The Clinton Thread

[Malice]

She is evil, pure evil

 

[Memphis Slim]

They both are liars.

One didn't know what his pastor/mentor/friend believed in for 20 years
and this one was ducking gunfire while on a dangerous mission.

 

[The Senator]

As much as I hate the Electorial College. I personally feel that an interstate compact does not have the right to do something like that.

An amendment to the Constitution is what needs to be done to get rid of it.

Why don't states have the right to do that?

They aren't getting rid of the electoral college. They're casting their votes in favor of the national popular vote winner. There's nothing in the constitution which says electors have to cast their ballot for whoever wins their state. And if enough states were to work that way, the electoral college would be considered irrelevant, and we wouldn't have to put up with all the ******** it takes to get an amendment tacked on to the Constitution.

 

[Excel]

I think it is stupid. Sorry Rhode Island.

 

[The Senator]

Come to think about it, the vast majority of states that Obama won in the primaries and caucuses are going to end up voting McCain also (the Southern and Midwestern states).

Not only that but it looks like Michigan might end up voting Republican as well thanks to the DNC and Obama ****ing them over. While Iowa and New Mexico would probably end up defecting to the Democrats, they won't make up for the loss of Michigan and maybe even Pennsylvania.

It's really looking like McCain will end up winning this thing at the moment.

Oh, that's absolutely true. Anyone who thinks the Democrats are going to win Michigan and Pennsylvania easily are naive. That's why the Dems need a candidate who can win big swing states. That's why, in all fairness, neither Hillary or Obama should be running for President. Aside from the fact that Clinton is divisive and Obama has as much political experience as the lamp sitting on my desk, neither candidate has an edge in states traditionally won by Republicans.

If Mark Warner was the nominee, he'd definitely pull in Virginia and West Virginia. He'd have a strong edge in Ohio, New Mexico, Colorado and Missouri because he is a moderate, and voters in those states traditionally elect moderate Democrats to statewide offices. He'd have a slight edge in North Carolina because he's a Southern governor, and the South loves people of their own kind. If Warner was the nominee, we could forgo Michigan and Pennsylvania and still come out on top. But if Warner was the nominee, we'd win those states, on top of a slew of others.

Thank you, Democratic Party, for picking demagogues over leaders.

 

[Matt]

Oh, that's absolutely true. Anyone who thinks the Democrats are going to win Michigan and Pennsylvania easily are naive. That's why the Dems need a candidate who can win big swing states. That's why, in all fairness, neither Hillary or Obama should be running for President. Aside from the fact that Clinton is divisive and Obama has as much political experience as the lamp sitting on my desk, neither candidate has an edge in states traditionally won by Republicans.

If Mark Warner was the nominee, he'd definitely pull in Virginia and West Virginia. He'd have a strong edge in Ohio, New Mexico, Colorado and Missouri because he is a moderate, and voters in those states traditionally elect moderate Democrats to statewide offices. He'd have a slight edge in North Carolina because he's a Southern governor, and the South loves people of their own kind. If Warner was the nominee, we could forgo Michigan and Pennsylvania and still come out on top. But if Warner was the nominee, we'd win those states, on top of a slew of others.

Thank you, Democratic Party, for picking demagogues over leaders.

I personally am pulling for a Democrat loss this year so we can get someone like Warner or Brown or some form of a Warner/Brown ticket in 2012.

Warner knew he did not have a chance this year with the media creating rockstar candidates, so he played it smart and ran for Senate. Come 2012 he will still be politically active and nationally relevant. It was a smart move.

 

[The Senator]

I personally am pulling for a Democrat loss this year so we can get someone like Warner or Brown or some form of a Warner/Brown ticket in 2012.

Warner knew he did not have a chance this year with the media creating rockstar candidates, so he played it smart and ran for Senate. Come 2012 he will still be politically active and nationally relevant. It was a smart move.

Warner/ Brown would be perfect.

But if the election was Warner vs. McCain this year, do the Dems realize that they could have been groundbreaking even without a woman or a minority at the top of the ticket? Think of the VP spot:

Warner/ Obama (most obvious)

Warner/ Sebelius (female Governor who would put Kansas in play)

Warner/ Napolitano (female Governor who would put Arizona and the west in play)

Warner/ Ford (former African American Congressman who would put Tennessee in play)

Warner/ Richardson (Hispanic Governor who would win New Mexico and would make the west more competitive)

All of these combinations are possible in four years, mind you, but I'm going to be rather upset if we lose the election this year, when we could have crushed the competition and been groundbreaking all the same.

 

[Matt]

Warner would've not only beat McCain, he would've embarrassed the hell out of McCain. A Warner/Obama ticket is something I could've gotten behind.

 

[The Senator]

Warner would've not only beat McCain, he would've embarrassed the hell out of McCain. A Warner/Obama ticket is something I could've gotten behind.

That would've been a dream ticket. Christ, we'd be almost certain to hold on to the presidency for sixteen years, barring any incident which would hinder our chances.

 

[Matt]

That would've been a dream ticket. Christ, we'd be almost certain to hold on to the presidency for sixteen years, barring any incident which would hinder our chances.

Warner has proven he knows how to work across the aisle (and by proven, I mean he actually has a long record of doing it and doesn't just talk about it like a certain candidate who shall remain nameless...Barack Obama). He has executive experience. He turned around the Viriginia economy and created a surplus while cutting taxes. He has experience in foreign policy (he serves on the board of the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs, and the national security taskforce of the Bipartisan Policy Council. This man has everything we need in a president. As it is, we are stuck with two pseudo-Democrats who have no business running for president and a grumpy old man who has proven that he will pander to any demographic that will get him elected no matter how much it goes against his beliefs.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Oh, that's absolutely true. Anyone who thinks the Democrats are going to win Michigan and Pennsylvania easily are naive. That's why the Dems need a candidate who can win big swing states. That's why, in all fairness, neither Hillary or Obama should be running for President. Aside from the fact that Clinton is divisive and Obama has as much political experience as the lamp sitting on my desk, neither candidate has an edge in states traditionally won by Republicans.

If Mark Warner was the nominee, he'd definitely pull in Virginia and West Virginia. He'd have a strong edge in Ohio, New Mexico, Colorado and Missouri because he is a moderate, and voters in those states traditionally elect moderate Democrats to statewide offices. He'd have a slight edge in North Carolina because he's a Southern governor, and the South loves people of their own kind. If Warner was the nominee, we could forgo Michigan and Pennsylvania and still come out on top. But if Warner was the nominee, we'd win those states, on top of a slew of others.

Thank you, Democratic Party, for picking demagogues over leaders.

I'd be down for voting Warner in a heartbeat.

 

[The Senator]

Warner has proven he knows how to work across the aisle (and by proven, I mean he actually has a long record of doing it and doesn't just talk about it like a certain candidate who shall remain nameless...Barack Obama). He has executive experience. He turned around the Viriginia economy and created a surplus while cutting taxes. He has experience in foreign policy (he serves on the board of the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs, and the national security taskforce of the Bipartisan Policy Council. This man has everything we need in a president. As it is, we are stuck with two pseudo-Democrats who have no business running for president and a grumpy old man who has proven that he will pander to any demographic that will get him elected no matter how much it goes against his beliefs.

Imagine how much Warner's resume will be improved upon, though, after four years in the Senate. Only two other mainstream prospective candidates would have the same amount of experience as Warner: Evan Bayh and Bill Richardson. And all three would make outstanding Presidents, in my book.

 

[rdh007]

Stop talking about Warner. We'll all agree and this won't be any fun anymore.

 

[Matt]

Imagine how much Warner's resume will be improved upon, though, after four years in the Senate. Only two other mainstream prospective candidates would have the same amount of experience as Warner: Evan Bayh and Bill Richardson. And all three would make outstanding Presidents, in my book.

Yep, and the best part is, the worst choice we may be looking at in 2012 is who to vote for, Bayh, Warner, or Brown and that is a decision I will gladly make. Brown could very well be the dark horse who comes out of no where to win the primary, but if that is the case, Warner makes the perfect running mate for him (his moderate policies balance Brown's liberal policies well). Or vice-versa. And god knows they both balance each other geographically, perfectly. Brown is from the ever swinging Ohio and Warner is from the North. I'll glady endure 4 years of McCain to see Warner/Brown or Brown/Warner or Warner/Bayh or Bayh/Warner.

 

[Matt]

Stop talking about Warner. We'll all agree and this won't be any fun anymore.

That's how sad this is, though. We had the perfect candidate knocking on our doors and the party told him "Maybe next time."

 

[The Senator]

Yep, and the best part is, the worst choice we may be looking at in 2012 is who to vote for, Bayh, Warner, or Brown and that is a decision I will gladly make. Brown could very well be the dark horse who comes out of no where to win the primary, but if that is the case, Warner makes the perfect running mate for him (his moderate policies balance Brown's liberal policies well). Or vice-versa. And god knows they both balance each other geographically, perfectly. Brown is from the ever swinging Ohio and Warner is from the North. I'll glady endure 4 years of McCain to see Warner/Brown or Brown/Warner or Warner/Bayh or Bayh/Warner.

Virginians consider themselves a part of the South

(well, half of Virginia should technically be considered the south. No one speaks with a Southern dialect in Northern VA, but once you hit South of Richmond, it's hard to separate South VA from South Carolina).

 

[The Senator]

Here's a working list of folks who would be knock-out candidates for the Dems in 2012:

Mark Warner: Governor of VA (2001-2005); United States Senator (VA) (2008-?)
Evan Bayh: Governor of Indiana (1988-1998); United States Senator (IN) (1998-?)
Sherrod Brown: United States Representative from Ohio (1992-2006); United States Senator (OH) (2006-?)
Bill Richardson: United States Representative from New Mexico (1983-1997); UN Ambassador (1997-1998); Secretary of Energy (1997-2000); Governor of New Mexico (2002-2010)
Kathlene Sebelius: Governor of Kansas (2002-2010)
Janet Napolitano: Governor of Arizona (2002-2010) (might appoint herself Senator in 2008 if McCain retires or wins the Presidency)
Brian Schweitzer: Governor of Montana (2004-2012)

All these guys are moderates from swing states who would most likely crush McCain if he ran for re-election in 2012.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Here's a working list of folks who would be knock-out candidates for the Dems in 2012:

Mark Warner: Governor of VA (2001-2005); United States Senator (VA) (2008-?)
Evan Bayh: Governor of Indiana (1988-1998); United States Senator (IN) (1998-?)
Sherrod Brown: United States Representative from Ohio (1992-2006); United States Senator (OH) (2006-?)
Bill Richardson: United States Representative from New Mexico (1983-1997); UN Ambassador (1997-1998); Secretary of Energy (1997-2000); Governor of New Mexico (2002-2010)
Kathlene Sebelius: Governor of Kansas (2002-2010)
Janet Napolitano: Governor of Arizona (2002-2010) (might appoint herself Senator in 2008 if McCain retires or wins the Presidency)
Brian Schweitzer: Governor of Montana (2004-2012)

All these guys are moderates from swing states who would most likely crush McCain if he ran for re-election in 2012.

I'd rather wait for Warner to run in 2016. Because if McCain does a good job in his first term, he'll easily win re-election.

And if Warner lost, he'll never run again because the Democratic Party tends to reject its losers (look at Kerry and Dukakis).

 

[The Senator]

I'd rather wait for Warner to run in 2016. Because if McCain does a good job in his first term, he'll easily win re-election.

Didn't Bush, for the most part, do good in his first term before he was kicked out of office?

Also, if McCain is in a position like Reagan where re-election is almost guaranteed, the Dems would probably run the loser of this primary instead, and Warner probably wouldn't run in the first place.

 

[Super_Ludacris]

lol@ waiting another 4-8 years.

 

[The Senator]

lol@ waiting another 4-8 years.

I'd rather wait 4-8 years and be guaranteed the Presidency for 8-16 years than elect an inexperienced demagogue who will be defeated in four and make it exceptionally hard for Democrats to run strong candidates in the future.

I have a gut feeling that Obama will be another Jimmy Carter, and that we'll be swearing in President Romney in 2013.

 

[Super_Ludacris]

I'd rather wait 4-8 years, losing this election with a flimsy inexperienced demagogue as our candidate, and be guaranteed the Presidency for 8-16 years than elect someone who will be defeated in four and make it exceptionally hard for Democrats to run strong candidates in the future.

I have a gut feeling that Obama will be another Jimmy Carter, and that we'll be swearing in President Romney in 2013.

Dont worry cause if people think of Obama and Carter as that, then regardless, the democrats are never getting a guaruntee of 8-16 years unless we have a Liberman type democratic......who's not jewish, lol.

 

[Matt]

Didn't Bush, for the most part, do good in his first term before he was kicked out of office?

Also, if McCain is in a position like Reagan where re-election is almost guaranteed, the Dems would probably run the loser of this primary instead, and Warner probably wouldn't run in the first place.

Bush Sr. was passable...but two things killed him.

1) "No new taxes." He should've never said it. Breaking that promise hurt him a lot with fiscal conservatives and led to the reason number...

2) Ross Perot. He ate up nearly 20 % of the vote. Votes that likely would've gone to Bush. People talk about Nader killing the Democrats in 2000? Perot was ruining elections for Republicans while Nader was still in diapers. Bush probably would've won in a landslide were it not for Perot.

 

[Matt]

Dont worry cause if people think of Obama and Carter as that, then regardless, the democrats are never getting a guaruntee of 8-16 years unless we have a Liberman type democratic......who's not jewish, lol.

There is a good chance Obama could turn out like Carter.

A young, well intentioned, Washington outsider who really isn't qualified to be President, but captures it in the midst of controversy (for Carter it was the pardoning of Nixon, for Obama it will be the Bush administration in general). They take office during troubling times and their tenure in office reflects that they had no business being president, especially in such complicated times. This allows for a charasmatic, conservative Republican (in Carter's case, Reagan, Bobby Jindal could possibly be this to Barack Obama) to come out of no where and beat them and lead to several years of Republican control (1981 - 2006)

 

[Matt]

I'd rather wait for Warner to run in 2016. Because if McCain does a good job in his first term, he'll easily win re-election.

And if Warner lost, he'll never run again because the Democratic Party tends to reject its losers (look at Kerry and Dukakis).

My prediction:

McCain will pick a really conservative running mate (Rick Santorum-style) so he can start to drift back to the middle and win independents. But I doubt McCain will survive his first term. That will allow a Democrat like Warner to take the White House with relative ease in 2012.