Don't like "The Dream Team"?

[maddiejoan]

How about this?

Petition the DNC to have Wes Clark give the keynote address at what looks to be an inevitable brokered convention.
Have him make his case for bringing home the Troops and have him speak about both Clinton and Obama in glowing terms.

Have both candidates agree to having Clark as their VP, and throw open the voting to either a Clinton/Clark ticket or an Obama/Clark ticket.

For Obama --Wes Clark has the added bonus of being able to possibly bring Clinton supporters back into the fold, bring in the South and also has the National Security creds.

I also think Clark would work well for Clinton, and his energy and charisma and stance on Iraq might appeal to Obama supporters.

Clark as VP would be a good 'unity' choice

[JDPriestly]

1. Excellent proposal.

[JackORoses]

2. Wes Clark is a full-out Hill-Shill

He has joined her to say that Obama is unprepared.

Neither he or Hillary should get anywhere near the White House.

It's amazingly funny watching Hillarites cry 'Unity, Unity' now that they are beaten.
When they still had a chance, they mocked us for seeking unity and speaking of hope.

It's just damn hypocritical.

[maddiejoan]

4. Does Obama wish to crap on half the Party?

or does he wish to be President?

[JackORoses]

10. Hillary has lost. She doesn't have any say in what happens now.

And just because she has put her supporters into trench warfare mentality by her actions in the past couple weeks,
does not mean that they get to bully her onto the ticket.
Do you not see that she is unable to get on the ticket on her own, so she is attempting to use her supporters as bargaining chips to get onto Obama's ticket?


Obama has won this.
He gets to choose his own VP.

[maddiejoan]

18. With all due respect

then he could easily wind up our third failed attempt at the White House.

I don't particularly relish that risk.

BTW --the same goes for Clinton.

[JackORoses]

33. oh, I see. Now the Hillarite talking point is "We can't win without Hillary"

How transparent and self-serving.

Obama will beat McCain by more without Hillary.

[maddiejoan]

37. Read the freakin' OP

instead of knee-jerking

Obama can win without Hillary --he CAN'T win without Hillary's supporters.

[OnionPatch]

40. So are Hillary's supporters going to hold us hostage with their votes?

Hillary can't win without Obama supporters, either. Two can play that game.

[maddiejoan]

44. Hence my OP

[JackORoses]

42. Hillary's supporters will vote Democratic in the Fall

Quit pretending that this is some kind of bargaining tool.

The real Democrats will vote Democratic in November.
The only reason Hillarites won't vote Obama, is if Hillary continues to make him out to be less qualified than McCain.

It is up to Hillary to swallow her pride and do what is right.

[maddiejoan]

47. Don't bet on it

Unless it's Clark or Clinton on his ticket --I'll just go write in my first choice.

Dennis Kucinich.

[JackORoses]

57. You are a rarity. Most Hillarites are the name recognition crowd.

Those of you here on DU do not represent the majority of Hillary supporters,
otherwise, she would do much better in Caucuses.

Most of her voters are not political junkies. They are going for her because she seems like the more familiar, traditional Democrat.
These people don't have near as much invested in Hillary as you do.
They will have no problem voting for the Democratic Nominee.

[maddiejoan]

60. They'll probably

just sit at home then, at least in a large enough percentage to make a problem for Obama.

[JackORoses]

66. Isn't it sad that this is what you want?

Obama has won, and you are so biased that you can't even support him.

Are you a Democrat first, or a Hillarite?

I think most of her supporters would say they are Democrats first.

[maddiejoan]

73. I'm a MaddieJoanite first.

a human being second

a woman third

an artist fourth

a queer fifth

an American citizen sixth

a Jew seventh

a Democrat eighth

Probably a Hillary supporter around fiftieth or so.

I'm sorry that you are so offended that I don't find Obama a compelling candidate. Truth to tell of the original field of Democratic candidates --he was my last choice --and by a wide margin.
I am not enthused, even marginally, by the idea of a President Obama. If I were in a swing state, I'd probably vote for him.

But I'm not.

I live in NY.

NYC specifically.

It would go for Obama regardless. Faced with that, why on earth should I vote for Obama without some representation of my liking on the ticket?
If Hillary is not the nominee --or if Obama picks a VP that I do not also support, damned right I'll write in Dennis Kucinich.
That would, at least, have some semblance of meaning for me as a vote.

[Swamp Rat]

80. "a Jew seventh?!?" - ANTI-SEMITE!!!

:D

[maddiejoan]

84. heh

It's mostly cos I enjoy bacon.

[Swamp Rat]

86. LOLOLOL!!!!

:rofl:

[JackORoses]

87. so you would vote for Obama if you were in a swing state?

how does that fit in with your claim that Hillarites would sit it out in November?

I think you are greatly overestimating the number of People loyal to Hillary over the Democratic Party.
Admittedly, even you are not so loyal as to risk losing to McCain.

[maddiejoan]

91. As you said

I'm a rarity.

The fact is --Obama is drawing 'soft' support from new voters.

Counting on them while throwing out the 'base' is dangerous --and you know it.

As far as loyalty goes? That's your deal --not mine.
But that's the problem when you support and need a "leader" instead of a "public servant".

My answer in short?

Does your chewing gum lose it's flavor on the bedpost overnight?

[clevbot]

93. soft?

My support is not 'soft' because I am new voter and we aren't throwing out the 'base' we are just moving the base. The 'base' you speak of will vote democrat no matter what.

[maddiejoan]

97. we'll see won't we.

[JackORoses]

100. The base will vote Democratic. That is why they are called the base.

The new voters is what will win the election and bring the coattails to build a working Majority.

The President is supposed to be a Leader, not some kind of bureaucratic manager.

The true Power of the Presidency is in the ability to focus the will of the people on an agenda.
We have not had a President who knows this for some time.

We are used to a President who abuses their power to run things their way.

The true President is concentrated on finding out the will of the people(Zeitgeist), building a platform around this,
and then leading the People in putting pressure on Congress to move on it.

Congress is adrift with a Unitary Executive as it is.
We need someone who inspires the People to get involved en masse to make bills become laws. To make change a reality.

This is the Power of Inspiration.
The Power that the US President is supposed to employ.

Barack Obama is an Everlasting Gobstopper.

[krkaufman]

32. On that issue, you're wrong.

Hillary very likely *will* have a say in how things go down, as Obama will need her support for pulling the party back together -- after the damage she has done in tearing it apart.

[JackORoses]

35. the only say she has is over how much damage she does.

She doesn't have any claim to the Nomination.

[krkaufman]

61. No, but the threat of damage gives her power.

And I don't view the Clintons as people who wouldn't use every bit of power at their disposal to advance their agenda.

[clevbot]

94. yeah

but the only Clinton agenda is getting the nomination. Hillary/Bill keep suggesting the Clinton/Obama ticket... not going to happen. I don't see them 'lowering' themselves to the VP position.

[Splinter Cell]

90. Amen!

It's time for Hillary to step aside.

[clevbot]

95. She's to blinded by power to step down.

[Inspired]

25. I don't think Obama really needs Hillary as much as she needs him. n/t

[Swamp Rat]

5. Come on!

This is a good 'unity' idea, no matter what some 'Hillarites' or 'Obamites' might say. Do you have a better suggestion to bring these seemingly intractable, opposing camps together?

:grouphug:

[JackORoses]

15. Let the Winner choose their own VP

All the 'Dream Team' proposals are just the Hillarite method of coping with loss.
They are in the Negotiating stage. They will move on to acceptance once Hillary allows them to.

Unity was not in the Hillarite vocabulary until it became impossible for her to win.
Strange, huh?

[Swamp Rat]

21. How about WE THE PEOPLE suggest very strongly who the winner should chose?

They are OUR public servants.

I also believe Wes Clark would bring in a lot of votes from the same states that went to Hillary Clinton, plus a whole lot more, including republicans.

[maddiejoan]

26. Precisely

Why don't WE tell the DNC -- Clark as VP.

Honestly --I fail to see the downside of this no matter which of the two candidates is our nom.

I'd be die hard enthused for either Obama/Clark or Clinton/Clark.

[JackORoses]

39. How can Wes Clark be Obama's VP after he has called him unqualified?

The Repukes would use that to no end in the GE.

[Swamp Rat]

46. Yes, they could use that, but it wouldn't matter to the hordes of new Obama/Clark supporters

Let them use it 'cuz that's ALL they would have.

Wes Clark as VP completely wipes out their argument about experience, and military service. COMPLETELY.

Plus, Wes Clark is a Southerner.

[JackORoses]

53. How can you have a VP who doesn't even respect you?

and says so in public.

There are plenty of better options.

[Swamp Rat]

58. Well, this thread is about the Obama/Clark option.

Thanks for weighing in.

Anyway, have never heard Clark say he 'did not respect' Obama.

[JackORoses]

64. no, he just says and does things that display his lack of respect

He is willing to do everything he can to help Hillary.
This is not to be rewarded.

[Swamp Rat]

70. Can you please post a link to a news articles of his actual quotes in context?

I am interested in reading about this, as it seems to be out of character for Clark to be disrespectful to Obama, or any Dem candidate.

[JackORoses]

72. here ya go

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Clinton_camp_accuses_Obama_of_being_0307.html

[Swamp Rat]

79. I fail to see where Wes Clark was disrespectful to Obama.

"Former NATO commander Wesley Clark, a Clinton supporter, called the comments "disturbing," and he accused Obama of not being prepared enough to be commander in chief and properly oversee an end to the Iraq war." - Clark did not "accuse" Obama. That was the Nick Juliano's interpretation and juxtaposition.

"That means knowing where you're headed before you start down the path," Clark said." - This appears to be an opinion about Obama's (lack of) experience, not a disrespectful accusation.

You said Wes Clark was disrespectful to Obama, but I have not seen evidence of this.

I happen to like Wes Clark BECAUSE I do not believe he would ever be disrespectful.

[JackORoses]

88. How is calling someone running to be CiC unprepared to be CiC in any way respectful?

I appreciate you like Wes Clark.

That doesn't excuse his willingness to downplay Obama's experience in order to aid Hillary.

[Swamp Rat]

89. Of course it "excuses" his willingness to "downplay Obama's experience."

It is his opinion, and the manner in which he chose to support his favorite candidate. He simply believes that Hillary Clinton is more prepared. There is nothing disrespectful about stating this opinion in the manner in which he did. It was the appropriate protocol for any supporter of any candidate in any election cycle. THIS is why I respect Wes Clark's experience: he understands protocol.

"How is calling someone running to be CiC unprepared to be CiC in any way respectful?" - First, you must demonstrate why it is disrespectful since you made the charge.

[JackORoses]

101. Wes Clark did this in the last few days in conjunction with Hillary's McCain lovin'

This has all happened after it became evident that Hillary was not going to be able to catch Obama in Pledged delegates.

She is scorching the Earth, and Wes Clark is helping her.
Obama will be the Nominee, and we have his main opponent and a decorated General calling him unfit for duty.
That is just no good for the Party.

[femmedem]

75. Full quote

See my reply #59.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4987396&mesg_id=4988534

[Swamp Rat]

82. He did not say anything disrespectful about Obama.

It was an opinion that favored Clinton. That is all.

I think folks are reading too much into this.

[femmedem]

83. I agree 100% . Big to do about nothing. n/t

[maddiejoan]

22. So what's your objection to Clark?

He has everything Obama needs to win the Presidency.

In fact --his addition to the ticket renders McCain an obsolete presence.

[femmedem]

36. Maddie Joan is a vocal Clinton supporter. Her OP is a gesture towards reconciliation.

Terms like "Hill-Shill" are a step in the wrong direction.

I recently attended a wedding where the Justice of the Peace alluded to the inevitable disagreements a married couple will have. He told the young couple that sometimes there will be a long way back, and sometimes a short way back. "Take the short way," he said.

Let's take the short way back to reuniting the party.

[JackORoses]

49. Wes Clark recently called Obama unqualified to be Commander in Chief

That is shilling, pure and simple.

If the short road means caving on principle and giving Hillary evreything she wants,
then I say to hell with the shortcut.

Sometimes, to do what's right, you have to walk a little farther.

[femmedem]

59. Clark's statement was spun. He didn't come close to calling Obama unqualified.

Here's the entire quote:

"I found the comments quite disturbing - because to get out of Iraq is gonna be very difficult, and if you don't go into it with some fixed ideas in mind --and I think Senator Clinton's plan has it exactly right, You've got to do it with a responsible withdrawal- You've got to know when you're gonna begin, and you've gotta work it through -- if you simply show up and say "OK now what's this all about?" You're gonna own the war. (bad cell reception here)

Iraq ---there will be concerns of chaos and pandemonium, there'll be concerns about renewed civil war, neighbors in the region will be concerned--- It's gonna take a REAL STRENGTH OF CHARACTER to execute a pullback from Iraq and to preserve America's interests in the region at the same time. And that means KNOWING where you're headed before you start down the path. So, I think what you've got from senator Clinton is a real plan that indicates the strength of character necessary to lead the nation and be a Commander in Chief of the armed forces.

I'm quite concerned about what we've heard from the Obama camp today, because I'm not sure exactly where it leaves us, but I'm quite concerned that it will leave us... still at war."

Not a deal-breaker, in my opinion.

For the record: I don't favor an Obama/Clinton ticket. So it is not about giving Clinton everything she wants. But it is about winning the votes of her many supporters.

Edited to remove botched text block.

[Bake]

92. When has a single Obamabot sought unity????

From day one, here, it's been screw you, Hillary supporters, we don't need you because we've got all the independents and crossover Repubs!!

Unity my big ass.

Bake

[WinkyDink]

110. Now we're supposed to hate WESLEY CLARK??

[Swamp Rat]

3. That could work!

:applause:

We the People need UNITY!

[maddiejoan]

6. Thanks

I've always respected your opinion, Swamp Rat :)

[jalynn]

12. Great post

K & R, most Obama supporters do not want unity because they feel their candidate has won & they do not need the Clinton supporters

[greguganus]

28. If Obama supporters had wanted Hillary in the White House, they would be campaigning for her

No more Clinton's or Bushes in the White House please! If Hillary was the VP, I wouldn't put anything pass the Clintons to try to set Obama up somehow to end his presidency so she could move up. CLINTONS ARE NOT TO BE TRUSTED!! If a Clinton is on the ticket, I will leave that part of my ballot blank. My conscience will not let me vote for her.

[maddiejoan]

29. Did you even read the OP?

[cali]

7. Nope. It wouldn't work.

Much as people don't want to deal with it, it's becoming harder and harder to escape the reality of a "dream" ticket.

[maddiejoan]

13. I'd rather have the "Dream Ticket"

in either order --I'm just proposing an interesting alternative.

One that has the potential for a huuuuuuge landslide BTW

[LWolf]

8. How about this?

If it is inevitable that the convention is brokered, how about coming out of it with someone else, making sure that neither HRC nor Obama is on the ticket; someone that can unify the party?

That's what I'm holding out for. The best outcome would be for both of them to go back to the senate.

[maddiejoan]

9. At this point?

If we did that --we might as well just give McCain the Presidency.

[LWolf]

17. At this point,

that's the only way a Democrat will get my vote in November, so I'll just keep the hope alive, thanks.

[IDemo]

48. I agree with you rarely, but you're correct on this one n/t

[Bonobo]

11. An excellent proposal.

I was a Wes backer in 2004.

He has my trust and is the perfect Anti-McCain ticket.

[maddiejoan]

14. Thanks, Bro

and I'm sure you know I was a dedicated Clarkie in '04 as well.

[Bonobo]

16. No, I did NOT know that!

Wow. Actually I had no idea.

[maddiejoan]

19. heh

Clark's support is what pushed me finally over to Hillary!

[BootinUp]

20. No way! I want Clark at the top of the ticket, lol.

[maddiejoan]

23. In the best of all worlds?

obviously.

But I'd be content to wait for Clark in 2016 if I have to.

[BootinUp]

24. I was being sarcastic

I like your idea Maddie.

[Tatiana]

27. Much as I'd like to disagree with this, it is a fair and logical solution.

Clark will add the military and foreign policy cred to the ticket.

Plus the man also taught economics, so he will be no slouch on the domestic front.

If Obama wins, I'd hope he considers offering Clark the VP slot. If JFK and LBJ could be on the same ticket, anything is possible.

[krkaufman]

30. Or split the difference and just go with an Obama/Clark ticket.

Elements of both campaigns, and we stick with the winner of the most pledged delegates, the most states, the most votes.

[maddiejoan]

34. Just doing that won't bring in Hill's supporters

Hillary currently has a larger Democratic vote than Obama --and we are talking about the Democratric Convention.

Neither will be able to close their cases in the primaries alone, and ignoring Clinton's support is a bad bad idea.

[krkaufman]

45. Accepting Clark is not ignoring Hillary's supporters.

I'm merely stating that this election shouldn't go to a flip of the coin, simply because Hillary and her supporters feel that she should still be the nominee -- even after losing on every front, delegates, votes, states. If Obama were forced into such a capitulation, his supporters would rightly feel cheated, regardless of the conciliatory speeches made by Clark, Obama or any other politician.

Personally, I welcome the new voters Obama is bringing to our coalition, and wish that the rest of the party would recognize the value of increasing our coalition in size, to create a working majority. The spin of denigrating Obama's success as not being authentically "Democratic" is an unappealing trait, and is reflective of the diminishing Democratic coalition we've seen for decades. We need to grow! And that means *welcoming* new voters. If anything, this years convention should be an all-out ass-kicking to the new voters Obama has brought it, to energize and reward them, and to solidify their support -- and show others that the Democrats are the Party of unity.

[maddiejoan]

50. She's not losing.

They are for all intents and purposes tied and will both have to making their cases to the convention at this point.

[krkaufman]

62. Well, she hasn't "lost" -- but she *is* losing. It's a numerical fact. n/t

[maddiejoan]

63. She *was* losing

at this point it is mathematically impossible for either candidate to win on pledged delegates alone, and contrary to Obama's opinion --the SDs will not use pledged delegate numbers as their sole means of decision making.

And when the pledged delegate count is THIS close, doing so would be a tragic mistake for the Party.

[krkaufman]

67. She has fewer pledged delegates. She is "losing" in the delegate race.

Or are we going to add "losing" to the list of words whose meaning stupefies us?

The list, as it currently stands:

losing
denounce
is

[stop the bleeding]

31. Wow to think there is some rational thought left on this board

Way to be keeping your eye on the prize:thumbsup::kick:

[maddiejoan]

38. It'll sink like a stone.

So will your's.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4987900&mesg_id=4987900


Sad.

[Swamp Rat]

51. Nope!

:D

[femmedem]

41. I could see that working.

I'd have to go back and google to make sure Clark didn't say anything too damning towards Obama that could be used in a Republican ad, but overall a good idea.

What do you think about an Obama/Biden ticket? Do you think that would also appeal to a majority of Clinton supporters?

[maddiejoan]

52. it wouldn't

excite me that's for sure.

But then I've never been wild about Biden,

[femmedem]

65. Me neither, frankly.

I have problems with him dating back to the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill. But he does negate Obama's limited foreign affairs experience, so I thought it might be a good match that way.

I wish Gore was willing. That would be the very best, I think. My die-hard Republican in-laws who irrationally hate Clinton and remain unconvinced about global warming! respect Gore. Oddly, they liked Edwards best and are currently leaning towards Obama. I can't figure what they base their votes on--totally inconsistent. But I do use them as a bellweather for swing voters.

Edited to add: Jeesh, a little googling to refresh my memory and my anger towards Biden about those hearings comes rushing back. Can that idea! What a way to alienate both women and blacks.

[Swamp Rat]

85. Ooo! I forgot about Biden's role in that.

RE: Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill

That is a textbook case of misogyny inherent in our social and political system. (see Robin T. Lakoff's "The Language War" below - I highly recommend this book)

http://www.amazon.com/Language-War-Robin-Tolmach-Lakoff/dp/0520232070

http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/8870.php

Description

Robin Lakoff gets to the heart of one of the most fascinating and pressing issues in American society today: who holds power and how they use it, keep it, or lose it. In a brilliant and vastly entertaining discussion of news events that have occupied an enormous amount of media space--political correctness, the Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas hearings, Hillary Rodham Clinton as First Lady, O. J. Simpson's murder trial, the Ebonics controversy, and the Clinton sex scandal--Lakoff shows that the struggle for power and status at the end of the century is being played out as a war over language. Controlling language is a basis for all power, she says, and therefore it is worth fighting for. As a result, newly emergent groups, especially blacks and women, are contending with middle- to upper-class white men for a share in "language rights."

Lakoff's introduction to linguistic theories and the philosophy of language lays the groundwork for an exploration of news stories that meet what she calls the UAT (Undue Attention Test). As the stories became the subject of talk-show debates, late-night comedy routines, Web sites, and magazine articles, they were embroidered with additional meanings, depending on who was telling the story. Race, gender, or both are at the heart of these stories, and each one is about the right to construct meanings from language in short, to possess power. Because language tells us how we are connected to one another, who has power and who does not, the stories reflect the language war.

We use language to analyze what we call "reality," the author argues, but we mistrust how language is used today--witness the "politics of personal destruction" following the Clinton impeachment. Yet Lakoff sees in the struggle over language a positive goal: equality in the creation of our national discourse. Her writing is accessible and witty, and her excerpts from the media are used to great effect.
About The Author

Robin Lakoff is Professor of Linguistics at the University of California, Berkeley, and the author of Talking Power: The Politics of Language in Our Lives (1990), Face Value: The Politics of Beauty (1984), and Language and Woman's Place (1975).

[femmedem]

99. Thanks, Swamp Rat.

I'll look for that book.

[wileedog]

43. Good idea but

Hillary has already marched Clark out to declare Obama "unready"

That's going to be a tough backtrack in the GE.

I like Clark though, would have liked that ticket.

[Swamp Rat]

56. Flexibility is part and parcel of being a progressive.

;)

[femmedem]

69. It wasn't as bad as it was spun to be if you look at the exact quote.

See my response #59.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4987396&mesg_id=4988534

[IDemo]

54. Edwards would be a better choice, IMO

but he may have already ruled it out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iM5hHe37F7s&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeCoRTAnyyY&feature=related

[Straight Shooter]

55. I don't think Obama can handle a charismatic partner who is smarter and more capable than he is.

Wes Clark would outshine Obama. There's a good chance he would outshine Hillary, too, but Obama relies on the power of his personality and I think he would not want it perceived that his good decisions are actually coming from Clark, which would make it look like we had another "daddy figure" in the White House (as Cheney is to bush).

Clinton and Clark already work well together; they have a longstanding relationship and trust one another. IMHO, Clinton would have no problem deferring to Clark's judgment, as her ego would not be battling his.

I like your idea, because I have a great deal of respect for Wes Clark (another reason I support Hillary), but I think it doesn't matter which candidate wins, the VP will be chosen for the candidate by The Powers That Be, just as Lieberman was imposed on Gore.

If Clark is the veep on an Obama ticket, then Obama will have a big problem with MoveOn's endorsement. It will look absolutely hypocritical for him to vaunt a military man on the one hand, and on the other hand to accept the endorsement of an organization which is inextricably linked to the left and the anti-war movement, and which essentially trash-mouthed the military commander in Iraq.

[femmedem]

78. Clark made a wonderful ad for Lamont, whom MoveOn endorsed.

It was very anti-war. I don't see a problem there.

[Straight Shooter]

103. That was Connecticut, not the U.S. Was it before the Betray Us ad?

Everything in context. Whether we like it or not, patriotism (jingoism) will be a big issue in the upcoming election. The trashmouthing of Patraeus will be a factor.

[femmedem]

105. You're surely right that jingoism will be a factor.

Hence those dumb Pledge of Allegience/Flag Pin e-mails. But--dare I dream?--I think we've finally reached a point where voters think Democrats trump Republicans in the patriotism contest. :)

To answer your question, yes it was before Patraeus. You think that damaged his credibility that badly? Boy, those ads Clark ran--not just for Lamont but for progressive candidates all over the country--were excellent.

Here's a link to the Lamont ad, in case you never saw it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uPpQXBmPQ4

[Straight Shooter]

107. Thank you for the link. I watched the ad.

Why isn't that man our president now? I could rest so much easier if Clark were in charge. :D

I don't know how much damage the Patraeus ad will cause. I can only think like a right-winger for about 60 seconds and then my head begins to really hurt, so I don't know how far they would take it. I do know from conservative people that there was immense outrage and much anger at the military commander being targeted in such a high-schoolish manner. OTOH, something else may arise that gives the right wing ammunition. Who would ever have thought that an innocent though bumbling remark like "I voted for it before I voted against it" would be turned into the defining character trait for Kerry. He will forever be associated with the term "flip-flop."

Thank goodness I've never received one of those stupid PoA/flag pin e-mails.

[Laelth]

68. I like the proposal.

It will work so long as Clinton has not utterly destroyed Obama by the time of the convention.

Do you think she'll lay off suggesting he's not qualified to be President?

:shrug:

-Laelth

[Utopian Leftist]

71. My solution

I believe that Obama should consider picking a FEMALE Vice President, ANY qualified female OTHER THAN Hillary! With all of the qualified and competent women in politics today, WHY ON EARTH would anyone prefer Hillary, who is already HATED by half of the country (her disapproval rating is at a staggering 48 percent!)?

This would accomplish at least four things:

1) It will silence the hysterical cries of "sexism" and allow the party to unite and help feminists heal from their disappointment;
2) It will give us a strong potential Presidential candidate for 2016 (by which time Hillary would be 70 years-old);
3) It will end the Bush-Clinton "dynasty" that has so many people up in arms;
4) It will prevent Hillary's HUGE negatives from harming Obama's chances of getting elected.

[IDemo]

74. Excellent idea

Kathleen Sebelius comes to mind.

[maddiejoan]

76. oh hell no

why don't we just become the GOP if that's the case.

[IDemo]

81. As in lauding our GOP opponents over Democrats?

[stop the bleeding]

77. thats a start

but we still need someone to balance out the lack of National Security that both H or O lack in regards to My Friends McLame.

[OzarkDem]

96. Unfair to stick Clark w/ Obama

Clark doesnt deserve that.

[maddiejoan]

98. But then Clark would be President

after Obama has a nervous breakdown when he realizes he isn't up to the job.

[femmedem]

102. Hey!

I thought this was your "search for common ground" thread.

:spank:

Can't turn my back on you for a minute.

[maddiejoan]

113. Sorry

I just couldn't resist it!

It was a snark that needed me!

[Catherina]

104. Good idea but replace Wes Clark with Barbara Boxer or Feingold

Most people would vote for that in a New York minute. I think Clark would be good too.

Recommended for the spirit and grace of your post.

[femmedem]

111. Boxer! Feingold!

:loveya:

Even though I do still carry a tiny grudge against Boxer for coming here and campaigning for Lieberman. And I do carry grudges for a long time, unfortunately.

Really? You think the country would elect people that liberal? I sure would. But I suspect I'm somewhere to the left of Kucinich.

[Catherina]

112. I think the country's ready. If anyone can sell it, Obama can

I have problems with all three of the people I named and probably carry a grudge even longer than you do, but I can't sit around a hundred years banking on some arrogant fantasy that everyone's going to see things my way.

I'll support whoever Obama willingly picks. I don't want him straddled with Hillary for the same reasons I didn't like seeing Gore straddled with Lieberman. I like your name.

[DrFunkenstein]

106. Obama-Webb 2008

Fired up!

[joeybee12]

108. Interesting...this could provoke thoughtful discussion...

...but not at GDP!!!!! Look at some of these Obama-bots, they see the name Hillary and their g-strings slide right up their...

[GarbagemanLB]

109. There should be no discussion as to who wins the top of the ticket if they have all three things:

most states won, most pledged delegates, and they won the popular vote.

If someone gets all three, then they decide their own VP. If that isn't the case, then a brokered convention will be needed.

[maddiejoan]

114. Try reading the OP