Obama's Running Mate?

[we vs us]

Er, if we're really taking this topic seriously, I'm still pulling for Edwards.  I don't know if he'd be a strategic fit, but he'd sure be a sentimental one. Jim Webb is another one. Both are southern white fellas who could bring in some crucial constituencies.  I personally like 'em both because they're each unabashed populists.

[FOTD]

Agreed. But Webb has stated he prefers to work the Senate....could be the guy who steps into Kennedy's place. Webb is terrific. Edwards said he won't do it again. Hated the Kerry deal. Posiible AG? Someone's got to clean up that justice mess. Wes Clark is another, an olive branch offered to those Clinton's....My personal favorite would be Biden. But that might not help the Southern strategy. But Biden might help in Penn. and Ohio. Nothing will help Florida.(Recount).

[RecycleMichael]

If the democrats can win back the south, they will be in charge of the house, the senate and the presidency for a generation.

I like the Kansas governor Kathleen Sebelius, John Edwards and Joe Biden in that order.

[pmcalk]

I also think McCaskill would be a good choice.  Edwards mentioned that he was interested in the Attorney General slot.  I think that would be a good position for him (if not the Vice Presidency).

[RecycleMichael]

Who knows who she will pick.

[Gaspar]

From the talk this morning, Hillary has shut herself out of all possibility of being Veep with her Kennedy comment.

[FOTD]

Colin Powell....That would do it.

[Gaspar]

quote:Originally posted by FOTD

Colin Powell....That would do it.

That would be a great ticket.  Liberal Obama and Conservitive Powell.  Would never happen, but if it did, it would be a freight train.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Gaspar

quote:Originally posted by FOTD

Colin Powell....That would do it.

That would be a great ticket.  Liberal Obama and Conservitive Powell.  Would never happen, but if it did, it would be a freight train.

Would be especially interesting if Obama was liberal and Powell was conservative. They are both pretty moderate by objective standards. Of course by Tulsa perspectives you are right.

You want liberal put Ted Kennedy on the ticket. You want conservative match him with Inhofe. Now that's an freight train wreck!

[Gaspar]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

quote:Originally posted by Gaspar

quote:Originally posted by FOTD

Colin Powell....That would do it.

That would be a great ticket.  Liberal Obama and Conservitive Powell.  Would never happen, but if it did, it would be a freight train.

Would be especially interesting if Obama was liberal and Powell was conservative. They are both pretty moderate by objective standards. Of course by Tulsa perspectives you are right.

You want liberal put Ted Kennedy on the ticket. You want conservative match him with Inhofe. Now that's an freight train wreck!

Perhaps you are right, by Tulsa standards.  Obama is averaging 10 billion in new promised programs per speech.  He's at about 600,000,000,000 in new programs now, and by November he may reach 1,000,000,000,000 in nanny-state promises.

He's almost doubled the spending that Hillary promised, and she is considered significantly liberal.  It's hard to compare him to Kennedy, unless you compare his published opinion on most bills.  Kennedy voted over the last couple of years on a significant body of legislation.  Obama has registered a "NOT VOTING" position on most bills.  But, Obama's published opinions match Ted's almost exactly.

So if Ted is your barometer of "Liberal" than you should be happy that Mr. Obama is right there with him!. . . Just not in attendance for the vote.  He's busy!

Oup!  I just noticed on my RSS feed that he just made a 10 billion dollar housing bailout commitment.

That must be today's 10 billion.  []

Does anyone really believe he's going to be able to spend like this?

Pander PANDER pander pan pan Pander.

[FOTD]

quote:Originally posted by Gaspar

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

quote:Originally posted by Gaspar

quote:Originally posted by FOTD

Colin Powell....That would do it.

That would be a great ticket.  Liberal Obama and Conservitive Powell.  Would never happen, but if it did, it would be a freight train.

Would be especially interesting if Obama was liberal and Powell was conservative. They are both pretty moderate by objective standards. Of course by Tulsa perspectives you are right.

You want liberal put Ted Kennedy on the ticket. You want conservative match him with Inhofe. Now that's an freight train wreck!

Perhaps you are right, by Tulsa standards.  Obama is averaging 10 billion in new promised programs per speech.  He's at about 600,000,000,000 in new programs now, and by November he may reach 1,000,000,000,000 in nanny-state promises.

He's almost doubled the spending that Hillary promised, and she is considered significantly liberal.  It's hard to compare him to Kennedy, unless you compare his published opinion on most bills.  Kennedy voted over the last couple of years on a significant body of legislation.  Obama has registered a "NOT VOTING" position on most bills.  But, Obama's published opinions match Ted's almost exactly.

So if Ted is your barometer of "Liberal" than you should be happy that Mr. Obama is right there with him!. . . Just not in attendance for the vote.  He's busy!

Oup!  I just noticed on my RSS feed that he just made a 10 billion dollar housing bailout commitment.

That must be today's 10 billion.  []

Does anyone really believe he's going to be able to spend like this?

Pander PANDER pander pan pan Pander.

John McCain says a housing bailout is not justified.

Will our taxpayer dollars continue to go disproportionately to our military and defense as in the past? Or should it be redirected towards our needs here at home? Do we get the biggest bang for our buck overseas? Are we dumbing down our nation as our investment lacks little return.

Maybe such return to the citizenry is dependent on which leaders we place that will make our government by and for the people. The efforts to win votes, what you call pander, is normal in an election.

[Gaspar]

I think McCain is right on that.  Why should we bail out people who purchased 10 times more home than they needed or could afford?

Why should be help the lenders responsible for inflating what we would call a $100,000 home to a $500,000 home on the West coast and then encouraging home-buyers to purchase with the promise of 20% artificial yearly appreciation?

If no one learns a lesson from this because Mommy government swoops in and bails you out, then we should just give up and let the government make home-buying decisions for everyone.

The greatest freedom we have is the freedom to fail!


When you subsidize poverty and failure, you get more of both. – James Dale Davidson, National Taxpayers Union

Capitalism without failure is like religion without sin. Bankruptcies and losses concentrate the mind on prudent behavior. – Allan H. Meltzer

The economic miracle that has been the United States was not produced by socialized enterprises, by government-unon-industry cartels or by centralized economic planning. It was produced by private enterprises in a profit-and-loss system. And losses were at least as important in weeding out failures, as profits in fostering successes. Let government succor failures, and we shall be headed for stagnation and decline. – Milton Friedman

[we vs us]

quote:Originally posted by Gaspar

Perhaps you are right, by Tulsa standards.  Obama is averaging 10 billion in new promised programs per speech.  He's at about 600,000,000,000 in new programs now, and by November he may reach 1,000,000,000,000 in nanny-state promises.

You know what I think you need on your website?  I think you need to have a big digital clock clicking along on the front page, like the Doomsday clock, or the National Debt clock, except you could call it the Nanny State Clock, and you could painstaking tally up all the governmental programs you personally find odious or wasteful or sinister or detrimental to the poor or whatever, and add them to the running total on the Nanny State Clock.  If you could do that on your website it would be totally cool, because then it would be on your website, and I could visit only when I wanted to be clunked over the head repeatedly with libertarian axe grinding.  Who knows?  It might free you up to think more deeply about how modern democracy can work for the benefit of its citizens in a complex, global world!

quote:
Pander PANDER pander pan pan Pander.

Hey there.  Looks like the Pander hand on your Nanny State clock is stuck.

[FOTD]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/28/opinion/28dowd.html?ex=1212638400&en=9513526cb029970e&ei=5070&emc=eta1

Funny from Maureen today....

[joiei]

quote:Originally posted by Gaspar

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

quote:Originally posted by Gaspar

quote:Originally posted by FOTD

Colin Powell....That would do it.

That would be a great ticket.  Liberal Obama and Conservitive Powell.  Would never happen, but if it did, it would be a freight train.

Would be especially interesting if Obama was liberal and Powell was conservative. They are both pretty moderate by objective standards. Of course by Tulsa perspectives you are right.

You want liberal put Ted Kennedy on the ticket. You want conservative match him with Inhofe. Now that's an freight train wreck!

Perhaps you are right, by Tulsa standards.  Obama is averaging 10 billion in new promised programs per speech.  He's at about 600,000,000,000 in new programs now, and by November he may reach 1,000,000,000,000 in nanny-state promises.

He's almost doubled the spending that Hillary promised, and she is considered significantly liberal.  It's hard to compare him to Kennedy, unless you compare his published opinion on most bills.  Kennedy voted over the last couple of years on a significant body of legislation.  Obama has registered a "NOT VOTING" position on most bills.  But, Obama's published opinions match Ted's almost exactly.

So if Ted is your barometer of "Liberal" than you should be happy that Mr. Obama is right there with him!. . . Just not in attendance for the vote.  He's busy!

Oup!  I just noticed on my RSS feed that he just made a 10 billion dollar housing bailout commitment.

That must be today's 10 billion.  []

Does anyone really believe he's going to be able to spend like this?

Pander PANDER pander pan pan Pander.

Make all the jokes you want.  No one group can spend like the current bunch of Republicans.  I doubt that Democrats can even come close to the spending levels of the Bush/Cheney conglomerate.  They have already spent my kids education funds and my retirement.  And they are still in office.