[CHATSDALE]

as for a clinton-obama [vice-versa] ticket stranger things can happen, kennedy chose johnson to bring in the southern votee but they hated each other from day one..the kennedys use to entertain their friends making fun of johnsons drawl
a lot of people will vote for a ticket like this, and the bottom line is a win and clinton and obama are realists and they will do what they have to do to advance the party

[earle58]

Originally Posted by stevielynn

No way . . just no way they would run together.

steph

from an intellectual standpoint, maybe you're right.

but i have a feeling the 'fantasy' of female/black contenders, is going to attract a whole lot of the voting population.
no, i'm not convinced many will be exploring the issues.
just by virtue of 1 being female, and the other being black, is going to suffice to many unsophisticated voters.

i'm telling you, this nation is so ready for change.
and these guys (hillary/obama) may just be that ticket.

leslie

eta: unsophisticated, meaning, voting w/emotion vs tangible issues.

[♪♫ in my ♥]

Originally Posted by CHATSDALE

as for a clinton-obama [vice-versa] ticket stranger things can happen, kennedy chose johnson to bring in the southern votee but they hated each other from day one..the kennedys use to entertain their friends making fun of johnsons drawl
a lot of people will vote for a ticket like this, and the bottom line is a win and clinton and obama are realists and they will do what they have to do to advance the party

The problem, I think, is the egos involved. I just can't picture either of them being willing to ride the pine while the other one is the starter.

My guess would be that Edwards would be Obama's running mate; Clinton's probably likely to go with someone else.

[Spidey's mom]

Originally Posted by CHATSDALE

as for a clinton-obama [vice-versa] ticket stranger things can happen, kennedy chose johnson to bring in the southern votee but they hated each other from day one..the kennedys use to entertain their friends making fun of johnsons drawl
a lot of people will vote for a ticket like this, and the bottom line is a win and clinton and obama are realists and they will do what they have to do to advance the party

You know, I don't think so. Hillary will do the politically expedient thing, always! Obama, while I don't agree with his politics, seems like a genuinely honest guy who wouldn't do the politically expedient thing.

Hillary's campaign has been pretty dirty regarding Obama . . . . which is stupid since they are both Dems.

steph

[Spidey's mom]

Originally Posted by earle58

from an intellectual standpoint, maybe you're right.

but i have a feeling the 'fantasy' of female/black contenders, is going to attract a whole lot of the voting population.
no, i'm not convinced many will be exploring the issues.
just by virtue of 1 being female, and the other being black, is going to suffice to many unsophisticated voters.

i'm telling you, this nation is so ready for change.
and these guys (hillary/obama) may just be that ticket.

leslie

eta: unsophisticated, meaning, voting w/emotion vs tangible issues.

There is that "change" word Leslie . . . .but what change?

Every election politicians use that word. But what does it mean?

Bill used it the first time he ran . . . "change" gets old. Give me some details nominees . . . .

steph

[earle58]

Originally Posted by stevielynn

There is that "change" word Leslie . . . .but what change?

Every election politicians use that word. But what does it mean?

Bill used it the first time he ran . . . "change" gets old. Give me some details nominees . . . .

steph

that's my point, steph.
many, many of our voters, are not politically-inclined or adept.
but the one thing they do know, is they want 'change'.
a female and a black...what more could one ask for, in terms of that ubiquitous 'change'?
i'm not even paying attn to the politicians who encourage change.
rather, i am observing more, what the people want...even if they don't know specifically what it is.
we'll see...

leslie

[Spidey's mom]

Originally Posted by earle58

that's my point, steph.
many, many of our voters, are not politically-inclined or adept.
but the one thing they do know, is they want 'change'.
a female and a black...what more could one ask for, in terms of that ubiquitous 'change'?
i'm not even paying attn to the politicians who encourage change.
rather, i am observing more, what the people want...even if they don't know specifically what it is.
we'll see...

leslie

I hope those kind of people don't vote then . ... . if they don't put more into it than they want "change" and see it in a black man and a white woman without considering WHERE that black man and white woman might take our country. . then that is not being an informed and intelligent voter and they should just stay home.

steph

[earle58]

Originally Posted by stevielynn

I hope those kind of people don't vote then . ... . if they don't put more into it than they want "change" and see it in a black man and a white woman without considering WHERE that black man and white woman might take our country. . then that is not being an informed and intelligent voter and they should just stay home.

steph

i agree with you 100%.
but, imo, that is not the reality.

leslie

[pickledpepperRN]

I think this issue was blown out of proportion by the media.
Both were quoted out of context repeatedly.

I think the so called "news" people should be scrutinized like the do the candidates.
Analyze every word they say.

Especially when they "know" what someone is thinking.

[Tweety]

Originally Posted by stevielynn

You know, I don't think so. Hillary will do the politically expedient thing, always! Obama, while I don't agree with his politics, seems like a genuinely honest guy who wouldn't do the politically expedient thing.

Hillary's campaign has been pretty dirty regarding Obama . . . . which is stupid since they are both Dems.

steph

We're talking politics here. Doing the "politically expedient thing" is expected. Obama would be a fool to not consider what could get him and his party in the whitehouse, including considering an Obama/Hilliary ticket. Espeically considering so many of us like them both. What would be dishonest about that? Would that be that dishonerable amibition again? Maybe if Gore had a more likable bankable running mate people wouldn't have voted for Nader. It's an important and politically motivated decision when one chooses a running mate.


After the primaries the losers usually conceed and play kiss kiss make up to the front runner for the party's sake. So just because they are taking jabs at each other now, I expect both will take the politically expedient route and help the other get elected and offer support, even if not chosen for a running mate.