Obama Bypasses Clinton for VP Choice
The_Carpathia
demonstrated in recent polls as a bad pick) is also an obvious slap at
Hillary. In 2004, Kerry chose the second place delegate leader to be
his candidate to bring the party together. However, Obama jumped OVER
Hillary (despite many thinking she won the primary) to get his VP. He
couldn't go with John Edwards (the VP pick for 2004), since he was
outed in a sex scandal. So, he chose the 4th place primary candidate
(Joe Biden) INSTEAD of the 2nd place candiate (Hillary Clinton). It's
like the men of the party are telling Hillary, "Sit down and shut
up...little lady...we're going to go with a male ticket....so just
fall in line." She may be willing to fall in line for party sake, but
I don't think many of her followers are going to be so submissive.
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
Thom
No. that's not what happened.
according to the republicans out there, Hillary is having many lesbian
affairs and the Enquirer would sniff them out.
Wise move , Obama.
"The_Carpathia" <writi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:62fbfcc8-ce52-44e1...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Cary Kittrell
> I think it is a bit unreported that the Biden pick (while being
> demonstrated in recent polls as a bad pick) is also an obvious slap at
> Hillary.
Bill Clinton.
In the White House.
Roaming the halls.
Looking over your shoulder.
And, the camera loves him.
Any questions?
-- cary
The_Carpathia
> In article <62fbfcc8-ce52-44e1-a506-591eb4087...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> The_Carpathia <writing...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> > I think it is a bit unreported that the Biden pick (while being
> > demonstrated in recent polls as a bad pick) is also an obvious slap at
> > Hillary.
>
> Bill Clinton.
>
> In the White House.
>
> Roaming the halls.
>
> Looking over your shoulder.
>
> And, the camera loves him.
>
> Any questions?
>
> -- cary
Yes. Why would Obama overlook the woman with higher credentials and
more expereince than Obama that got second to go with an Old (opposed
to Obama's age), establishment (3 decades in congress compared with
Obama's change message), rich (opposed to Obama's poor message), white
MALE that was in 4th place in delegates?
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
Cary Kittrell
> On Aug 25, 1:12=A0pm, c...@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
> > In article <62fbfcc8-ce52-44e1-a506-591eb4087...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups=
> .com> The_Carpathia <writing...@yahoo.com> writes:
> >
> > > I think it is a bit unreported that the Biden pick (while being
> > > demonstrated in recent polls as a bad pick) is also an obvious slap at
> >
> > Bill Clinton.
> >
> > In the White House.
> >
> > Roaming the halls.
> >
> > Looking over your shoulder.
> >
> > And, the camera loves him.
> >
> > Any questions?
> >
> > -- cary
>
> Yes. Why would Obama overlook the woman with higher credentials and
> more expereince than Obama that got second to go with an Old (opposed
> to Obama's age), establishment (3 decades in congress compared with
> Obama's change message), rich (opposed to Obama's poor message), white
> MALE that was in 4th place in delegates?
Perhaps I typed too softly. Let me try again:
Bill Clinton.
In the White House.
Roaming the halls.
Looking over your shoulder.
And, the camera loves him.
-- cary
Bob LeChevalier
>I think it is a bit unreported that the Biden pick (while being
>demonstrated in recent polls as a bad pick) is also an obvious slap at
>Hillary.
Primarily because it isn't. Hillary was one of the first to indicate
her support, and she isn't the sort to take a "slap" lightly.
>In 2004, Kerry chose the second place delegate leader to be
>his candidate to bring the party together. However, Obama jumped OVER
>Hillary (despite many thinking she won the primary) to get his VP.
Actually this aspect of the VP decision has hardly been unreported,
and there has been no shortage of reasons presented as to why Hillary
would not have been a good VP choice.
If Hillary had "won the primary" (there is no national primary, so
this is grammatically impossible), then it would be she choosing the
VP. Thus anyone who thinks that she won is as out of touch with
reality as .... Kennie.
But since you raise the question, how many votes for President did
Cheney get before Bush picked him? Do you feel that Romney should be
McCain's VP because he got the most votes? How many votes did Jindal,
who you have supported for VP, get in the national primaries? Is
Kennie a hypocrite?
>He couldn't go with John Edwards (the VP pick for 2004), since he was
>outed in a sex scandal.
There is no evidence that John Edwards was under consideration at the
time he was "outed" (not that it is anyone's business but him and his
wife and the lady in question). Most people on the inside seemed to
think that the others on the shortlist were Bayh and Kaine, and the
other Edwards guy from Texas. Other names were bandied about like
Richardson and Sibilius, but they apparently didn't make the
shortlist.
>So, he chose the 4th place primary candidate (Joe Biden)
I don't think that Obama considered his position in the primaries at
all.
>INSTEAD of the 2nd place candiate (Hillary Clinton).
Since I doubt that Hillary was considered in the running, you present
a false dichotomy. He chose Biden over Bayh, Kaine, and Edwards of
Texas.
>It's like the men of the party are telling Hillary, "Sit down and shut
>up...little lady..
It is? Funny how she is speaking at the convention, something
difficult to do when sitting and shutting up.
>we're going to go with a male ticket....so just fall in line."
Actually, she should fall in line because the alternative is a "third
Bush term" under that old guy who owns more houses than he can count,
and who used to be a straight-talking maverick, once he got free from
the
>She may be willing to fall in line for party sake, but
>I don't think many of her followers are going to be so submissive.
I am sure that most who weren't Republican agents will "fall in line
for party sake". Not because they are "submissive", but because they
know which party needs to win the White House in order to protect
their interests (which include reproductive rights that McCain and his
supporters don't accept).
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
loj...@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org
Cary Kittrell
We could always go back to the original system, in which whoever
got the second-most number of electorial votes became Vice President,
irrespective of party affiliation.
Just think: under that system, Vice Presidents Gore and Kerry
would have been running the country for the last eight years,
instead of Vice President Cheney running it.
-- cary
Cary Kittrell
> demonstrated in recent polls as a bad pick) is also an obvious slap at
> Hillary. In 2004, Kerry chose the second place delegate leader to be
> his candidate to bring the party together. However, Obama jumped OVER
> Hillary (despite many thinking she won the primary) to get his VP. He
> couldn't go with John Edwards (the VP pick for 2004), since he was
> outed in a sex scandal. So, he chose the 4th place primary candidate
> (Joe Biden) INSTEAD of the 2nd place candiate (Hillary Clinton). It's
> like the men of the party are telling Hillary, "Sit down and shut
> up...little lady...we're going to go with a male ticket....so just
> fall in line."
Ah, the patented old "The Democrats are male chauvinists"
line of Kenny-disinformation.
Pop quiz:
Part 1: fill in the blanks (choosing from the numbers `26' and `68'):
There are currently ____ Republican women in Congress and the Senate.
There are currently ____ Democratic women in Congress and the Senate.
Part 2: fill in the blanks (choosing from the numbers `6' and `2'):
There are currently ____ Republican women state governors.
There are currently ____ Democratic women state governors.
So...how'd you do?
-- cary
Tartarus
> I think it is a bit unreported that the Biden pick (while being
> demonstrated in recent polls as a bad pick) is also an obvious slap at
> Hillary. In 2004, Kerry chose the second place delegate leader to be
> his candidate to bring the party together. However, Obama jumped OVER
> Hillary (despite many thinking she won the primary)
She didn't. It was in all the papers.
Tartarus
Bob
*******************************************
It's simple ... he doesn't like her.
Bob LeChevalier
>On Aug 25, 1:12 pm, c...@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
>> In article <62fbfcc8-ce52-44e1-a506-591eb4087...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> The_Carpathia <writing...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>> > I think it is a bit unreported that the Biden pick (while being
>> > demonstrated in recent polls as a bad pick) is also an obvious slap at
>> > Hillary.
>>
>> Bill Clinton.
>>
>> In the White House.
>>
>> Roaming the halls.
>>
>> Looking over your shoulder.
>>
>> And, the camera loves him.
>>
>> Any questions?
>
Not really.
>and more expereince than Obama
There are a lot of women with higher credentials and more experience
than Obama. But that isn't how we choose presidents (or veeps).
>that got second to go with an Old (opposed to Obama's age)
The appropriate comparison would be with Hillary's age. They are
within a few years of being the same age, though neither of them will
exceed the average American lifespan during the next two Democratic
presidential terms, whereas McCain would exceed that before his first
term ended.
>?establishment (3 decades in congress compared with
Hillary's 7 years.
>Obama's change message)
Actually, Biden has been pushing for change for his entire career.
Progressives have that advantage, ya know.
>rich (opposed to Obama's poor message),
Nope. He's less well off than Obama. And Hillary made several times
more money last year than Biden's net worth. Not that it matters.
Oh. And Obama's message is NOT poor; that's your brainpower that you
are describing.
>white MALE that was in 4th place in delegates?
since he dropped out of the race after the first caucus, his final
delegate total is hardly relevant to anything.
But how many delegates were committed to Cheney when he was chosen by
Bushwhack to be the shadow president in 2000?
Your hamhanded attempts to stir dissent within the Democrats (not that
many of them are reading this newsgroup right now, since they are
probably paying attention to the convention) only make you look silly
and ignorant. Karl Rove, you ain't.
The_Carpathia
> Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org>
So, your case is that Hillary should be the VP?
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
The_Carpathia
You guys are proving yourselves hypocrites without a core truth.
Whenever your party choice goes against your position, you just
say....yeah, that's what I meant. When Obama said he was in favor of
late term abortion bans, you guys said...no problem. When Obama said
he was in favor of teacher performance pay and charter schools
(against the teacher unions), your party said...no problem. When
Obama not only didn't reject war but suggested more troops for
Afganistan, your party said...no problem. When Obama said it was ok
to do offshore drilling, your party said..no problem. When Obama said
it was constitutional to give money to religious organizations, your
party said...no problem. Now, the party of change choosing an
establishment congressment, a young candidate choosing one of the
oldest, a poor ticket choosing a rich man, a minority ticket choosing
a white man, a MALE ticket choosing NOT to pick a more popular and
qualified woman is all ok for you guys? After all, it doesn't matter
what he believes (or even if the VP would have ran on a McCain
ticket), so long as he is in the right party, right? Here's hoping
Obama is as conservative as he suggests. You guys would follow him
right into being a conservative party...right?
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
Cary Kittrell
> On Aug 25, 5:26=A0pm, c...@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
> > Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > The_Carpathia <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >I think it is a bit unreported that the Biden pick (while being
> > > >demonstrated in recent polls as a bad pick) is also an obvious slap at
> > > >Hillary.
> >
> > > her support, and she isn't the sort to take a "slap" lightly.
> >
> > > >In 2004, Kerry chose the second place delegate leader to be
> ER
> > > >Hillary (despite many thinking she won the primary) to get his VP.
> >
> > > Actually this aspect of the VP decision has hardly been unreported,
> > > and there has been no shortage of reasons presented as to why Hillary
> > > would not have been a good VP choice.
> >
> > > If Hillary had "won the primary" (there is no national primary, so
> > > this is grammatically impossible), then it would be she choosing the
> > > reality as .... Kennie.
> >
> > > But since you raise the question, how many votes for President did
> > > McCain's VP because he got the most votes? =A0How many votes did Jindal=
> ,
> > > who you have supported for VP, get in the national primaries? =A0Is
> > > Kennie a hypocrite?
> >
> > > >He couldn't go with John Edwards (the VP pick for 2004), since he was
> > > >outed in a sex scandal.
> >
> > > There is no evidence that John Edwards was under consideration at the
> > > time he was "outed" (not that it is anyone's business but him and his
> > > think that the others on the shortlist were Bayh and Kaine, and the
> > > Richardson and Sibilius, but they apparently didn't make the
> > > shortlist.
> >
> > > >So, he chose the 4th place primary candidate (Joe Biden)
> >
> > > I don't think that Obama considered his position in the primaries at
> > > all.
> >
> > > >INSTEAD of the 2nd place candiate (Hillary Clinton).
> >
> > > Since I doubt that Hillary was considered in the running, you present
> > > Texas.
> >
> > > >It's like the men of the party are telling Hillary, "Sit down and shut
> > > >up...little lady..
> >
> > > difficult to do when sitting and shutting up.
> >
> > > >we're going to go with a male ticket....so just fall in line."
> >
> > > Actually, she should fall in line because the alternative is a "third
> > > Bush term" under that old guy who owns more houses than he can count,
> > > and who used to be a straight-talking maverick, once he got free from
> > > the
> >
> > > >She may be willing to fall in line for party sake, but
> > > >I don't think many of her followers are going to be so submissive.
> >
> > > I am sure that most who weren't Republican agents will "fall in line
> > > know which party needs to win the White House in order to protect
> > > their interests (which include reproductive rights that McCain and his
> > > supporters don't accept).
> >
> > We could always go back to the original system, in which whoever
> > got the second-most number of electorial votes became Vice President,
> > irrespective of party affiliation.
> >
> > Just think: under that system, Vice Presidents Gore and Kerry
> > would have been running the country for the last eight years,
> > instead of Vice President Cheney running it.
> >
> > -- cary
>
> So, your case is that Hillary should be the VP?
No, you don't understand.
Under the original system, Obama would be President, and McCain
Vice President -- or vice versa.
It's in that Constitution thingie. You could look it up.
-- cary
Cary Kittrell
> On Aug 25, 10:20=A0pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
> > The_Carpathia <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> In article <62fbfcc8-ce52-44e1-a506-591eb4087...@r66g2000hsg.googlegro=
> ups.com> The_Carpathia <writing...@yahoo.com> writes:
> >
> > >> > I think it is a bit unreported that the Biden pick (while being
> at
> > >> > Hillary. =A0
> >
> > >> Bill Clinton.
> >
> > >> In the White House.
> >
> > >> Roaming the halls.
> >
> > >> Looking over your shoulder.
> >
> > >> And, the camera loves him.
> >
> > >> Any questions?
> >
> >
> > Not really.
> >
> > >and more expereince than Obama
> >
> > There are a lot of women with higher credentials and more experience
> >
> > >that got second to go with an Old (opposed to Obama's age)
> >
> > within a few years of being the same age, though neither of them will
> > exceed the average American lifespan during the next two Democratic
> > presidential terms, whereas McCain would exceed that before his first
> > term ended.
> >
> > >?establishment (3 decades in congress compared with
> >
> > Hillary's 7 years.
> >
> > >Obama's change message)
> >
> > Actually, Biden has been pushing for change for his entire career.
> > Progressives have that advantage, ya know.
> >
> > >rich (opposed to Obama's poor message),
> >
> > more money last year than Biden's net worth. =A0Not that it matters.
> >
> > Oh. =A0And Obama's message is NOT poor; that's your brainpower that you
> > are describing.
> >
> > >white MALE that was in 4th place in delegates?
> >
> > since he dropped out of the race after the first caucus, his final
> > delegate total is hardly relevant to anything.
> >
> > But how many delegates were committed to Cheney when he was chosen by
> > Bushwhack to be the shadow president in 2000?
> >
> > Your hamhanded attempts to stir dissent within the Democrats (not that
> > many of them are reading this newsgroup right now, since they are
> > probably paying attention to the convention) only make you look silly
>
> You guys are proving yourselves hypocrites without a core truth.
> Whenever your party choice goes against your position, you just
> say....yeah, that's what I meant.
> When Obama said he was in favor of
> late term abortion bans, you guys said...no problem.
Which "you guys" do you have in mind? I didn't.
> When Obama said
> he was in favor of teacher performance pay and charter schools
> (against the teacher unions), your party said...no problem.
Which "you guys" do you have in mind? I didn't.
> When
> Obama not only didn't reject war but suggested more troops for
> Afganistan, your party said...no problem.
Which "you guys" do you have in mind? I said that starting
about six years ago.
> When Obama said it was ok
> to do offshore drilling, your party said..no problem.
Which "you guys" do you have in mind? I didn't.
> When Obama said
> it was constitutional to give money to religious organizations, your
> party said...no problem.
Which "you guys" do you have in mind? I didn't.
> Now, the party of change choosing an
> establishment congressment, a young candidate choosing one of the
> oldest, a poor ticket choosing a rich man, a minority ticket choosing
> a white man, a MALE ticket choosing NOT to pick a more popular and
> qualified woman is all ok for you guys?
So, how'd you do on my little "which party is better for
women?" pop quiz? I don't recall seeing your answers.
> After all, it doesn't matter
> what he believes (or even if the VP would have ran on a McCain
> ticket), so long as he is in the right party, right? Here's hoping
> Obama is as conservative as he suggests. You guys would follow him
> right into being a conservative party...right?
If the alternative is 100 years in Iraq, quite possibly.
-- cary
>
> Kenneth Clifton
> christiansuperhero.com
The_Carpathia
Unless Obama proposes it...then..no problem. Right?
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
The_Carpathia
So, your party shouldn't follow the Constitution?
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
Cary Kittrell
> On Aug 26, 4:38=A0pm, c...@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
> > In article <77d9aa0e-33d3-4591-97d6-65ebb8267...@k7g2000hsd.googlegroups.=
> com> The_Carpathia <writing...@yahoo.com> writes:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Aug 25, 10:20=3DA0pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
> > > > The_Carpathia <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ote:
> > > > >> In article <62fbfcc8-ce52-44e1-a506-591eb4087...@r66g2000hsg.googl=
> egro=3D
> > > ups.com> The_Carpathia <writing...@yahoo.com> writes:
> >
> > > > >> > I think it is a bit unreported that the Biden pick (while being
> lap =3D
> > > at
> > > > >> > Hillary. =3DA0
> >
> > > > >> Bill Clinton.
> >
> > > > >> In the White House.
> >
> > > > >> Roaming the halls.
> >
> > > > >> Looking over your shoulder.
> >
> > > > >> And, the camera loves him.
> >
> > > > >> Any questions?
> >
> >
> > > > Not really.
> >
> > > > >and more expereince than Obama
> >
> > > > There are a lot of women with higher credentials and more experience
> >
> > > > >that got second to go with an Old (opposed to Obama's age)
> >
> > > > within a few years of being the same age, though neither of them will
> > > > exceed the average American lifespan during the next two Democratic
> > > > presidential terms, whereas McCain would exceed that before his first
> > > > term ended.
> >
> > > > >?establishment (3 decades in congress compared with
> >
> > > > Hillary's 7 years.
> >
> > > > >Obama's change message)
> >
> > > > Actually, Biden has been pushing for change for his entire career.
> > > > Progressives have that advantage, ya know.
> >
> > > > >rich (opposed to Obama's poor message),
> >
> al times
> > > > more money last year than Biden's net worth. =3DA0Not that it matters=
> .
> >
> > > > Oh. =3DA0And Obama's message is NOT poor; that's your brainpower that=
> you
> > > > are describing.
> >
> > > > >white MALE that was in 4th place in delegates?
> >
> > > > since he dropped out of the race after the first caucus, his final
> > > > delegate total is hardly relevant to anything.
> >
> > > > But how many delegates were committed to Cheney when he was chosen by
> > > > Bushwhack to be the shadow president in 2000?
> >
> t
> > > > many of them are reading this newsgroup right now, since they are
> > > > probably paying attention to the convention) only make you look silly
> >
> > > You guys are proving yourselves hypocrites without a core truth.
> > > say....yeah, that's what I meant. =A0
> > > When Obama said he was in favor of
> >
> > Which "you guys" do you have in mind? =A0I didn't.
> >
> > > When Obama said
> > > he was in favor of teacher performance pay and charter schools
> >
> > Which "you guys" do you have in mind? =A0I didn't.
> >
> > > When
> > > Obama not only didn't reject war but suggested more troops for
> >
> > Which "you guys" do you have in mind? =A0I said that starting
> > about six years ago.
> >
> > > When Obama said it was ok
> >
> > Which "you guys" do you have in mind? =A0I didn't.
> >
> > > When Obama said
> > > it was constitutional to give money to religious organizations, your
> >
> > Which "you guys" do you have in mind? =A0I didn't.
> >
> > > Now, the party of change choosing an
> > > establishment congressment, a young candidate choosing one of the
> > > oldest, a poor ticket choosing a rich man, a minority ticket choosing
> > > a white man, a MALE ticket choosing NOT to pick a more popular and
> >
> > So, how'd you do on my little "which party is better for
> >
> > > After all, it doesn't matter
> > > what he believes (or even if the VP would have ran on a McCain
> > > Obama is as conservative as he suggests. =A0You guys would follow him
> > > right into being a conservative party...right?
> >
> > If the alternative is 100 years in Iraq, quite possibly.
>
> Unless Obama proposes it...then..no problem. Right?
>
Wrong.
-- cary
Cary Kittrell
> On Aug 26, 4:33=A0pm, c...@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
> > In article <72a964df-950c-4805-85c4-ff083b4ed...@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.=
> com> The_Carpathia <writing...@yahoo.com> writes:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Aug 25, 5:26=3DA0pm, c...@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote=
> :
> > > > Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org>
> >
> > > > > The_Carpathia <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > >I think it is a bit unreported that the Biden pick (while being
> p at
> > > > > >Hillary.
> >
> > > > > Primarily because it isn't. =3DA0Hillary was one of the first to in=
> dicate
> > > > > her support, and she isn't the sort to take a "slap" lightly.
> >
> > > > > >In 2004, Kerry chose the second place delegate leader to be
> ped OV=3D
> > > ER
> > > > > >Hillary (despite many thinking she won the primary) to get his VP.
> >
> > > > > Actually this aspect of the VP decision has hardly been unreported,
> ry
> > > > > would not have been a good VP choice.
> >
> > > > > If Hillary had "won the primary" (there is no national primary, so
> e
> > > > > VP. =3DA0Thus anyone who thinks that she won is as out of touch wit=
> h
> > > > > reality as .... Kennie.
> >
> > > > > But since you raise the question, how many votes for President did
> uld be
> > > > > McCain's VP because he got the most votes? =3DA0How many votes did =
> Jindal=3D
> > > ,
> > > > > who you have supported for VP, get in the national primaries? =3DA0=
> Is
> > > > > Kennie a hypocrite?
> >
> > > > > >He couldn't go with John Edwards (the VP pick for 2004), since he =
> was
> > > > > >outed in a sex scandal.
> >
> he
> > > > > time he was "outed" (not that it is anyone's business but him and h=
> is
> > > > > wife and the lady in question). =3DA0Most people on the inside seem=
> ed to
> > > > > think that the others on the shortlist were Bayh and Kaine, and the
> ike
> > > > > Richardson and Sibilius, but they apparently didn't make the
> > > > > shortlist.
> >
> > > > > >So, he chose the 4th place primary candidate (Joe Biden)
> >
> t
> > > > > all.
> >
> > > > > >INSTEAD of the 2nd place candiate (Hillary Clinton).
> >
> nt
> > > > > a false dichotomy. =3DA0He chose Biden over Bayh, Kaine, and Edward=
> s of
> > > > > Texas.
> >
> > > > > >It's like the men of the party are telling Hillary, "Sit down and =
> shut
> > > > > >up...little lady..
> >
> > > > > It is? =3DA0Funny how she is speaking at the convention, something
> > > > > difficult to do when sitting and shutting up.
> >
> > > > > >we're going to go with a male ticket....so just fall in line."
> >
> rd
> > > > > Bush term" under that old guy who owns more houses than he can coun=
> t,
> > > > > and who used to be a straight-talking maverick, once he got free fr=
> om
> > > > > the
> >
> > > > > >She may be willing to fall in line for party sake, but
> > > > > >I don't think many of her followers are going to be so submissive.
> >
> e
> > > > > for party sake". =3DA0Not because they are "submissive", but becaus=
> e they
> > > > > know which party needs to win the White House in order to protect
> his
> > > > > supporters don't accept).
> >
> > > > We could always go back to the original system, in which whoever
> > > > got the second-most number of electorial votes became Vice President,
> > > > irrespective of party affiliation.
> >
> > > > Just think: under that system, Vice Presidents Gore and Kerry
> > > > would have been running the country for the last eight years,
> > > > instead of Vice President Cheney running it.
> >
> > > > -- cary
> >
> > > So, your case is that Hillary should be the VP?
> >
> > No, you don't understand.
> >
> > Under the original system, Obama would be President, and McCain
> > Vice President -- or vice versa.
> >
> >
> > -- cary
>
> So, your party shouldn't follow the Constitution?
All parties both should and do in this regard. What in the world makes
you think otherwise?
(aside to Bob and Buckeye: I won't tell him if you won't)
-- cary
MACK DADDY
>
> - Show quoted text -
How can you call yourself conservative? It is the Republitards who
always run up huge deficits!
Bob LeChevalier
>On Aug 25, 10:20 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>> >rich (opposed to Obama's poor message),
>>
>> Nope. He's less well off than Obama. And Hillary made several times
>> more money last year than Biden's net worth. Not that it matters.
>>
>> Oh. And Obama's message is NOT poor; that's your brainpower that you
>> are describing.
>>
>> >white MALE that was in 4th place in delegates?
>>
>> since he dropped out of the race after the first caucus, his final
>> delegate total is hardly relevant to anything.
>>
>> But how many delegates were committed to Cheney when he was chosen by
>> Bushwhack to be the shadow president in 2000?
>>
>> Your hamhanded attempts to stir dissent within the Democrats (not that
>> many of them are reading this newsgroup right now, since they are
>> probably paying attention to the convention) only make you look silly
>> and ignorant. Karl Rove, you ain't.
>
>You guys are proving yourselves hypocrites without a core truth.
In partisan politics there are no core truths, other than that your
party has to win, and the other party has to lose.
That is one reason I dislike partisan politics.
>Whenever your party choice
What party choice is that? I am an independent.
>goes against your position, you just say....yeah, that's what I meant.
Cite where I have said "yeah, that's what I meant" about some
politician's comments?
>When Obama said he was in favor of late term abortion bans, you guys said...no problem.
I expressed no opinion on that issue. I have no problem with Obama's
position, but I neither support nor oppose it.
> When Obama said
>he was in favor of teacher performance pay and charter schools
>(against the teacher unions), your party
What party is that? I am an independent.
>said...no problem.
Why should the party care?
There are Democrats on both sides of those issues. Likewise
independents.
>When
>Obama not only didn't reject war but suggested more troops for
>Afganistan,
I said the same thing when Bushwhack invaded Iraq without having
finished the job in Afghanistan. And I had never heard of Obama at
that point.
>your party
Not my party.
>said...no problem.
There is no problem.
... [more of the same]
>After all, it doesn't matter what he believes
I'm not sure. I am more concerned with how he decided policy issues.
"Beliefs" aren't that important to me.
But I don't think that he believes anything I would find seriously
offensive.
>(or even if the VP would have ran on a McCain ticket)
Rhetoric is not reality. It isn't even clear if Lieberman would run
on a McCain ticket, and he is one of McCain's strongest supporters.
>so long as he is in the right party, right?
Well, that is pretty essential.
>Here's hoping Obama is as conservative as he suggests.
He doesn't suggest to me that he is conservative. He comes across as
moderate on some issues and liberal on others.
>You guys would follow him right into being a conservative party...right?
I don't "follow him"; I MIGHT vote for him, given the alternatives.
And I wouldn't support him if he endorsed the Bushwhack's policies,
regardless of what party he is a member of.
Bob LeChevalier
>How can you call yourself conservative? It is the Republitards who
>always run up huge deficits!
Kennie defines "conservative" in terms of the religious reich issues.
He doesn't give a damn about deficits, as long as the guy is opposed
to abortion, and in favor of religious school vouchers and teaching
creationism in the public schools.
Wide Eyed in Wonder
> >You guys are proving yourselves hypocrites without a core truth.
>
> In partisan politics there are no core truths, other than that your
> party has to win, and the other party has to lose.
Enough said...thank you.
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
Bob LeChevalier
>I think it is a bit unreported that the Biden pick (while being
>demonstrated in recent polls as a bad pick) is also an obvious slap at
>Hillary.
I think it is a bit unreported that the Palin pick (while being
***obviously*** a bad pick) is also an obvious slap at Romney and
Huckabee - as well as Hillary
>In 2004, Kerry chose the second place delegate leader to be
>his candidate to bring the party together.
McCain apparently knows that it is impossible to bring his party
together, so he's chosen to cater to the Christian Reich, while
insulting Hillary's supporters with the obvious comparison of Hillary
to this lightweight anti-abortion beauty queen with no knowledge of
foreign affairs OR health care.