Clean Sweep Saturday

TQM said:
Ohio and Texas.

Victories for Obama in these states may turn a current into a rip tide. Or, if they are close, they may indicate that this will go down to the wire.

It sure is looking like Clinton would need Obama on her ticket. And while I don't think Obama would "need" Clinton, it will obviously be something he'd have to consider.

I have a feeling if he gets Edward's endorsement, he will be on the hypothetical ticket.

Edwards will be a good running mate. He outperformed Kerry in 04.
 
Edwards is an interesting choice.

But I personally wouldn't choose him. In light of his wife's terminal illness, I think he should be taking a small step back from politics and not accepting a job that will keep him further away from his wife and family at this time.

Just my opinion, but I think this is partly at play as to why he's gotten so little support this time. It just struck me as a kind of cold thing to do.
 
I don't think Obama can choose Clinton as a running mate. It would fly in the face of his anti-establishment, "turn the page" mantra.

Clinton on the other hand will be forced to choose Obama. It's going to be interesting.
 
Hillary has already hinted Edwards that she want him as running mate, of course if she get elected that is:p

I personally still believe Obama should get Al Gore or Bill Richardson endorsement ASAP in order for him to go all the way in this race and get all the enviomentalist for him.

By the way I was watching Hillary last weekend and she kept touching and playing with her necklace while she speaks to the public, when people have to touch something during their speech, her body language is clearly showing she is nervous, which is very much understandable since she has big chance of loosing.

I'm surprised at Huckabee is still very much in the game and does not plan to quit, I though he was tapped out already...
 
Kailani said:
Hillary has already hinted Edwards that she want him as running mate, of course if she get elected that is:p

I personally still believe Obama should get Al Gore or Bill Richardson endorsement ASAP in order for him to go all the way in this race and get all the enviomentalist for him.

By the way I was watching Hillary last weekend and she kept touching and playing with her necklace while she speaks to the public, when people have to touch something during their speech, her body language is clearly showing she is nervous, which is very much understandable since she has big chance of loosing.

I'm surprised at Huckabee is still very much in the game and does not plan to quit, I though he was tapped out already...

Apparently there's been positive discussions between Edwards and the Obama camp.

I would be very surprised if Edwards endorsed Clinton now.
 
DonQuixote said:
Who was the last Republican who ran for POTUS who
was/is an attorney?

Wasn't it Nixon? :eek: (or that funny guy from Kansas who constantly referred to himself in the 1st person)

Before that, Lincoln. Interesting point though!
 
DonQuixote said:
I'm more balanced in my view.
I hate them both.
Why show favoritism?

But, you then slip back into the well-developed practice
of the GOP by deamonizing and trivializing those that
disagree with you. Shame.

"I care much more for this country than either group of ill-deserved
lawyers we call political parties
."

Humm.

My opinion is that the Republicans don't have enough
well-educated attorneys who use critical analysis rather
than employing character smearing propagandists.

Who was the last Republican who ran for POTUS who
was/is an attorney? My biggest criticism of Bush is
that he ignores the Constitution and the rule of law.

As a POTUS, Bush's violations are as bad as it gets.
The Constitution is the glue that holds us together.
His dismissal of our most important law is vile.

You ask me if I really want the Ds to nominate Obama, I say yes and why and then you rant on about Bush.... you really do have it bad, you're starting to remind me of Pekkkr and that's not a good thing.

OTB
 
lookingforitallthetime said:
Wasn't it Nixon? :eek: (or that funny guy from Kansas who constantly referred to himself in the 1st person)

Before that, Lincoln. Interesting point though!

I was talking about political parties not POTUS candidates..... DQ didn't want to ask the question how many pols are lawyers because he wouldn't like the answer.

OTB
 
OTB forgets to say the states are small and Clinton, even though down 2 -1 in these expected loses, still gets 33% of those delegates. Yeah, Obama wins the small states as caucuses, but he does not win the primaries, unless loaded with African American voters. Loisiana had the African American vote as 50% of the primary.

The others were all caucuses.

It's not over 'til the fat lady sings and Hillary is not singing. She's shaking up the staff. McCain did the same thing. It's not over.

If it's a split decision come the convention, Clinton will not take the second tier position because she's been there. It would be Clinton (P)/Obama (VP) and I won't have a problem with that. The Republicans would then have to face 16 years of White House rule under the Democrats.

Gyaos Baltar.
 
Gyaos said:
OTB forgets to say the states are small and Clinton, even though down 2 -1 in these expected loses, still gets 33% of those delegates. Yeah, Obama wins the small states as caucuses, but he does not win the primaries, unless loaded with African American voters. Loisiana had the African American vote as 50% of the primary.

The others were all caucuses.

It's not over 'til the fat lady sings and Hillary is not singing. She's shaking up the staff. McCain did the same thing. It's not over.

If it's a split decision come the convention, Clinton will not take the second tier position because she's been there. It would be Clinton (P)/Obama (VP) and I won't have a problem with that. The Republicans would then have to face 16 years of White House rule under the Democrats.

Gyaos Baltar.

I would be very surprised if Obama soiled himself by a close association with the Clintons.

OTB
 
Gyaos said:
OTB forgets to say the states are small and Clinton, even though down 2 -1 in these expected loses, still gets 33% of those delegates. Yeah, Obama wins the small states as caucuses, but he does not win the primaries, unless loaded with African American voters. Loisiana had the African American vote as 50% of the primary.

The others were all caucuses.

It's not over 'til the fat lady sings and Hillary is not singing. She's shaking up the staff. McCain did the same thing. It's not over.

If it's a split decision come the convention, Clinton will not take the second tier position because she's been there. It would be Clinton (P)/Obama (VP) and I won't have a problem with that. The Republicans would then have to face 16 years of White House rule under the Democrats.

Gyaos Baltar.

Hats off to you.

It can't be very easy mixing up a new batch of Koolaid with your head in the sand.
 
DonQuixote said:
George Sr. didn't have a problem with a
close association with Bubba, did he. :rolleyes:

They belong to the most exclusive club going, ex POTUS.... the only one that's soiled that reputation with base partisanship is Carter, which is surprising because as clueless as he was as a POTUS I always thought he was a good guy.

OTB
 
onthebottom said:
I would be very surprised if Obama soiled himself by a close association with the Clintons. OTB

Ah but, no experience makes kissing ass very easy. Clinton was part of the orchestration that got him elected in IL.

lookingforitallthetime said:
Hats off to you.
It can't be very easy mixing up a new batch of Koolaid with your head in the sand.

Well, Donald Trump's book is called "Think Big and Kick Ass". Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania, all Clinton territory. Yes, the convention will be very interesting.

Gyaos Baltar.
 
Gyaos said:
. Yes, the convention will be very interesting.

Gyaos Baltar.

Not really..if Obama doesn't emerge as the clear winner before the convention the Clinton machine will bury him.

Interesting from a partie that 4 years ago becried the electoral college.
 
frasier said:
Not really..if Obama doesn't emerge as the clear winner before the convention the Clinton machine will bury him.

Interesting from a partie that 4 years ago becried the electoral college.

The electoral college is an outdated system of winner-take-all for each State in a general election. If anything it resembles more the Republican approach to primaries.
 
Asterix said:
The electoral college is an outdated system of winner-take-all for each State in a general election. If anything it resembles more the Republican approach to primaries.

OHH..you mean super delegates??????You can't be serious..
 
lookingforitallthetime said:
Wasn't it Nixon? :eek: (or that funny guy from Kansas who constantly referred to himself in the 1st person)

Before that, Lincoln. Interesting point though!
On the last point good Heavens no, Presidents: Coolidge, Taft, McKinley, Hayes, Garfield and Arthur were all Lawyers
 
Aardvark154 said:
On the last point good Heavens no, Presidents: Coolidge, Taft, McKinley, Hayes, Garfield and Arthur were all Lawyers

I realize that, trying to be funny, sorry.

The 2 Bush's and Reagan are the ony 2 I can think of that were not lawyers.
 
frasier said:
OHH..you mean super delegates??????You can't be serious..

The Republicans use of winner-take-all primaries skew the actual voter results at least as much as the Democrats use of super-delegates. Personally, I have no problem with that as each party should have a certain amount of control in who they put forward as their candidate for President. Where I do have a problem with it, is when an archaic system like the electoral college can determine who will win in a general election for President. Clear enough?