in the White House and we aren't.

As I said, I'm not interested in your tinfoil hat conspiracy theories.

We went with a weak candidate, like Clinton.

they didn't "win" in 2004 - Ohio was stolen.

The best way to hide is in plain sight... that way no one will believe it happened because obviously you'd never get away with it.

If you couldn't possibly get away with it, then you must not have done it, otherwise you would have been caught by someone. But since you couldn't get away with it, there was no need to investigate, and since no one investigated, no one found anything, so nothing must have happened. :silly:

Chapter 1 of The Best Democracy Money Can Buy online

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Palast_Greg/JimCrow_Cyberspace_TBDMCB.html

That there were enough votes, like I saw in Florida.

Many tens of thousands of people were made to wait 6-9 hours in line in heavily Democratic districts, and the recounts were prevented directly by Blackwell in violation of Ohio election statutes... and that's just one one-thousandth of the Fraud engineering that took place.

In the interest of not diverting a thread further, read this;

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen

If you have any questions after that, ask them in the Election Fraud forum... if you have any doubts after that, it's possible you may not be sentient. ;)

There is no question there was FRAUD... however, there is NO PROOF that the fraud WOULD HAVE CHANGED THE OUTCOME.

Meanwhile, do not try to tell me that you've truly studied the issue. Those that have know that fraud was instrumental in delivering Ohio to Bush.

BTW, by your very criteria, there is no "Proof" of Anthropogenic Global Warming either. It would be terribly inconsistent of you to believe in that then... wouldn't it?

There is evidence that there was FRAUD.

However, there is no PROOF that this particular FRAUD would have CHANGED THE OUTCOME.


In short, if you supress voting, you can't PROVE which way each person surpressed WOULD HAVE VOTED.

Unless, like in Florida in 2000, you can actually count all the votes and PROVE that there are more for Kerry, there is no PROOF that it could have changed the result.

From every analysis I have seen, there is no such proof.

BTW, there's no Proof of Anthropogenic Global Warming either.

Therefore you must not believe in that either.

There actually is proof in human intervention in global warming.

However, there is no proof that the fraud in Ohio actually changed the outcome.

You cannot accept the evidence of one as proof and then dismiss the proof in the evidence of the other.

There is overwhelming correlative, circumstantial, and testimonial evidence that proves to the considerate person that humans are, by a significant margin, responsible for AGW.
There is overwhelming correlative, circumstantial, and testimonial evidence that proves to the considerate person that enough fraud occured, by a significant margin, to take the election from Kerry in '04.

There is no 'proof' of the variety you ask for that can convince you of either, you have just decided to be convinced of one and not the other.

I will start a thread in the election reform forum adressing the issue of 'proof' so as not to continue to operate off topic.

I'll PM you the link, please join me in asking for 'proof' there.

Meanwhile, if you would like to start a thread asking for 'proof' in Environment Energy, by all means do so.

However, there is no proof that the proven fraud in Ohio changed the election result.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=203

My question to you is; "What would constitute sufficient 'proof' that fraud was responsible for Bush's 'win' in OH '04?"

Please respond there, this is way OT.

Look I'm perfectly willing to consider what you're saying, and provide information and rationale...

in a thread where this discussion BELONGS.

If you don't want to go there and discuss it, then I have to wonder just what you're afraid of. I have a perfectly reasonable response to yours, but THIS is not a thread for this discussion.

I'm trying to follow the rules here. If you simply refuse to look at the information and possible 'proof' you claim isn't there, just say so. Once I know that someone refuses to learn, I usually don't bother with them anymore.

So, if you think you have a point, go learn something and see if maybe there's something you didn't know before. I promise to do the same.

There is no 'link', but the experts, eyewitnesses, and statisticians give us an estimate of fraudulently discounted/disallowed/unregistered votes based on the correlation of DREs to MOE/lack of machines to Democratic precincts/overvotes for Bush by 600% to precinct/ an avalanche of other statistics, circumstances, and factors that gave the election to Kerry had they not been fraudulently discounted/disallowed/unregistered.

Now, you wanted the one piece of information that you believed would 'prove' fraud caused Kerry's 'win', no such thing has surfaced.

Please give me the one piece of information that will 'prove' man caused Global Warming.



You really don't get it, do you?


I told you how to learn what constitutes 'proof'. You don't want to know. You want to just believe without the benefit of learning. I'm afraid I can't help anyone with that kind of ignorance.

And I'm done diverting a thread because you are somehow afraid to have this discussion in the appropriate venue.

Good bye.

That's all you need.

I'll post your response there.

If you continue to insist on pursuing this here, All I can do is post there and respond to you by PM.

I refuse to deal with this where it doesn't belong.

What makes RFK Jr. an expert on election fraud?

What, if anything, in this article convinced you? Or is it possible that you thought Ohio was stolen before you read this article?

Your subjective certainty doesn't interest me. Your ability to link to people who share it doesn't interest me. What, if anything, do you know about this subject? And why don't you talk about that, instead of trying to bully people into submission with rants about ignorance and vast majorities and all that?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x503122


My 'subjective certainty' is little different from those who believe humans are responsible for Global Warming. I'll discuss this there, not here.

The difference is evident: belief in anthropogenic global warming is supported by an extensive peer-reviewed scientific literature; your opinions about 2004 are not.

ETA: I agree that the thread went off-topic back at post 27.

Had he been a stronger candidate his margin in OH would have been too big to steal.

by Democrats?

Look buddy, you join here in late January of this year, with obviously no clue about the hard, crunchy facts of fraud behind the 2000, 2002, and 2004 elections (and yes, accounts of same for 2006), call the facts that I've studied ad-nauseum 'tin foil hat theories, and somehow you think you could be taken seriously?

Shove the 'conspiracy theory' crap, that's friendly advice. Most people here know damn well that massive fraud was a fact of the last several elections. You aren't going to fool people long with lines like that unless you're in the 9/11 dungeon.

Saying "I'm not interested in your tinfoil hat conspiracy theories." is tantamount to saying "I'm ignorant, I'm going to stay ignorant, and BTW; I really don't belong here."

If by some miracle you manage to fool people long enough, and you stick it out past the GE... you might actually learn something and become an actual supporter of (at least some) liberal ideals.

I came here as a Republican that couldn't believe the shit that was going on. While here I've learned that the 'liberal/conservative', 'Republican/Democrat' divide is manufactured by people and corporations that are screwing us all. Turns out the liberals, for many of their faults and soft-spots, have generally the right idea about how to manage society, a nation, and a planet. I may finally change my registration next January because now I know who is more on the side of 'We the People'. For that reason, I hope whatever your motives are keep you here long enough to become less ignorant.

As I said before; I can educate you, but you have chosen to be ignorant instead for the time being. But if you stick it out here long enough, you will find yourself learning truths that might otherwise be uncomfortable.

Since I don't know what your purpose here really is, and since I don't like to assume or suggest that anyone might be insincere, I'll just ask you a question;

Are you interested in learning what you do not know, or is learning not part of your purpose here?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I wasn't going to make such an accusation...

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

She might put up a fight though... we're supposed to go to Belgium this year.

As for my responses to these folks... I'm going to have to rescind an apology to these idiots I made a few days ago. I take it back, they do deserve to be treated like children because they act like children.

Ooo! Here was a fun one;
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6058643#6060102

They act like children, and then throw a tantrum about being told they're acting like children. I gave this poster a choice to prove whether they can be an adult or not, I'm waiting on a response now, but not holding my breath.


I'm so glad to see that 99% of all the posters I've always loved around here for their passion and reason (that's you too sweetie!), are also on the side of behaving like adults... including the conscientious Clinton supporters drowned out by the wailing children.

:hug:

I'll look into that 'husbandnapping' thing... sounds like fun!

Scrolling down through the posts, I've never read more inarticulate circular logic and mindless word-drool from such a bunch of petulant, pouty-lipped infants.

"Look buddy, you join here in late January of this year, with obviously no clue...."

Honestly, WTF does the time he/she joined a particular website have to do with knowledge of the issues? Are you honestly saying that this is the only place to get accurate information on these topics or that people cannot be active on other sites or *gasp* in real life? Are you also honestly assuming that people cannot lurk here for years before registering? (I did just that, mainly because I felt no need to post in an echo chamber.)

While I agree with your comments to the other poster to a large degree, I had to mention the ridiculousness of this registration date arrogance, which is quite similar to postcount arrogance.

There are plenty of places to get information and discuss issues aside from DU. To obviously imply that one's time here is an indicator of one's knowledge on ANY subject is not only arrogant, it points out ignorance as well, IMO. The date that one joined one of thousands of political websites has absolutely no relevance to anything.


The registration date and postcount elitism I see from time to time here is completely illogical and childish. I'll call it out every time I see it.

about the authenticity of the poster you've responded to for quite a while now.

were you when the fucking supreme court put W into office?

I saw it.

I watched it in horror.

You think it is a fucking "theory?"

WTF planet are you living on.

I was going to put another "fuck" in this post but I felt the redundancy was a bit too fucking much.

:wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf:

Then My dearly loved eldest son was almost killed in that hell hole that is Iraq in October 2005. The lying, cheating, spineless, fucking ass hole that is W Boosh has come close two fucking times to killing my children. When these troll fuckers come on DU and try to make that GODDAMN bastard legitimate I want to reach into my computer and slap the shit out of them.

Peyton Rose



Benjamin

What a pretty little baby.

My daughter Jacqueline Rose was born November 15th 2000 - I was so pissed off as I watched CNN from the hospital, having contractions and yelling "Fucking liars!" The Doctor was laughing. My husband was just in shock... Poor thing.

Your son is handsome and looks like a great kid. I fucking hope he comes home soon.

:hug:

I was on bed rest that November was was screaming the exact same thing. My Dr, the wonderful David Marinoff told me to turn "the motherfucking TV off." He was pissed too.

It drives the rethugs mad!

Ian Robert age 22




Callie Jean age 24

Seriously, what a gorgeous family - bet you're proud. :)

We were partying in Sicily. My landlord had a cake made, part of it Callie is wearing on her shirt! "Welcome in Sicily Callie and Ian."

:hug: :loveya:

Your daughter is an absolutely gorgeous child, and your son could appear on a USMC recruiting poster.

My kids are beautiful because they have beautiful hearts. Good Damn Democrats every one of them. My youngest son is in your neck of the woods. He is graduating from George Mason, and going on to Georgetown on a full scholarship. Law. He is the man. First openly gay president in 2028!

My kids are still below draft age, but I still don't want the nation as fucked up for them later as it is now. This administration has been a tragedy for hundreds of millions, if not billions of people, the damage is simply immeasurable. These pig-fuckers that think they're playing some kind of 'game' by supporting the criminal administration deserve a special place in hell for the damage they've abetted.

YOU HEAR THAT YOU STUPID FUCKING TROLLS?!?!

I'm glad everyone in your family is ok right now.

I can't believe I nearly lost him. You know the summer of 2005 I took money I had set aside for a family holiday, $5000, and I spent it on renting a tent and fans for Cindy Sheehan in her "summer in the ditch" protest. I knew Ben was heading to Iraq in the fall and Casey had been killed there in April 2004, I had to do that for Cindy and all those brave souls sweltering with her in the Texas summer sun.

I know in my heart that gesture saved Ben. I know it. RIP Casey Sheehan. :cry:

:hug: for you and hug for my princess :hug:

:hi:

...with bitter resentment over Hillary's defeat, or you took a wrong goddamned turn at Albuquerque.

I simply can't believe that any educated progressive with a functioning brain stem would argue that election fraud was not systemically employed in key states in 2000 and 2004, or that the Supreme Court of the United States didn't order an unlawful halt to the vote counting in Florida and installed Bush as President.

Then again, maybe it's not brains you lack, but sincerity. Sincerity about what you believe in, sincerity about your purpose, sincerity in your motives, sincerity about any desire to be educated.

So, which is it?

If we lose, it's because the other side cheated.

I'm tired of it. It's time for us to start owning up to our defeats.

You've tipped your hand, slick. Nobody's buying your bluff.

Now, run along.

Speaks volumes about you. Back slowly away from the right-wing talking points.


You really need to do some research on the 2000 election. It was a power grab that plunged us into a Constitutional crisis. A virtual coup d'etat. And, no, the end result does not make everything leading up to it moot. At least for those that care about our Constitution and what our nation was built on instead of simply "winning".

It amazes me that even some Democrats pick up those arrogant talking points in order to minimalize what was in fact a stolen election. It's really sad that you don't even care about that. It is also sad that you want to adopt the despicable tactics used by the Republicans simply to win. I honestly thought that Democrats were more principled than that. And before you go on about how winning is all that matters, you should take a hard look at your assumption about what it takes to win. Personally, I am certain that we can both win and maintain our dignity and principles. There are many ways to win, and we do not need to result to picking up unconscionable techniques to do so.

i think you can hardly toot their horn.... or does NOW not count...

what a LOUSY campaign they ran.

edit to clarify my misunderstanding.

you should know that.

As they party that supports truth and justice, i refuse to resort to it to win. Shes welcome to switch parties.

...that the American people are smarter than this. Always have been, we just didn't know it.

Gone are the days of people sitting back and getting smacked upside the head over and over by the GOP and their plays on the ignorance of the public. I don't mean ignorance in a bad way, what I mean is people are standing up and feeling empowered and beginning to educate themselves rather than let some 30 second ad or sound bite dictate their choices.

Voices of dissent are gaining strength. I think Democrats (in office) have been a bunch of whiners over the last 8 years, only recently are they beginning to show some strength and backbone to stand up for themselves. Which equates to standing up for us, the American voters who voted them into office.

I disagree with playing the game dirty. I think we're learning that we can play the game smarter than they can.

and since hillary is not on the ticket, i hope that all this swiftboating crap will stop

Then we have already lost.


Nice principles you've got there.

I like "The Field", but here we have something that neither Obama or Clinton
agree to publicly.

Also read The Field's other articles, Clinton won't accept the vetting process.

for more interesting info

so that he will have little choice but to make her VP.

There are just too many reasons why she is not the right choice for his VP spot. She the globe article in the OP. It explains it perfectly and logically.

It might satisfy some but a good many others that voted for a change would not go along with it.
The Clintons are not a change in Washington Politics..they are part of it. If I wanted Hillary on the ticket I would have voted for her.

:bounce:

I cant wait! :bounce:

ridiculous tantrum out in public yesterday. That is why she is doing it. She was rejected so she wants her supporters to believe the nomination was stolen from her so they wont vote for Obama and McCain will win. Can the Clintons be any more immature? Do they care anything about the country or is it all just about them? :banghead:

You thought she was Bad before! A woman Scorned, and all that :)

what where you going to say?

He's my main man! I wouldn't put up with any of that!

He's scorned her advances and now being Hillary she MUST get Even..

Just the way she is.. Treats him like an ex-husband.. :)

Please let it be true. Please let there still be hope for this clusterfuck of a party. x___x

eom

please God, let this be true!!

that it's a really super great idea.

Hillary can pick the VP and there is nothing he can do to stop it.

... he'd never want her as his VP. He's better than that. She represents the politics of old and he represents the new hope. Having her on the ticket would be completely incongruent with his message.

What's more Barbara Boxer and others came out yesterday and said that the VP choice is Barack's and Barack's alone.


THANK GOD!!

:party:

HRC can take this directly to the superdelegates who can vote her in as VP over Obama's wishes.

... that it was no one's choice but Obama's. He has to choose the best running mate for him and no one will take that from him.

...how the nominating process worked, and 2. that the supers (including a couple of Hillary SDs) have already said publicly that Obama should pick his own VP.

At least he's handy for entertainment purposes.

Obama has run a great campaign. He isn't the one in debt up to his eyeballs and he has brought with him new voters from all across the country. I don't need to get on my soap box and talk about the campaign that Hillary has run. She doesn't deserve the honor. Obama worked hard and was put through the ringer the entire time after all that he should be allowed to choose someone he trust and that carries his message and vision. Hillary does none of that.

I hope he picks the talented Jim Webb. No offense to you Clark fans but Clark is not a very good politician. Jim Webb seems so down to earth and the man is smart as hell, his books are excellent. I think Webb would bring so much to the table and I know this may sound crass but Webb knows how it feels to have a child in war. If I'm not mistaken, McCain's son is either in Iraq or is going soon. Having Webb on the ticket will probably blunt the blow that will come from the right wing when they start talking about personal sacrifice for this war. Also Webb will be a constant reminder that asshole McCain voted against the G.I. bill.

I don't care if she goes away mad, I don't care if she goes away sad. I only care that she goes away.

Then throw out all the furniture and let's start anew. :-)

is Obama going to throw them out, too?

Just like in '72. :banghead:

it would be nice if our SD's had the guts to stand up to the left wing of the party - but they shriek the loudest, as always, and they'll probably get their way.

Three words can show otherwise:

Michael Dukakis
Bill Clinton
Joe Lieberman

Not to mention that the left is voting with its dollars - record registrations and fundraising for Obama, the "insurgent candidate." If there are so many blue collar Clinton supporters, where did all her small donors go? She's getting wiped off the map by the number of small donors for Obama. Whoever is remaining that supports Clinton, she needs your cash - send it now so she can pay her people as well as "fighting for them."

your freep is showing.

Just like in 1980

(With all due respect to the great Senator Kennedy - that's the one thing he's done that kinda' pissed me off - May he have plenty more times to try)

:applause:

Go Obama! :patriot:

That's why I voted for him - unlike just about everyone else in the Beltway, he actually has some common sense.

Obama knew perfectly well that she'd be nothing but a ball and chain for his candidacy. Obama doesn't need a sociopathic liar as a running mate.

Giordano can't stand to listen to something thoughtful? Less snappy, snarky repartee that Giordano needs on Thom's show makes Giordano the dim bulb, not Thom.

Does Giordano have ANYTHING to say to Hillary Clinton's supporters -- the millions and millions of good people who are feeling spat upon right now? Whether or not you think Hillary has caused some of this enmity, what is to be done now to reach our to the many supporters who will rejoin our team if we treat them with the dignity they deserve?

Giordano -> :thumbsdown: :thumbsdown: :thumbsdown: :thumbsdown:

:bounce:

Is it really true, did he just bat it down without any stutter?

Hell, I'll do a free web site. Time to go, Hillary. Take Bill with you.

The corporate media is trying to thrust Clinton on us as VP just like they did Edwards.

When I read the linked piece, I found the link in it to Arianna Huffington's "Hillary Clinton's Defeat: A Historic Triumph:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/hillary-clintons-defeat-a_b_102418.html

Somehow I managed to miss that one when first she wrote it. I was glad to read it now, it captured a lot of what I have been feeling this year.

K&R :D

Wow.


Wowwww..

Good choice, but wow.

Wow

David

Senator Obama has always shown superior judgement.

Every day the attack on him would be: "Your own running mate thinks that McCain would make the better President...how do you respond?" She's broken goods at this point.

Good for O. she would have been more trouble on the ticket than the party could have survived.

- as

Too fucking bad, Bubba.
The only way you get back in the White House is as a guest of President Obama!!!!

Bill knows this better than anyone. Hillary is cut from the same cloth.

:rofl:

"Multiple sources". Yeah right. In his head.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Your comments on the other hand suggest strongly that you are NOT. Thanks for playing champ, you are a piece.

Obama's too smart to put her on the ticket. Way too smart.

It's bad enough that he called her campaign "outstanding" the other night.

Not picking Hillary as veep is political suicide for him.

Oh well, he may not have a choice.

The Veep spot is Hillary's if she wants/demands it.

The convention (almost 50% of Hillary's delegates) votes for Veep also...and not necessarily the choice of the Nominee.

:toast:

Bully for him.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

He won't get mine with her on the ticket. I voted for change not another 8 yrs of Clintons.

The right wing welcomes your brilliant decision.

So now she's got nothing (literally) to lose.

:thumbsup:

Well, at least lately.

brings far too much baggage and would ultimately undermine Obama's credibility for being able to bring about change. Hell, even I would question think twice about voting for that ticket, because it would show how quickly Obama is willing to compromise his principles for political gain.

He's said that Clinton doesn't believe in grass-roots democracy (and so has she) - and that's the entire premise of his campaign. They are entirely incompatible and he has no obligation to tether himself to her, especially given the destructive and insulting warpath she's been on since February.

she's all about herself, just like Bill. It's time for them to go!

And it's another reason we'd be better off with Clinton as the nominee, since she'd have the sense to unite the party by asking her strongest rival to be on the ticket as VP. She's strong enough not to feel threatened, and practical enough to want to unite the party.

Giordano's been wrong before. For the sake of the Democratic party, I hope he's wrong this time.

First of all, I do not neccesarily believe this article, in fact I am very skeptical about it. Second of all, I am not going to start celebrating or anything else until this mess is over.

Finally, as far as your statement that "And it's another reason we'd be better off with Clinton as the nominee, since she'd have the sense to unite the party by asking her strongest rival to be on the ticket as VP. She's strong enough not to feel threatened, and practical enough to want to unite the party." There is a big difference in Hillary and Obama and it is not that she is stronger. Obama has not verbally attacked her or tried to divide the party/destroy the party. From what I have seen, Hillary has done both.

If Obama is the one who gets the Democratic nomination, I trust him to make a wise choice in who his running mate is, and I just hope it is someone who he can trust and who we can trust.

because no one would be threatening her. Meanwhile, Senator Clinton's statements and tactics make it seriously questionable whether she would truly be willing to play second fiddle and work under Obama. That seems to me to be insufficient justification to put her on top of the ticket by any means other than her winning by the established rules.

Ultimately, it comes down to the fact that she does not appear to stand for the kind of change Obama espouses. Good on him.

You actually think the majority of Americans is going to vote for a ticket with both a black man AND a woman??

To quote Bill Maher: Obama needs the whitest white man as his running mate.

I can just feel it in my bones. If she knows that he will not put her on the ticket, then she will take this all the way to the convention and her supporters are all going to stay home or vote for McCain. I think he is a fool if he does not take her on as VP choice. It is the only way to get those voters and remain united. This could be a rumor of course. I will only believe it when he picks someone else.

They will calm down and vote for the nominee.

They will calm down and vote for the nominee.

If this is true, then it puts him in a better light, for me, as he demonstrates his independence from the DLC, corporate Democrats.

It is a brave thing to do to reject the Clinton Machine.

in this race. All by itself, that fact automatically disqualifies Clinton(s). I continue to believe that the DLC is just a stealth wing of the conservative movement. They are not so much Democrats. Even with a small "d".

"I'm your daisy."

Hillary would only be in an Obama administration for sabotage purposes anyway.

Hillary Rodham Clinton is the anti-team player. Its all about her.

HE ALSO NOTES

in the comments' section, that Barack has enough super-delegates to put him over the top after MT and SD vote, even with MI and FL seated.

I knew he wouldn't do it. Obama is the real deal and having hilary on the ticket would destroy everything he's built up. I was more than a little surprised that some Obama supporters didn't know that about him.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.