Who Should Be Obama’s VP?

[TuNnL]

Please be sure to comment on your selection, after voting. :)

[1stwahine]

Please be sure to comment on your selection, after voting. :)

You forgot to comment.:p

[Leo Lakio]

And at this point, only one of the three of us has voted. That may change by the time someone else reads this. :rolleyes:

[scrivener]

I find it interesting that in describing Mrs. Clinton, you call her the former first lady, and not the two-term senator from New York.

[TuNnL]

in describing Mrs. Clinton, you call her the former first ladySorry, Scrivener. :o I was trying to describe each potential candidate in a way that most people recognize him/her. It’s true that most Hillary fans are aware she is a junior senator from New York. But IMHO nationwide, most people still see her as “former First Lady.”

[scrivener]

No apology needed. I figured that was what you were thinking.

I reluctantly voted here for Hillary Clinton. I say "reluctantly" because I am still super super super super annoyed that she didn't win her party's nomination. People keep saying that she proved there is no longer a glass ceiling; I say that her NEARLY winning the nomination but still LOSING it is evidence that the glass ceiling is still there. Until someone breaks THROUGH the glass ceiling, it is still there.

Clinton's wording of the situation, in which she says she put eighteen thousand cracks in the glass ceiling, is a lot more accurate. Accepting the vice-presidential spot on the ticket is not going to break through anything unless the Democrats win (which I imagine is nearly a lock). Sure. Fine. But in this country, we're already used to the idea of women being second-in-command. I am not disregarding the significance of a Black man possibly being elected to the Presidency; however, I think we could have taken ENORMOUS steps forward as a nation if we'd elected a woman President.

So whatever. I lost this one. I'll take the Vice-Presidency, but I'm not happy.

[cynsaligia]

previous posts dotted throughout the HT landscape are more than enough commentary as to why i prefer sen. clinton as obama's vp.

*points to signature*

[Vanguard]

There are a lot of qualified people here, but my choice is Kathleen Sebelius.

She flipped a red state to blue, and has been a good governor for Kansas. Obama needs someone with executive experience, and I believe Sebelius' experience stands for quality.

She also attended the annual Bilderberg Group meeting last year, so you know she's going places :D

I'd also be happy with Bill Richardson or Wesley Clark. (the latter has no executive experience that I'm aware of, but military credentials are also good)

[TuNnL]

She also attended the annual Bilderberg Group meeting last year, so you know she's going placesHmmm...you parade this fact like a badge of honor. I see it as a mark of shame (http://hawaiithreads.com/showthread.php?t=12729). Looking at my signature, you probably already knew that. But it doesn’t mean she wouldn’t make a great VP. ;)

I'd also be happy with Bill Richardson or Wesley Clark. (the latter has no executive experience that I'm aware of, but military credentials are also good)Wesley Clark is a retired 4-star general. So I don’t understand what you mean by “no executive experience.” He was the commanding general in the Battle of Kosovo. How much more executive can you get then that? :confused:

[timkona]

Bill Richardson or John Edwards.

Edwards could have beaten The Idiot last go round. Dems chose Kerry instead. He still polls well among right voters.

Richardson gives Obama some "street cred" in the halls of DC. Brings the Hispanic vote on board. Has lots of great experience. And a good face of hair.

Clinton virtually guarantees a McCain win, according to every poll you can find.

I chose BR in this poll.

[Vanguard]

Hmmm...you parade this fact like a badge of honor. I see it as a mark of shame (http://hawaiithreads.com/showthread.php?t=12729). Looking at my signature, you probably already knew that. But it doesn’t mean she wouldn’t make a great VP. ;)

That was not my intention. But I believe when things like this come into play, getting into higher office or advantage is quite inevitable, until the majority decides that we have had enough. My dream VP candidate? Dennis Kucinich. But I'm pretty sure that's not going to happen until the tide changes in America. It almost guarantees a McBush White House.

Wesley Clark is a retired 4-star general. So I don’t understand what you mean by “no executive experience.” He was the commanding general in the Battle of Kosovo. How much more executive can you get then that? :confused:

Someone who is accustomed to balancing civilian budgets, for one. Presidents, Governors, and Mayors have that experience. I apologize for being vague.

[Leo Lakio]

unless the Democrats win (which I imagine is nearly a lock).I wish I were as certain as you, Scrivener. Democrats were fooled into complacently thinking we could beat Bush in 2004 and ended up with a flimsy candidate. We can't afford to do that again.Edwards could have beaten The Idiot last go round.I have to agree with you here, Tim.

I've already stated in other threads that I'm comfortable with Richardson - but this poll is going to make me investigate some of the other options more fully.

[TuNnL]

Wesley Clark is a retired 4-star general. So I don’t understand what you mean by “no executive experience.” He was the commanding general in the Battle of Kosovo. How much more executive can you get then that? :confused:
Someone who is accustomed to balancing civilian budgets, for one. Presidents, Governors, and Mayors have that experience. I apologize for being vague.No apology needed. But I have to disagree that Presidents, Governors, Mayors... or even university presidents (http://hawaiithreads.com/showthread.php?t=1103) necessarily have that experience. Most, if not all of them rely on their budget or managing director (the equivalent of a CFO (http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-cfo.htm) in the business world) to balance the budget.

At least if we go by your definition, we’ve narrowed down the eligible candidates to the handful of governors under consideration. :)

[Ron Whitfield]

If it were a truly forecasted runaway win for BO I'd like to see Hill get the VP slot, but I'm not into even close calls this time. The '04 election was the tipping point for this country, and now we are sliding quickly into the abyss, which will take way more than BO and company to pull us out to any sufficient degree.
At this point, I select Jesse Ventura as VP, and his first job is to body slam BO for his support of Bush's FISA BS. 2nd job, chase down Bush/Cheney/Rove, de-bone and do 'em up like a turducken. 3rd job, bring back the boa.

[Lei Liko]

There are a lot of qualified people here, but my choice is Kathleen Sebelius.

She flipped a red state to blue, and has been a good governor for Kansas. Obama needs someone with executive experience, and I believe Sebelius' experience stands for quality.

She also attended the annual Bilderberg Group meeting last year, so you know she's going places :D

...

I picked Kathleen Sebelius as well for all the reasons you stated. :)

I remember watching her "America's response" to the State of the Union earlier this year and just thinking, "WOW."

[TuNnL]

You forgot to comment.:p
I’ve given my reasons for Bill Richardson in the other thread, but just to summarize with a top 5 list:


He’s a fluent Latino border-state governor, who will win those states plus Florida for Obama
He has served as a U.S. Congressman, U.N. Ambassador, and U.S. Secretary of Energy (his DOE tenure is a story in itself)
He successfully negotiated the release of two American hostages through one-on-one negotiations with Saddam Hussein
He successfully negotiated the release of an American journalist being held in Sudan
The Cato Institute has consistently rated him one of the most fiscally responsible Governors in the nation

[timkona]

Yup Leo, Dems did not pick Edwards last time for the exact same reason that Obama and Clinton were the best they could do this time around.

Liberal political philosophy of the modern era is trapped in suicidal tendencies. Efforts to lose are subliminally promoted by the desire to wring hands. Without the mental anguish of loss or disappointment, Dems quickly lose sight of objectives.

When your vision of yourself is clouded in utopianism, you seldom see the facts.

PS - I plan to spend the evening hours learning about Ms. Sebelius

[Vanguard]

No apology needed. But I have to disagree that Presidents, Governors, Mayors... or even university presidents (http://hawaiithreads.com/showthread.php?t=1103) necessarily have that experience. Most, if not all of them rely on their budget or managing director (the equivalent of a CFO (http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-cfo.htm) in the business world) to balance the budget.

I wasn't acutely aware of how they use the budget or managing director, thanks for explaining that! Although I do believe someone needs to have a decent working knowledge of budgets so the person who was delegated that responsibility doesn't lead us down the wrong path, and we have another "You're doing a swell job, Brownie!" episode. Of course, we could say that about every aspect of managing the country, so I suppose the simple ability to headhunt and find good people trumps most things. :D

At least if we go by your definition, we’ve narrowed down the eligible candidates to the handful of governors under consideration. :)

That, or qualified university presidents -- who will be the next Woodrow Wilson? Now that would be a wild choice from left field!

[Random]

Who should be Obama's VP?

Mufi Hanneman.

[Likeke]

Chose Hillary.. I think, she know what she doing and hopefully can make a bettery America, like help keep the gas prices down. :o

[Random]

Chose Hillary.. I think, she know what she doing and hopefully can make a bettery America, like help keep the gas prices down. :o
That and Bill can show Barack some of his favorite strip clubs hidden from Hillary. :D

[TuNnL]

Clinton virtually guarantees a McCain win, according to every poll you can find.Hmmm...today’s Wall Street Journal appears to disagree with you (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121745984626098717.html) on this point. Columnist Lanny Davis gives us the breakdown:
In late June, polls conducted by The Wall Street Journal/NBC and Fox/Opinion Dynamics — using entirely different samples — both showed Sen. Clinton giving Sen. Obama a +3% bump, pushing him over 51% for the first time, when the two of them were paired against Sen. McCain and Gov. Romney.

Most recently, in nationwide polling on July 22-23, a Fox/Opinion Dynamics poll showed a more dramatic bump of +8% with Sen. Clinton as Sen. Obama’s vice presidential running mate. In a head-on match, it was Sen. Obama 41% to Sen. McCain’s 40% (this was before the intense media coverage of his European trip). But with exactly the same sample, when all voters were presented with the choice of an Obama-Clinton ticket vs. McCain-Romney, the results were Obama-Clinton, 48% (+7%), and McCain-Romney 39% (-1%).

[Random]

The Obama-Clinton ticket might guarantee a win in November, but I doubt it would be good for the presidency for two alphas butting head in the administration.

I don't see Hillary Clinton being second-best, even if it helps the Democrats occupy the White House.

[Walkoff Balk]

Ralph Nader, so he won't take away votes from the Democratic candidate.

[Frankie's Market]

Columnist Lanny Davis gives us the breakdown:

When it comes to the Clintons, Lanny Davis doesn't exactly provide the most objective analysis. He's as blindly loyal to Hillary as James Carville is.

The single, fatal obstacle towards an Obama/Clinton ticket remains Bill Clinton. The poll numbers that Lanny pulls out are the results of people providing an immediate response to a "dream ticket" scenario. But should Obama actually pick Hillary as his running mate, they would have to deal with several hard realities. This would include a total vetting of the Clinton finances, as well as the WJC Foundation and the Library. (Are they willing to provide the list of donors?) And of course, there's Bill himself. As shown during Hillary's unsuccessful run, he can be both an asset and a liability as a surrogate on the campaign trail.

[Ron Whitfield]

With Hillary on the ticket, all it would take to open a shooting gallery at them would be some rumoured scandal. This would allow the Straight Talk Express to go further off the rails than they have already decided is now OK, ignoring McCave's promise to be above the typical style of dirty campaigning.

[matapule]

Joe Biden is my choice, but any VP candidate that would assure a DEM victory and get this country out of the REP funk.

[timkona]

I think Ludacris would be a good choice.

:cool:

[Lei Liko]

John Edwards admits to extra marital affair, denies fathering the child (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/08/edwards.affair/?iref=mpstoryview)

(CNN) -- Former U.S. senator and Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards admitted to an extramarital affair in an interview with ABC News, the network reported Friday. He denied being the father of the woman's child, as had been alleged in tabloid reports.

Speaking to the network for a story to be aired Friday night, Edwards acknowledged the affair with 42-year-old Rielle Hunter, which began after she was hired to make documentary videos for his campaign, ABC said.

[1stwahine]

John Edwards admits to extra marital affair, denies fathering the child (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/08/edwards.affair/?iref=mpstoryview)

Oh! My!!:o

Hala!!

Simbaco...whack whack!:eek:

[Amati]

John Edwards admits to extra marital affair, denies fathering the child (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/08/edwards.affair/?iref=mpstoryview)

According to reports, Edwards has admitted to repeatedly lying during his Presidential campaign about the affair and to his cancer stricken wife. Edwards' wife Elizabeth announced in March that her breast cancer had re-emerged after going into remission following a 2004 diagnosis.

Let's do a new HT poll - "is he disgusting or not"?

[TuNnL]

According to reports, Edwards has admitted to repeatedly lying during his Presidential campaign about the affair and to his cancer stricken wife.IMHO, this officially ends any consideration the Obama campaign was giving Edwards for VP. It may have also severely damaged any hope of an attorney general (http://townhall.com/columnists/RobertDNovak/2008/01/26/attorney_general_edwards) appointment (which Edwards was reported to have been pursuing).

[Ron Whitfield]

I hope this ends Edwards' political carreer.
I was so sick of hearing his voice and BS, and now it's proven, it was all BS.

[Kalihiboy]

Think Indiana Senator Evan Bayh and Virginia Senator Jim Webb should be considered.

Aj

[Vanguard]

IMHO, this officially ends any consideration the Obama campaign was giving Edwards for VP. It may have also severely damaged any hope of an attorney general (http://townhall.com/columnists/RobertDNovak/2008/01/26/attorney_general_edwards) appointment (which Edwards was reported to have been pursuing).

I never understood how Edwards' experience as an ambulance chaser gave him any chance of being a decent attorney general. Pre-scandal Edwards would have been lucky to get Secretary of Labor, but I think even that is way out of reach for him now.

[Random]

I hope this ends Edwards' political carreer.
Meh. Didn't end Bill Clinton's ... when it should've.

Besides, committing infidelity is a forgivable sin. In fact, I like the highest political servant in office to promote infidelities.

Really, it's okay to cheat. It's liberating.

[Walkoff Balk]

According to reports, Edwards has admitted to repeatedly lying during his Presidential campaign about the affair and to his cancer stricken wife. Edwards' wife Elizabeth announced in March that her breast cancer had re-emerged after going into remission following a 2004 diagnosis.

Let's do a new HT poll - "is he disgusting or not"?
What was the name of the politician who gave his divorce papers to his wife while she was in the hospital with an illness?

[TuNnL]

I hope this ends Edwards' political carreer.
I was so sick of hearing his voice and BS, and now it's proven, it was all BS.Be that as it may, this weekend Bob Woodruff decided to give John Edwards one last chance at redemption in an in-depth interview (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCc7x4z52o0) on Nightline. Woodruff grills Edwards on his affair with campaign videographer Rielle Hunter and the fallout that has resulted.

[Creative-1]

I'd encourage Obama to pick another local boy as his running mate:

Frank De Lima.

They'd be unbeatable.

[Ron Whitfield]

And McKook should pick Da Braddas!

[Random]

Frank DeLima? Da Braddahs? You got to be kidding me.

I pick Joe Moore. :D

[cynsaligia]

i've never understood our requirement that our president be as pure as driven snow. I figur i'm voting for/hiring him/her to do a certain job and if s/he gets it done without compromising certain parameters in pursuit of getting that job done. whether his/her family/friends suffer bcs of some personal wrong the person in that job does is not my concern.

the president is essentially CEO of the company that is the US. no other CEO potentially loses his/her job bcs s/he likes a little salad tossing, provided that professionally, s/he is getting the results we require.

mind you, i despise adultery. however, I would vastly prefer a president who, after balancing the nation's budget, watches oh, i dunno, old Japanese people porn in the oval office while dipping cuban cigars in cavernous places than someone who unnecessarily jeopardizes the american economy.

[Leo Lakio]

What was the name of the politician who gave his divorce papers to his wife while she was in the hospital with an illness?
That was one the GOP's finest representatives of family values, Newt "Contract On America" Gingrich...who admitted to cheating on his second wife (of three) while leading the impeachment charge against President Clinton.

Source (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=2937633)

[Leo Lakio]

Bill Richardson or John Edwards.

Edwards could have beaten The Idiot last go round. Dems chose Kerry instead. He still polls well among right voters.Tim - have the latest revelations changed your opinion of Edwards in any fashion? (Not trying to "catch" you in anything here - honestly curious as to your take.)

[1stwahine]

mind you, i despise adultery. however, I would vastly prefer a president who, after balancing the nation's budget, watches oh, i dunno, old Japanese people porn in the oval office while dipping cuban cigars in cavernous places than someone who unnecessarily jeopardizes the american economy.

:) :D

I'm going to be SMILING ALL DAY!!

Noname.:p

[Random]

i've never understood our requirement that our president be as pure as driven snow. I figur i'm voting for/hiring him/her to do a certain job and if s/he gets it done without compromising certain parameters in pursuit of getting that job done. whether his/her family/friends suffer bcs of some personal wrong the person in that job does is not my concern.

the president is essentially CEO of the company that is the US. no other CEO potentially loses his/her job bcs s/he likes a little salad tossing, provided that professionally, s/he is getting the results we require.
Actually, he's more than just a company's CEO. He represent the leader of the people, and his image reflect on us.

Besides, for one who despise adultery, would you let your daughter work in the White House with a sexually promiscuous President? Would you boast and take pride that the Prez dipped his pen inside your precious child?

[TuNnL]

i've never understood our requirement that our president be as pure as driven snow. .... no other CEO potentially loses his/her job bcs s/he likes a little salad tossing, provided that professionally, s/he is getting the results we require.Okay, I think we’re getting a little distracted from the real issue here. It’s not so much that Edwards cheated on his wife. Many current and former politicians have been unfaithful (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1024927/The-wife-John-McCain-callously-left-behind.html) to their spouse. It’s the fact that when confronted about it, Edwards lied (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2007/10/12/2007-10-12_john_edwards_denies_tabloid_charge_of_af.html), rather than come clean. I honestly wouldn’t judge a politician solely based on his or her sexual indiscretions, but I do expect him to be honest. My reasoning is simple. If a politician can lie so thoroughly and completely as opposed to simply “bending the truth,” what else is he or she lying about? Maybe important issues, like the reason you thought you were voting for him/her?

That is the point.

So why is Edwards finally being honest after repeatedly lying all these months? Because he was recently caught (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vbD3zF7sJI) by tabloid photographers leaving the Beverly Hilton suite where Rielle Hunter, the woman he had an affair with, was staying. The evidence was so damning, he really had no other choice. :o

[Random]

On the other side of the argument, IF you are having an affair and keeping it from your loved one, would you be honest and confess when confronted the first time even if they don't have evidence to prove your dishonesty?

[TuNnL]

On the other side of the argument, IF you are having an affair and keeping it from your loved one, would you be honest and confess when confronted the first time even if they don't have evidence to prove your dishonesty?The reason your question is irrelevant is because John Edwards DID tell his loved one and she confirmed that he was honest and confessed everything (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ud2JVL4gUQk) to her, way back in 2006, when the affair occurred. Thus, whether or not she had evidence, has no bearing on this case.

The question of honesty, is the relationship Edwards had with the American people. Being that I am not a politician, or any type of “public figure” for that matter, it would be difficult to hypothesize how Edwards’ dilemma could apply to me. I’m just an average Joe who occasionally engages in anonymous commentary on a message board. :rolleyes:

[Frankie's Market]

Okay, I think we’re getting a little distracted from the real issue here. It’s not so much that Edwards cheated on his wife. Many current and former politicians have been unfaithful (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1024927/The-wife-John-McCain-callously-left-behind.html) to their spouse. It’s the fact that when confronted about it, Edwards lied (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2007/10/12/2007-10-12_john_edwards_denies_tabloid_charge_of_af.html), rather than come clean.

That just about sums it up. If it was the act of "fooling around" that was the problem, then you would have to disqualify John McCain, right here and now. And McCain admitted having affairs (not just one) while still married to his first wife. But he came clean with all this before his first presidential campaign in 2000. It did not come as a nasty "surprise" to everyone who supported him.

There's no doubt that the John Edwards story dominated the Friday news cycle, and its repercussions are being discussed over this weekend. Assuming there are no more major revelations about this scandal (like Edwards being the father of Rielle Hunter's child), this story will gradually run its course, serving as the sad tale of how John and Elizabeth Edwards' life in politics came to a sudden end.

[Random]

The reason your question is irrelevant is because John Edwards DID tell his loved one and she confirmed that he was honest and confessed everything (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ud2JVL4gUQk) to her, way back in 2006, when the affair occurred. Thus, whether or not she had evidence, has no bearing on this case.
It was way back in 2006? And she knew?

That's what the whole brouhaha is all about?

:rolleyes:

Get over it, people. Move along. Nothing to see. Edwards can still be Da Veep.

[Kalalau]

McCain evidently had an affair, too. He dumped his wife of many years and married the beer heiress. Gingrich is famous for serving his wife of many years with divorce papers as she was coming out of anesthesia for surgery. Funny the Edwards affair got so very much press attention and the McCain and Gingrich affairs so very little. Why that would be?

[cynsaligia]

A company CEO reflects on his/her business as well.

As for the question re my hypothetically daughter, that would be a personal situation, not political. I view the whole presidential proclivities re affairs via a political lens and in that sense, it's irrelevant for me.

[TuNnL]

Assuming there are no more major revelations about this scandal (like Edwards being the father of Rielle Hunter's child), this story will gradually run its course, serving as the sad tale of how John and Elizabeth Edwards' life in politics came to a sudden end.That revelation apparently will not be forthcoming. While John Edwards confidently asserts (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCc7x4z52o0) he is ready and willing to take a paternity test, Rielle Hunter apparently wants (http://www.youtube.com/v/B4if9TZSF_c) nothing to do with it, citing the privacy of her child. Personally, I think Hunter is making a mistake, because when her daughter is old enough, she’ll want to know why the box on her birth certificate that answers (http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_10067918?source%253Dmost_emailed.26978592730A3B 8C7F471EACE0DA4EF2.html) the “Who's your daddy?” question is blank.

[Random]

A company CEO reflects on his/her business as well.

As for the question re my hypothetically daughter, that would be a personal situation, not political. I view the whole presidential proclivities re affairs via a political lens and in that sense, it's irrelevant for me.
So, basically you'd still vote for the person, even though personally you want to cut his balls off. ;)

[cynsaligia]

Since we're speaking hypothetically, Random, I would say I'd raise any child of mine so that s/he would be inclined to avoid dalliances with those who are spoken for.

This would leave me, in this hypothetical situation, to vote for the candidate I choose and avoid using a bolo. *wink*

[Frankie's Market]

That revelation apparently will not be forthcoming. While John Edwards confidently asserts (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCc7x4z52o0) he is ready and willing to take a paternity test, Rielle Hunter apparently wants (http://www.youtube.com/v/B4if9TZSF_c) nothing to do with it, citing the privacy of her child.

Well, in October of last year, Edwards also confidently asserted that the National Enquirer story was "false," "completely untrue," and "ridiculous." And as recently as July 23, he said, "The tabloid trash is full of lies."

So much for any value that John Edwards' "confident assertions" have. :rolleyes:

Now if Edwards' public statement on Friday is 100% true and he did break off his affair with Hunter in 2006, the baby could not possibly be his. Problem is, how can anybody know for sure that his statement is 100% true, after he told a bald-faced lie about not having an affair in the first place? How can anybody take him at his word at this point?

This is the reason why John Edwards future in politics is just about ruined. Forget about being the veep. Forget about any cabinet position in an Obama administration. His trustworthiness is a big fat ZERO right now.

I don't know what Edwards and Hunter have in mind, but unless they go through a paternity test, a dark cloud of doubt will forever hang over the head of the former North Carolina senator.

[cynsaligia]

Actually, baby could be his if she er bagged the goods, froze em and applied with a turkey baster. There's been lawsuit (names escape me at the moment) where a man swore his affair consisted only of illicit acts which cannot result in a child and it turned out the woman spat out the evidence for later, self-inflicted insemination. Court found man liable for child support. *shrug*

[Ron Whitfield]

The real trip is that he and his wife (if indeed she knew as he says) kept their knowing mouths shut all along as he ran for various high office since '06. Just what was running thru their heads when they knew the facts would come up, and probably at a seriously bad time and been quite disruptive while running for office or in.
Sure glad it came out when he wasn't a factor in anything important.
What a jerk.

[Leo Lakio]

I see today that Sen. Obama is encouraging supporters to sign up for e-mail and text messages from the campaign, claiming that they will get a notice about his VP choice "the moment" he makes his decision.

Source (http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-politics/20080811/Obama.Veepstakes/)

[TuNnL]

how can anybody know for sure that (Edwards') statement is 100% true, after he told a bald-faced lie about not having an affair in the first place? How can anybody take him at his word at this point?It looks like at least Fox News has similar questions (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,401462,00.html). I’m also pretty skeptical that he has not colored his admission with half-truths, considering just how neat and convenient his version of the facts appear to be.

I don't know what Edwards and Hunter have in mindIt is actually this sentiment that I find most interesting about the fiasco. What exactly was Rielle Hunter doing in her ‘official capacy’ for the Edwards campaign? Perhaps the videos she shot (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDjxDL00mvg) will give some insight into how a relationship developed between the North Carolina senator and a fledgling independent videographer — and who is really telling the truth. :cool:

[Random]

Since we're speaking hypothetically, Random, I would say I'd raise any child of mine so that s/he would be inclined to avoid dalliances with those who are spoken for.
You're not going to succeed all the time.

This would leave me, in this hypothetical situation, to vote for the candidate I choose and avoid using a bolo. *wink*
If you want, I'll hold it for you. :D

[Random]

What a jerk.
As an individual, yeah.

As a politician, he'd fit right in. No matter how much we tried, we're just basically trying to send an angel into a corrupted Hell on Earth that is Capitol Hill.

[TuNnL]

Just what was running thru their heads when they knew the facts would come up, and probably at a seriously bad time ...
Sure glad it came out when he wasn't a factor in anything important.I’m not so sure John Edwards wasn’t a factor in anything important, right up to his nationally televised admission. As late as last month, pundits were feeding speculation (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/07/08/edwards-would-seriously-consider-vp-offer/) Edwards was being considered for a VP slot. Even here, in our unscientific HT poll, two out of 19 people still felt he was the best choice, not including our resident Edwards cheerleader, timkona. But few disputed Edwards was a lock for Attorney General under Obama. Now, even those prospects are withering on the vine.

More recent reports appear to support Frankie’s Market, who contends Edwards’ political career is over. In addition to Rielle Hunter’s close confidante (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=163Zb9w22VA), as well as Hunter’s own sister (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/13/earlyshow/main4347468.shtml), publicly accusing Edwards of continuing to lie... Edwards is now being hammered for what appears to be a $14,000 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apLmSzEna50) payment made from an Edwards PAC to Rielle after her employment with the campaign had ended.

Hush money? :cool:

[Leo Lakio]

Announcement expected by this Saturday - http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20080819/Veepstakes/

Speculation is focusing now on Biden, Sebelius, Bayh or Kaine.

[matapule]

More recent reports appear to support Frankie’s Market, who contends Edwards’ political career is over.

Why is it that Edwards' political career is over and not McCain's too? McCain admitted that he had an extramarital affair (with his current wife) while still married to his first wife. I don't get it. I'm not casting judgement, just trying to be logical.

The US is so.....so..... provincial.

[Random]

Why is it that Edwards' political career is over and not McCain's too? McCain admitted that he had an extramarital affair (with his current wife) while still married to his first wife. I don't get it. I'm not casting judgement, just trying to be logical.

The US is so.....so..... provincial.
Hey, if Clinton can fool around, so can Edward and McCain.

Sexual infidelity is not important.

[tutusue]

[...]
Sexual infidelity is not important.
I respectfully disagree. It sets up the question of Trust. If someone is lying about sexual infidelity, what else are they lying about?

[timkona]

Take it from me....Once the trust is gone.....it's game over.

[Leo Lakio]

I respectfully disagree. It sets up the question of Trust. If someone is lying about sexual infidelity, what else are they lying about?Take it from me....Once the trust is gone.....it's game over.We're talking about politicians here, folks, not your spouses/partners.

You'd be foolish to give them your trust to begin with.

[Walkoff Balk]

Why do we need a Vice President? We have a King already. I've seen him on Live, Local, Late-Breaking!

[TuNnL]

Why is it that Edwards' political career is over and not McCain's too? McCain admitted that he had an extramarital affair (with his current wife) while still married to his first wife. I don't get it. I'm not casting judgement, just trying to be logical.The answer to your question, IMHO, was thoroughly outlined more than a week ago, in post #47 (http://www.hawaiithreads.com/showpost.php?p=205252&postcount=47). And unlike in McCain’s case, the issue raised in post #54 (http://www.hawaiithreads.com/showpost.php?p=205363&postcount=54), further frames the issue as unresolved.

[Random]

I respectfully disagree. It sets up the question of Trust. If someone is lying about sexual infidelity, what else are they lying about?
We all lie, or cheat. Not all the time, but it makes us human.

[tutusue]

Take it from me....Once the trust is gone.....it's game over.
BINGO!
We're talking about politicians here, folks, not your spouses/partners.

You'd be foolish to give them your trust to begin with.
I assume "them" refers to politicians...not spouses/partners! :D
We all lie, or cheat. Not all the time, but it makes us human.
But, we all aren't politicians entrusted with the fate of an entire nation. Trust matters. See timkona's quote above! ;)

[Kalihiboy]

Joe Biden said today "I'm not the guy".

He could have said "no comment". I guess he is out then.

Putting two *young* people on the ticket could help the VP's future if he/she runs for President eventually.

Is Jim Webb from Virginia been taken out of consideration?

Aj

[matapule]

The answer to your question, IMHO, was thoroughly outlined more than a week ago, in post #47 (http://www.hawaiithreads.com/showpost.php?p=205252&postcount=47). And unlike in McCain’s case, the issue raised in post #54 (http://www.hawaiithreads.com/showpost.php?p=205363&postcount=54), further frames the issue as unresolved.

McCain lied about his affair too, at a minimum to his first wife. So my question remains unresolved.

[Leo Lakio]

Why is it that Edwards' political career is over and not McCain's too? McCain admitted that he had an extramarital affair (with his current wife) while still married to his first wife. I don't get it. I'm not casting judgement, just trying to be logical.Check out this blog piece (http://blatherwatch.blogs.com/talk_radio/2008/08/alan-colmes-pus.html), with video. Alan Colmes goes after Sean Hannity on this topic - and Hannity claims McCain's ex-war prisoner status made it OK to have the affair which led to the divorce of his first wife.

[TuNnL]

The answer to your question, IMHO, was thoroughly outlined more than a week ago, in post #47 (http://www.hawaiithreads.com/showpost.php?p=205252&postcount=47). And unlike in McCain’s case, the issue raised in post #54 (http://www.hawaiithreads.com/showpost.php?p=205363&postcount=54), further frames the issue as unresolved.McCain lied about his affair too, at a minimum to his first wife.Who cares? Did McCain lie to the American people, on multiple occasions about it (as Edwards did)? Apples and oranges, matapule..please get a clue. :rolleyes: So my question remains unresolved.Not really. McCain resolved his infidelity by divorcing (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1024927/The-wife-John-McCain-callously-left-behind.html) his first wife and marrying the woman he was banging on the side — well before any Presidential run. In contrast, it has NOT been resolved whether or not Edwards is the father of his mistress’ child. As stated earlier (http://hawaiithreads.com/showpost.php?p=206096&postcount=64), his denials directly conflict with accounts given by Rielle Hunter’s friend and sister. The baby girl’s birth certificate is blank. :(

[Random]

But, we all aren't politicians entrusted with the fate of an entire nation. Trust matters. See timkona's quote above! ;)
If that's the case, no human should be serving on the Capitol Hill. :p

Heck, we don't even have a procedure to SWIFTLY remove people in such high position for violating our trust. (He violated my trust since I have a pretty high standards when it comes to the sanctity of marriage.) Slick Willy was able to serve his full term. So, the guy who denies having extramarital affairs (plural) can still get away, while those own up to their sins -- regardless of how long he held it before confessing -- should be punished?

[Kalihiboy]

Maybe Joe Biden is putting up a smoke screen by saying he isn't the guy. Because it seems more and more he just might be:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-clemons/why-radio-silence-can-be_b_119933.html

and

http://www.rr.com/view/content/story.cfm?storyId=5640439&newsgroup=9000&view=HOME

[Frankie's Market]

Maybe Joe Biden is putting up a smoke screen by saying he isn't the guy. Because it seems more and more he just might be:

And what do you know? Biden's name wasn't even on the poll's list. Talk about a dark horse possibly coming out on top.

Biden offers perhaps the best single package to shore up Obama's weaknesses. He has the govt. experience, foreign policy savvy, appeals to Catholics and working class white males. He's also a smart debater and not afraid to talk tough about his opponents on the campaign trail. Perhaps the only other candidate who could complement the Obama ticket better is Hillary. But of course, Biden comes without the baggage of Bill Clinton.

If Obama was more concerned about picking someone that he liked and felt comfortable with, it probably would have been Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine. If Obama was looking for a running mate with the idea of securing a key battleground state on the electoral map, it would have been Indiana Senator Evan Bayh. But it appears that Obama is looking beyond these factors in selecting his veep.

[matapule]

See post #27 in this thread.....he said with a smirk.

[Ron Whitfield]

None of the remaining 4 are top shelf, which leaves Mr. Who? - Sam Nunn, for me, as the best choice.

[tutusue]

If that's the case, no human should be serving on the Capitol Hill. :p
You got it!
Heck, we don't even have a procedure to SWIFTLY remove people in such high position for violating our trust. (He violated my trust since I have a pretty high standards when it comes to the sanctity of marriage.) Slick Willy was able to serve his full term. So, the guy who denies having extramarital affairs (plural) can still get away, while those own up to their sins -- regardless of how long he held it before confessing -- should be punished?
Nope...didn't say that and, hopefully, didn't imply that! I had hoped "Willy" woulda been kicked to the curb and that Hillary woulda slammed him with divorce papers. That he got away with it and she's still by his side makes no sense to me. Then, again, I'm not a politician. Thank God! :D

[matapule]

I had hoped "Willy" woulda been kicked to the curb and that Hillary woulda slammed him with divorce papers. That he got away with it and she's still by his side makes no sense to me. Then, again, I'm not a politician.

Ahh' Tutu, where's the forgiveness in you? True love has no limits.;)

Who cares? Did McCain lie to the American people, on multiple occasions about it (as Edwards did)? Apples and oranges, matapule..please get a clue.

Tunnl, I have to agree with you, I DON'T have a clue. You see, I think lying to your spouse about a private matter (McCain) is more aggregious that lying to the American People about a private matter (Edwards). Just call me old fashioned. I'm not condoning Edward's behavior, just trying to put it into perspective

As far as lying to the American People......over 4000 US dead, countless Iraqis dead........where are those Weapons of Mass Destruction? I don't have a clue. Can someone please give me a clue?

[TuNnL]

And what do you know? Biden's name wasn't even on the poll's list. Talk about a dark horse possibly coming out on top.I considered putting Biden’s name in the “other” category, but figured someone as heavyweight as him deserved his own slot, and HT polls only allow 10. In hindsight, his name should have replaced Edwards. :p

Biden offers perhaps the best single package to shore up Obama's weaknesses. He has the govt. experience, foreign policy savvy, appeals to Catholics and working class white males. He's also a smart debater and not afraid to talk tough about his opponents on the campaign trail.Clearly if the short list has dwindled down to the choices in Leo’s article (http://hawaiithreads.com/showpost.php?p=206541&postcount=65), Obama would be foolish not to pick Biden.

Perhaps the only other candidate who could complement the Obama ticket better is Hillary. But of course, Biden comes without the baggage of Bill Clinton.I disagree that it’s only about the baggage (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJgfl8jxyw0). Hillary represents the old guard in both her message and her actions. Choosing her would directly conflict with Obama’s message of change in Washington.

[tutusue]

Ahh' Tutu, where's the forgiveness in you? True love has no limits.;)
Close! But I'll amend that to read...True love of politics has no limits! :D

[Frankie's Market]

I considered putting Biden’s name in the “other” category, but figured someone as heavyweight as him deserved his own slot, and HT polls only allow 10. In hindsight, his name should have replaced Edwards. :p

I wouldn't fault including Edwards' name, at the time. Nobody saw the Rielle Hunter scandal coming. Except for avid readers of the National Enquirer. ;)

I disagree that it’s only about the baggage (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJgfl8jxyw0). Hillary represents the old guard in both her message and her actions. Choosing her would directly conflict with Obama’s message of change in Washington.

Well, what is Biden, then? He's as old guard as they come. He's been in Washington 20 years longer than the Clintons. In fact, when Biden was first elected to the Senate, Bill and Hillary were still students at Yale Law School.

If you ask me, selecting Biden also runs against the idea of "change in Washington." But since people have reservations about Obama for his inexperience, the only way to allay those concerns is to select a running mate who has the experience.

This all sounds like typical whining from the conservative media. If Obama picks Clinton or Biden to be his running mate, they'll say, "I thought he was supposed to be the candidate of change." If he picks someone like Tim Kaine, then they'll say, "How can Obama pick an inexperienced guy like Kaine when he himself has such a short resume?" But of course, for the conservative pundits, Obama isn't supposed to make a good choice, either way. :rolleyes:

[Random]

As far as lying to the American People......over 4000 US dead, countless Iraqis dead........where are those Weapons of Mass Destruction? I don't have a clue. Can someone please give me a clue?
Weapons of Mass Destruction: Saddam Hussein and his two sons. :D

[TuNnL]

Nobody saw the Rielle Hunter scandal coming. Except for avid readers of the National Enquirer. ;)Actually, the Enquirer can’t take credit for breaking the story. It first made print in the New York Post (http://www.nypost.com/seven/08272007/gossip/pagesix/just_asking.htm) in August 2007, albeit in a much more vague way. Speaking of Reille, she has broken her silence (http://wcbstv.com/topstories/rielle.hunter.paparazzi.2.799693.html), in a “10-3” for an “083” kind of way. ;)

Well, what is Biden, then? He's as old guard as they come. He's been in Washington 20 years longer than the Clintons.I agree completely. As I said previously (http://hawaiithreads.com/showpost.php?p=206760&postcount=87), he is the best choice if (and only if) the remaining candidates have dwindled down to the ones outlined in Leo’s article.

[Leo Lakio]

Well, what is Biden, then? He's as old guard as they come. He's been in Washington 20 years longer than the Clintons.And in the Senate 14 years longer than McCain.

[Random]

And in the Senate 14 years longer than McCain.
So, about the same prehistoric age as Bob Dole. :p

[Frankie's Market]

So, about the same prehistoric age as Bob Dole. :p

Think again. Joe Biden is 19 years younger than Bob Dole.

Keep in mind that when Biden first took office in the US Senate in 1973, he had just turned 30 years of age. So although it may seem like he's been a senator for ages, Biden has not passed the big SEVEN-OH yet. He's now 65.

[Kalihiboy]

Kaine and Bayh are out of the running:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/22/obama.vp/index.html

Looks like it could be down to Biden, Kansas Governor, Chet Edwards or some darkhorse surprise like clinton or gore.

I think it will be Biden. Good choice, though if he wins along with Obama will be too old to run for President if the opportunity should arise in 8 years.

Regarding Biden, who has more electoral votes Hawaii or Delaware? :D

Aj

[TuNnL]

Looks like it could be down to Biden, Kansas Governor, Chet Edwards or some darkhorse surprise like clinton or gore.

I think it will be Biden. Good choiceI agree. According to FlightAware.com, a private jet flew in a charter flight (http://flightaware.com/live/flight/EJA863) from Chicago to New Castle, Delaware. This is an unusual flight, so speculation by ABC News (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/08/bidens-stock-ri.html) abounds that the plane is there to pick up Biden. It arrived a few hours ago.

[Random]

Think again. Joe Biden is 19 years younger than Bob Dole.
So, Dole was there when Adam ate the Fruit, and Biden was there to see Noah built an Ark. :p

Well, it's official. Joe Biden will be his running mate, according to his official web site, as well as this article:

http://news.aol.com/elections/article/obama-names-his-running-mate/145271?icid=100214839x1208208256x1200451047

[buzz1941]

Of course, Biden was not in the poll that started this thread.

[TuNnL]

Well, it's official. Joe Biden will be his running mateI found out while watching the monitors at 24 Hour Fitness tonight! MSNBC had a field day (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26010055/).
Of course, Biden was not in the poll that started this thread....which we already discussed (http://hawaiithreads.com/showpost.php?p=206661&postcount=81) extensively. Try to keep up, Burl. :rolleyes:

[Frankie's Market]

Talking about "keeping up" with the news, the first TV outlet to come out and confirm Biden being offered the VP slot appears to be CNN, with John King quoting two sources from the Democratic Party who he refused to name, but said were very reliable. This was on the Larry King Show.

Then within another couple of minutes, FOX News reported the same thing on Hannity and Colmes, but attributed their source as being the AP.

MSNBC? At that moment, they were in the middle of their typical Friday night block programming. Probably Lock Up or To Catch A Predator. :rolleyes:

[buzz1941]

Try to keep up, Burl. :rolleyes:

Oh my god, I'm so sorry. Please forgive this unbelievable breach.

[TuNnL]

So Obama has chosen Biden. And as the Biden thread (http://www.hawaiithreads.com/showthread.php?t=15736) indicates, some *cough* timkona *cough* feel that he was not the best choice. So in light of the arguments that have been made for the selection, does anyone still feel there was a better candidate? Who and why? :confused:

[escondido100]

biden was quoted today that he thought hillary was better qualified than he.....foe president and vice president.....i think that obama has buyers remorse......and biden is prepping for stepping aside.....i seriously doubt that hillary will have anything to do with this....she is waiting for 2012 when she can go up against....palin.....she has a very good reason to not want obama to win.

[Frankie's Market]

biden was quoted today that he thought hillary was better qualified than he.....foe president and vice president.....i think that obama has buyers remorse......and biden is prepping for stepping aside.....

IOW, you think the Obama campaign is going to start panicking because of the Palin factor. Wrongo, that's not going to happen. As voters learn more about Palin and the dirty politicking of the GOP, I think buyer's remorse will set in with all those freshly jumping on the McCain/Palin bandwagon.

[U'ilani]

Why in the world would Joe Biden make this comment (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/09/biden-hillary-a.html)?

"Hillary Clinton is as qualified or more qualified than I am to be vice president of the United States of America. Let’s get that straight. She’s a truly close personal friend, she is qualified to be president of the United States of America, she’s easily qualified to be vice president of the United States of America, and quite frankly, it might have been a better pick than me. But she’s first rate, I mean that sincerely, she’s first rate, so let’s get that straight."

This would seem to be undercutting the argument that the Dems have tried to make that Obama is qualified to be president, and reminding the public about the highly qualified candidate they had in Hillary Clinton. Buyer's remorse, indeed. McCain's people will use that comment against them; I can hear the ads already: "Even his own vp candidate, Senator Biden, acknowledges how easily qualified his former competitor, Hillary Clinton, was to be president..."

Who are the idiots running Obama's campaign? They need pitbulls (pun intended) like McCain has if they want to win. The public, frankly, eats up all of this playground quarrels and it impacts the way they see the candidates.

And then Obama is stupid enough to make the pigs & lipstick comment so soon after Palin made her pitbulls & lipstick one. Why didn't Obama realize that he'd take another body blow for that comment, probably particularly by white women who are mesmerized by Palin's personal narrative and can more easily identify with her?

Well, her interview with Charlie Gibson is tonight, so this is our first opportunity to see how she can perform without a script. Should be interesting.

http://drudgereport.com/sp.jpg

--

Oh, and I want to add that I think escondido100 could be right about Hillary wanting Obama to lose so that she can run against Palin. The next president will almost assuredly have a country in further economic & geopolitical crisis; if McCain wins, Hillary will have 4 years of the state of our nation under McCain/Palin to ridicule. By then, the country might truly be ready/willing/desperate enough to vote for a liberal again for president, and a woman, at that.

[My political/philosophical leanings: fiscally conservative, socially moderate cynic]

[Frankie's Market]

This would seem to be undercutting the argument that the Dems have tried to make that Obama is qualified to be president, and reminding the public about the highly qualified candidate they had in Hillary Clinton. Buyer's remorse, indeed. McCain's people will use that comment against them; I can hear the ads already: "Even his own vp candidate, Senator Biden, acknowledges how easily qualified his former competitor, Hillary Clinton, was to be president..."

Sounds like the same kind of bizarre spin that the McCain campaign used against Barack Obama, claiming that his "lipstick on a pig" statement amounted to the Illinois senator called Sarah Palin a pig. :rolleyes:

You need to put Joe Biden's quote about Hillary Clinton into its proper context. Biden made his statement when someone at a Democratic fundraiser took a swipe at Clinton and said he was glad she wasn't selected as Barack Obama's running mate. So he said what he said to defend Hillary.

Keep in mind: the primary campaign is over. Obama is no longer running against Clinton. The Obama camp is doing it's best to reach out to Hillary's supporters and to unify the Democratic Party. Biden concurring with someone making a derogatory remark about the former First Lady isn't the best way of making peace with the Clintonites, don'cha think? :rolleyes:

But yeah, leave it to someone in McCain's camp to try and twist Biden's words around. After this whole lipstick fiasco, I think voters will start getting fed up with pundits who twist every little thing the candidates say instead of focusing on the issues that really matter, like the economy, healthcare, national security, Iraq, etc.

[U'ilani]

You need to put Joe Biden's quote about Hillary Clinton into its proper context. Biden made his statement when someone at a Democratic fundraiser took a swipe at Clinton and said he was glad she wasn't selected as Barack Obama's running mate. So he said what he said to defend Hillary.

Keep in mind: the primary campaign is over. Obama is no longer running against Clinton. The Obama camp is doing it's best to reach out to Hillary's supporters and to unify the Democratic Party. Biden concurring with someone making a derogatory remark about the former First Lady isn't the best way of making peace with the Clintonites, don'cha think? :rolleyes:

But yeah, leave it to someone in McCain's camp to try and twist Biden's words around. After this whole lipstick fiasco, I think voters will start getting fed up with pundits who twist every little thing the candidates say instead of focusing on the issues that really matter, like the economy, healthcare, national security, Iraq, etc.No, you misunderstood me, Myopic. I don't have a dog in this fight. I understand the context of Biden's comment completely; my point is that comments like that can be used by his opponents by taking it out of context (as with the lipstick-pig one was done briefly yesterday). Politics is a bloodsport, and Hillary knew how to take on her opponents like a grand competitor/athlete; I don't see Obama having that same "go for the jugular" that politicians seem to require in this day and age. That may say something about Obama and his higher moral character, but it may be the thing that keeps him from winning this race. That's my only point, Joe. Don't throw me in your silly partisan battle here on the HT board; it bores the hell out of me. As I said before, our country is screwed no matter who gets in.

[Leo Lakio]

No, you misunderstood me, Myopic. --- That's my only point, Joe.(Don't worry, U`ilani - we know you meant Frankie's Market, not MyopicJoe.)

[Frankie's Market]

No, you misunderstood me, Myopic. I don't have a dog in this fight. I understand the context of Biden's comment completely; my point is that comments like that can be used by his opponents by taking it out of context (as with the lipstick-pig one was done briefly yesterday).

My name is not Joe, but you are quoting me. So I will respond in turn.

If you understand the context, then I don't understand your making a big deal out of Biden's statement.

As I said, if the Republicans keep taking Obama/Biden's statements out of context and twisting their words,..... this strategy of putting the Democratic ticket on the defensive and distracting them from their campaign message will get old very quickly. Just as the McCain campaign won't be able to get away with screaming "Sexism!" every time the media reports a less-than-flattering story about Palin. If the GOP persists in these tactics, sooner or later, there will be a backlash from the media.

Earlier in the primary campaign, the cast at Saturday Night Live did a humorous sketch that shed light on the media's initial infatuation with Barack Obama. Then later, when it was obvious that Hillary no longer had a shot at the Democratic nomination, SNL made fun of Clinton being in denial of reality. I think it's only fair that the not-ready-for-primetime crew take a shot at the McCain/Palin ticket.

[Leo Lakio]

After this whole lipstick fiasco, I think voters will start getting fed up with pundits who twist every little thing the candidates say instead of focusing on the issues that really matter, like the economy, healthcare, national security, Iraq, etc.If the GOP persists in these tactics, sooner or later, there will be a backlash from the media.I really hope you are right, FM - but I have my doubts. I am constantly astounded by what the "average" American voter will swallow, and how weak the "media" has become. Our nation, sadly, gives more interest to "American Idol" than to "American Democracy," and as others are fond of saying, we end up with the government we deserve.

We get mad - but we never really change anything. The glory period of the American Empire is behind us, and history will eventually show that we are now in the corpulent and crumbling latter-days.

[Frankie's Market]

I really hope you are right, FM - but I have my doubts. I am constantly astounded by what the "average" American voter will swallow, and how weak the "media" has become.

There's already been a strong pushback from some political commentators who are calling out the McCain campaign for its use of phony outrage over the "lipstick-on-a-pig" remark. The best reaction from yesterday was Hardball's Chris Matthews. Check it out.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/

We get mad - but we never really change anything. The glory period of the American Empire is behind us, and history will eventually show that we are now in the corpulent and crumbling latter-days.

If that's the case, then why even bother voting? Why even get into passionate debates about politics? Why even care about who gets elected, from president all the way down to your state representative?

If things are ever to get better, it starts with people "caring." It doesn't start with attitudes of indifference or cyncism.

[Leo Lakio]

If that's the case, then why even bother voting? Why even get into passionate debates about politics? Why even care about who gets elected, from president all the way down to your state representative?Because some of us are crazily optimistic, in addition to being cynical.

[Random]

If that's the case, then why even bother voting?
To hasten the fall of an empire. http://img2.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/evilgrin/evilgrin0030.gif (http://www.mysmiley.net/free-aim-smileys.php)

[matapule]

If things are ever to get better, it starts with people "caring." It doesn't start with attitudes of indifference or cyncism.

I vote because I'm hoping for a cure for my cynicism.

[TuNnL]

We get mad - but we never really change anything. The glory period of the American Empire is behind us, and history will eventually show that we are now in the corpulent and crumbling latter-days.If that's the case, then why even bother voting? Why even get into passionate debates about politics? Why even care about who gets elected, from president all the way down to your state representative?This may sound condescending, but I think you are missing Leo’s underlying point here. The implication is that procuring passionate debate about politics and caring about who gets elected are necessary in a democratic society. But that’s not enough. One of the reasons I respect timkona despite the fact that I disagree with his opinions on the issues nearly 70% of the time, is he puts his money where his mouth is. Running for office is no easy task, and one that most of us will never even consider attempting in our lifetimes.

But that’s the only way real change can be initiated. We should do all the things you advocate and donate our money and our time to campaign for these individuals. We should get journalism degrees and practice investigative reporting. We should be community organizers, like Obama, and mobilize a base of new independent thinkers. We should get law degrees and take on large corporations and elements of the New World Order (http://www.hawaiithreads.com/showthread.php?t=12729) that control our federal government. And God forbid it should ever come to it, we should be prepared to take up arms against our government and revolt against it, like our forefathers said may be necessary, if our government has become so powerful and oppressive as to contradict the very principles it was founded on.

We underestimate the urgency of the decisions being made at this immediate moment. At least the Roman Empire had a long and proud history. Will the Country Formerly Known as the United States of America™ simply be a flash of brilliance in an otherwise dark period?

[Leo Lakio]

Thank you, FM, for asking. Thank you, TuNnL, for understanding. Thank you, matapule, for the wonderful answer (that I wish I had said).

Oh - and thank you, Random, for the answer that made me smirk.

[Frankie's Market]

This may sound condescending, but I think you are missing Leo’s underlying point here. The implication is that procuring passionate debate about politics and caring about who gets elected are necessary in a democratic society. But that’s not enough.

You're right, that isn't enough. But I never said it was.

In fact, you failed to quote my last statement, which contains a key word.

If things are ever to get better, it starts with people "caring." It doesn't start with attitudes of indifference or cyncism.

Note that I said it starts with caring. I didn't say that it started and ended there.

If anyone sincerely wants to make a difference in society, whether it be running for political office, being a teacher or a social worker, being a pastor/minister, or whatever, it all starts with that person initially caring and THEN, taking positive action on that initial attitude.

[Leo Lakio]

If anyone sincerely wants to make a difference in society, whether it be running for political office, being a teacher or a social worker, being a pastor/minister, or whatever, it all starts with that person initially caring and THEN, taking positive action on that initial attitude.And some of us earn our cynicism by having taken action for years. Sometimes, we just get tired of the fight, and hope to see others take it up for a while, and do more than just whine about it.

[Frankie's Market]

And some of us earn our cynicism by having taken action for years. Sometimes, we just get tired of the fight, and hope to see others take it up for a while, and do more than just whine about it.

People get burned out and/or disillusioned for various reasons. If it happens, then hey, we're only human. Far be it from me to pass judgement on anyone.

But you have those special people who, despite the ups and downs of life, make public service a lifelong avocation. Sure, folks know about the famous ones like Mother Theresa and Rosa Parks. But there are thousands of others just like them, who never get recognition, but in their own ways, big and small, have done their part to make their communities and this country a better place to live.

Dare I say it? In this person's humble opinion, Ah Quon McElrath has touched more people's lives in this state than many a state legislator or city councilman. I truly believe that.

[matapule]

And some of us earn our cynicism by having taken action for years. Sometimes, we just get tired of the fight, and hope to see others take it up for a while, and do more than just whine about it.

NEVER give up, NEVER give up, NEVER give up!

What's the difference between a matapule and a 240 pound pitbull? A funny name!

[Leo Lakio]

But there are thousands of others just like them, who never get recognition, but in their own ways, big and small, have done their part to make their communities and this country a better place to live.NEVER give up, NEVER give up, NEVER give up!Ah, encouragement --- better'n caffeine! Mahalo.

[U'ilani]

My name is not Joe, but you are quoting me. So I will respond in turn.My apologies for the name switch, MF; that's what I get for multitasking. I was indeed responding to you.

My post was really about campaign strategies and what candidates say and how their statements can hurt them. You instead are wanting to engage in partisan debate, which holds -0- interest for me. We're not talking the same language, plus this thread has moved on to more interesting topics, so I'll take my leave.



We get mad - but we never really change anything. The glory period of the American Empire is behind us, and history will eventually show that we are now in the corpulent and crumbling latter-days.I'm totally with you on this comment, LL. We are both great cynics. :D

Those who know me and the kind of work I do know that I am completely engaged, and some days engulfed, in public service. Taking on a cynical attitude about our government enables me to be less disappointed, however. These past 7.5 years have disillusioned me completely.

[TuNnL]

Getting back on topic, I stumbled upon this segment (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLS5E9imay4) from “Hotline T.V.” which apparently showcased a duel between MSNBC political director Chuck Todd and John Mercurio of the National Journal. The two were making predictions on the political fortunes of prospective presidential candidates in the very early stages of the campaign. The idea supposedly, was speculating a top-rated second-tier candidate (read: VP). Curiously, the events of the day have proven Mercurio was much more astute at predicting a winner then the clueless Todd. I just thought it was interesting. :)