think the Clinton VP offer is a trap and Obama has been very careful not to step in it.
I think she knows she is going to lose the nomimation and is opening up the door for herself to step in the VP slot. I think most people would agree it would be a winning ticket.
I think in this particular election, any obama ticket is a winning ticket, just because he can steal independants that mccain might otherwise grab, and mccain cant energize his base.
Hillary would probably actually hurt him with independants.
Obama should pick someone with strong national security credentials who is not a polarizing figure.
ps. some news source is now predicting that clinton would have to win superdelegates at a rate of 2 to 1 of obama in order to win the nomination.
"I'm just enjoying the irony. I'm an Obama supporter," said the high school senior, who will turn 18 next month, well before the election in November.
Still, Knowles made it clear she disliked Clinton's ad.
"What I don't like about the ad is it's fear-mongering. I think it's a cheap hit to take. I really prefer Obama's message of looking forward to a bright future," Knowles said. "I think that's a much stronger message."
Obama has to some how convince them to come over to his side.
Not that hard. 1. If the democrats go against the will of the people it will lead to massive youth and african american disenfranchisement, hurting the party for decades. 2. Obama supporters will feel betrayed and stay home. If supers go for Obama, and he won more of the delegates anyway, the supers can claim they were just going with the will of the people. Hill. supporters won't be too upset because they won't feel "robbed" 3. Obama matches up against McCain better than Hillary does anyway.
Obama is dealing with the VP thing very well, I think. If the president dies, is impeached or is otherwise unable to run the country, then the VP must step in to run the country. In fact, that's the whole reason a VP is chosen (especially when the president is as old as McCain). So he's saying that Clinton is being two-faced again, saying anything to get elected etc. etc.
BUT DAMN, the Clintons are smart. it was BILL who said that Hillary-Obama would be a dream ticket, not Hillary. So if Obama hadn't picked up on it, they could keep hinting at it. But now that he has, Hillary can just say, "Oh, there's my husband saying things he shouldn't again. Tut tut."
And with weeks to Pennsylvania, everyone will have forgotten it by then.
On March 11 2008 18:41 The Storyteller wrote: Obama is dealing with the VP thing very well, I think. If the president dies, is impeached or is otherwise unable to run the country, then the VP must step in to run the country. In fact, that's the whole reason a VP is chosen (especially when the president is as old as McCain). So he's saying that Clinton is being two-faced again, saying anything to get elected etc. etc.
Yeah. It is clearly two faced, especially given what Pelosi noted.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California, who hasn't endorsed either candidate, said a unity ticket was impossible.
She said the Clinton campaign "has fairly ruled that out by proclaiming that Senator McCain would be a better commander in chief than Obama."
Seems like Pelosi is a Obama superdelegate in waiting! :o
On March 11 2008 18:41 The Storyteller wrote: Obama is dealing with the VP thing very well, I think. If the president dies, is impeached or is otherwise unable to run the country, then the VP must step in to run the country. In fact, that's the whole reason a VP is chosen (especially when the president is as old as McCain). So he's saying that Clinton is being two-faced again, saying anything to get elected etc. etc.
BUT DAMN, the Clintons are smart. it was BILL who said that Hillary-Obama would be a dream ticket, not Hillary. So if Obama hadn't picked up on it, they could keep hinting at it. But now that he has, Hillary can just say, "Oh, there's my husband saying things he shouldn't again. Tut tut."
And with weeks to Pennsylvania, everyone will have forgotten it by then.
hahaha
you want to know the funny thing?
the jesse jackson comment that lost them the black vote?
On March 11 2008 18:41 The Storyteller wrote: Obama is dealing with the VP thing very well, I think. If the president dies, is impeached or is otherwise unable to run the country, then the VP must step in to run the country. In fact, that's the whole reason a VP is chosen (especially when the president is as old as McCain). So he's saying that Clinton is being two-faced again, saying anything to get elected etc. etc.
BUT DAMN, the Clintons are smart. it was BILL who said that Hillary-Obama would be a dream ticket, not Hillary. So if Obama hadn't picked up on it, they could keep hinting at it. But now that he has, Hillary can just say, "Oh, there's my husband saying things he shouldn't again. Tut tut."
And with weeks to Pennsylvania, everyone will have forgotten it by then.
hahaha
you want to know the funny thing?
the jesse jackson comment that lost them the black vote?
fed to bill by mark penn :D
You can't be serious! How could anyone be so stupid? Oh man... I'm looking at the exit polls. 91-9 support for Obama among blacks? Wow.
I also read in today's papers that Clinton won Texas because Republicans registered and voted for her in droves, hoping to prolong the nomination process and possibly get her as an easily defeatable candidate against John McCain. That conspiracy theory sounds kinda dodgy to me, though.
Come on Obama, you got the next 6 weeks to kill her! Take Pennsylvania and finish this!
i don't want to derail this highly interesting thread, but i think my question fits in quite well here.
do you think your voting system is actually democratic?
first off, it's a majority voting system. it doesn't exclusively matter who gets more votes, the results are determined in a complicated way, taking an unnecessary detour over representatives/delegates. some people's votes are worth more than others', depending on which state they live in and other factors. what bothers me immensely is that you can get fewer votes than your opponent and still win. my political understanding is that the candidate with most votes should obviously be the winner. that isn't necessarily the case in the US! can't you just vote everywhere at the same time, count the popular vote and determine the winner this way?
next, the majority voting system, as a matter of principle, eliminates all small parties, automatically reducing the system to two parties. small parties never have a chance to grow strong enough to win a single state. all diversity is missing.
on the other hand, alternative views must eventually find their way into the two big parties, blurring their core views. noone can say what "the democrats" or "the republicans" stand for exactly, because they internally have a wide spectrum of political views. you can only roughly say that democrats are more left-wing and republicans are the right-wingers. the radical skinhead, the religious preacher and the capitalistic business manager may have very very different interests and political opinions, but still they will typically vote for the same republican party. does that make any sense?
lastly, the donation system. in Austria, a big part of campaigning costs is paid for by the country, whereas each party receives an amount of money depending on how many votes it received in the last election. you may argue against this, but look at the alternative: in the US, costs are covered by private sponsors. it is quite obvious to me that if a candidate wants sufficient campaigning funds, he must sell his soul to lobbies and companies. in return for the money, the president of course works in favor of those sponsors once elected. arms industry anyone? the system is inherently corrupt!
don't you agree that there are huge fundamental flaws in USA's political system?
On March 12 2008 22:36 Scorch wrote: i don't want to derail this highly interesting thread, but i think my question fits in quite well here.
do you think your voting system is actually democratic?
first off, it's a majority voting system. it doesn't exclusively matter who gets more votes, the results are determined in a complicated way, taking an unnecessary detour over representatives/delegates. some people's votes are worth more than others', depending on which state they live in and other factors. what bothers me immensely is that you can get fewer votes than your opponent and still win. my political understanding is that the candidate with most votes should obviously be the winner. that isn't necessarily the case in the US! can't you just vote everywhere at the same time, count the popular vote and determine the winner this way?
next, the majority voting system, as a matter of principle, eliminates all small parties, automatically reducing the system to two parties. small parties never have a chance to grow strong enough to win a single state. all diversity is missing.
on the other hand, alternative views must eventually find their way into the two big parties, blurring their core views. noone can say what "the democrats" or "the republicans" stand for exactly, because they internally have a wide spectrum of political views. you can only roughly say that democrats are more left-wing and republicans are the right-wingers. the radical skinhead, the religious preacher and the capitalistic business manager may have very very different interests and political opinions, but still they will typically vote for the same republican party. does that make any sense?
lastly, the donation system. in Austria, a big part of campaigning costs is paid for by the country, whereas each party receives an amount of money depending on how many votes it received in the last election. you may argue against this, but look at the alternative: in the US, costs are covered by private sponsors. it is quite obvious to me that if a candidate wants sufficient campaigning funds, he must sell his soul to lobbies and companies. in return for the money, the president of course works in favor of those sponsors once elected. arms industry anyone? the system is inherently corrupt!
don't you agree that there are huge fundamental flaws in USA's political system?
The electoral college, super delegates, etc all fucking suck, definitely. It's a load of shit.
I dont see how a majority voting system eliminates small parties (what else would we use?) but yeah, I agree that we need more than 2 parties. I'm a moderate leaning democrat, not a hardcore liberal.
About donations, I really don't see how, unless you're a millionaire, would be able to run without them? Yeah, it sucks, but it doesn't seem like there's anothe way. You could just opt to not take lobbiest $.
On March 12 2008 22:36 Scorch wrote: first off, it's a majority voting system. it doesn't exclusively matter who gets more votes, the results are determined in a complicated way, taking an unnecessary detour over representatives/delegates. some people's votes are worth more than others', depending on which state they live in and other factors. what bothers me immensely is that you can get fewer votes than your opponent and still win. my political understanding is that the candidate with most votes should obviously be the winner. that isn't necessarily the case in the US! can't you just vote everywhere at the same time, count the popular vote and determine the winner this way?
This is only selecting the nominee for a particular political party. Hell, they could've just nominated someone without even asking the public, but it's in the party's best interests to select someone that the public wants to see if they want to win the election in November.
next, the majority voting system, as a matter of principle, eliminates all small parties, automatically reducing the system to two parties. small parties never have a chance to grow strong enough to win a single state. all diversity is missing.
on the other hand, alternative views must eventually find their way into the two big parties, blurring their core views. noone can say what "the democrats" or "the republicans" stand for exactly, because they internally have a wide spectrum of political views. you can only roughly say that democrats are more left-wing and republicans are the right-wingers. the radical skinhead, the religious preacher and the capitalistic business manager may have very very different interests and political opinions, but still they will typically vote for the same republican party. does that make any sense?
Most democratic countries in the world operate in this fashion. I don't know anything about the Austrian electoral process, but how is it different there?
lastly, the donation system. in Austria, a big part of campaigning costs is paid for by the country, whereas each party receives an amount of money depending on how many votes it received in the last election. you may argue against this, but look at the alternative: in the US, costs are covered by private sponsors. it is quite obvious to me that if a candidate wants sufficient campaigning funds, he must sell his soul to lobbies and companies. in return for the money, the president of course works in favor of those sponsors once elected. arms industry anyone? the system is inherently corrupt!
Obama has not taken one cent from lobbies or companies. His campaign is funded 100% from public donations, with the average amount under $100 (don't remember the exact figure).
I'm pretty sure there's a youtube link in this threat to a democrats discussion about public funding for elections. Somewhere in the 30s (pages) if I remember correctly.
On March 12 2008 22:36 Scorch wrote: first off, it's a majority voting system. it doesn't exclusively matter who gets more votes, the results are determined in a complicated way, taking an unnecessary detour over representatives/delegates. some people's votes are worth more than others', depending on which state they live in and other factors. what bothers me immensely is that you can get fewer votes than your opponent and still win. my political understanding is that the candidate with most votes should obviously be the winner. that isn't necessarily the case in the US! can't you just vote everywhere at the same time, count the popular vote and determine the winner this way?
This is only selecting the nominee for a particular political party. Hell, they could've just nominated someone without even asking the public, but it's in the party's best interests to select someone that the public wants to see if they want to win the election in November.
sure they do it for their best interest, but the voting process itself is too complicated. why use delegates when you could just count popular vote instead? furthermore, the real election works the same way if i'm not mistaken. if one candidate wins a state, he takes all delegates from that state, and all remaining votes are discarded. let's make up an example for three states of 1 million voters each. candidate A gets 70%, 45% and 45% of popular vote in the three states, while candidate B gets 30%, 55% and 55% respectively. A has significantly more votes (1.6 million vs B's 1.4 million), but B has twice as many delegates and wins the election. how is this democratic?
next, the majority voting system, as a matter of principle, eliminates all small parties, automatically reducing the system to two parties. small parties never have a chance to grow strong enough to win a single state. all diversity is missing.
on the other hand, alternative views must eventually find their way into the two big parties, blurring their core views. noone can say what "the democrats" or "the republicans" stand for exactly, because they internally have a wide spectrum of political views. you can only roughly say that democrats are more left-wing and republicans are the right-wingers. the radical skinhead, the religious preacher and the capitalistic business manager may have very very different interests and political opinions, but still they will typically vote for the same republican party. does that make any sense?
Most democratic countries in the world operate in this fashion. I don't know anything about the Austrian electoral process, but how is it different there?
no, not most democratic countries operate this way. actually, the only two countries that i spontaneously recall working this way are US and UK. most countries use a proportional representation, where each party gets a number of seats in the parliament (almost) directly proportional to the number of votes it received. in austria, there is a minimum of 4% of popular vote to get any seats at all. there are currently five parties in our parliament, with social democrats and people's party forming a coalition in order to gain the majority and thus govern the country. for presidential elections (the president isn't as powerful in our country), everyone just casts their vote, and the candidate with most votes wins [optional second ballot between two most popular candidates if noone could obtain a majority in the first ballot].
lastly, the donation system. in Austria, a big part of campaigning costs is paid for by the country, whereas each party receives an amount of money depending on how many votes it received in the last election. you may argue against this, but look at the alternative: in the US, costs are covered by private sponsors. it is quite obvious to me that if a candidate wants sufficient campaigning funds, he must sell his soul to lobbies and companies. in return for the money, the president of course works in favor of those sponsors once elected. arms industry anyone? the system is inherently corrupt!
Obama has not taken one cent from lobbies or companies. His campaign is funded 100% from public donations, with the average amount under $100 (don't remember the exact figure).
i highly doubt obama didn't take a single dollar from large companies, but yeah, he is much better in this regard than other candidates, which is part of why i support him. you'll have to admit though that he is definitely the exception rather than the rule. clinton is corrupt, but that seems to be accepted in america.
Obama has not taken one cent from lobbies or companies. His campaign is funded 100% from public donations, with the average amount under $100 (don't remember the exact figure).
If you think that, then Obama has really suckered you. It's not true of any candidate in any modern election. There's no way a 'grassroots' effort could raise all that he's raised, no matter the fervor of his disciples.
For example, reported by the New York Times, no less, that he has taken from business.
As for lobbyists, only after Rezko was caught did Obama back down, and he technically took money from him. He has long ties compromising with the lobbyists he now demonizes, and when he actually faces them, he backs down. It's just hot rhetoric; he just wants the votes of people who go white with fear at business interests in government.
EPT
