Summer, Hillary is going towards the middle because its the only way she can win the general, and currently she has a long way to go. If Obama stays in, she'll probably move back to the left somewhat in an attempt to win the primary, but after that its back to the middle. Hillary/Obama is a dumb ticket for Obama. Hillary will need a lot of help to win, and by help I mean the GOP candidate doing something pretty stupid. Why would Obama want to be a part of a losing ticket? When you become a VP candidate, you end up going to bat for the Presidential candidate (See: John Edwards). Obama has a similar reputation pre-election to what Edwards had, by being a unifying figure, an optimist, etc...Theres absolutely no reason to get into the mud for what will likely be a losing cause.

Hopefully the Democrats have strategists who think exactly like you.

Clinton/Obama...No!
 

I wouldn't vote for the Clinton/Obama ticket. Hillary is just a little too cold for me. However, my dream team would be the Edwards/Obama ticket. John Edwards is from the south, Obama from the Midwest. Both handsome and well spoken. Might be the ticket to beat...

Fire, that or Edwards/Bayh would probably be the best shot for the dems, IMO.

Fire, that or Edwards/Bayh would probably be the best shot for the dems, IMO.

firecracker,

What's the deal w/ Edwards? If memory serves correctly he neither carried North Carolina in the Dem. primary, nor did he help Kerry carry it in the general election.

I have nothing against him; he seems to be a moderate politican, someone to examine, but where does his electoral firepower come from in '08 in your opinion?

To be fair, I think it would have been next to impossible for almost any Dem to take NC. NC (with the exception of Metrolina) is a red state. Period.

Edwards is a little too green in my opinion. The environment is great, and important, and all that - but nothing you can base a solid campaign on.

I think Firecracker08 (not that I'm speaking for you ;) ) likes Edwards/Obama because they both are appealing to wide variety of a voting audience. Let's face it...2008 will be more than just your average Dem vs Rep race. A successful candidate will HAVE to be able to appeal to the majority of their party and a good portion of their opposing party.

This is one main reason why I think Hillary can hang it up. She is NOT appealing to the Republican party - not even to moderate Republicans. So even if the Dems used the Iraq war/deaths to play on the heartstrings of America in a "republicans are evil vote for us" sort of way, it still won't be enough. You have got to have crossover appeal plain and simple.

I fully agree with this post- if the Democrats actually put up Hillary Clinton for election it would be ridiculous. She is a hugely divisive figure. Not that theyw ouldn't, seeing as how their strategy int he past few years has been sorely lacking, but damn that would be dumb.

As to Edwards being too green, that is probably true, and completely sad. If there is one issue that we should all be taking to heart, regardless of race or class it's what is being done to our planet and the need for conservation to step it up. It won't matter if abortion is ever banned or not if there is no sustainable environment for those children to grow up in.

Edwards was golden pre-Kerry. I think Bayh/Obama could be good, but theres absolutely zero chance the Dems let Evan win the primary.

Golden based on what? He was a one-term senator from North Carolina with a nice presentation. Don't recall a major legislative accomplishment, but clearly that's not been a pre-requisite for high national office for some time now.

Don't know much about Bayh....yet.

Tony, I'm not judging him on his merits, but his ability to be a successful politician. Before becoming the VP candidate, he was the optimistic, don't-talk-bad-about-anyone candidate. Experience can easily be overcome with such things, this is America.

I really hope they will be.

Spare me...Bush probably was drunk and a cocaine addict, but I could really care less...This coming from a supporter (not assuming just sure) of the party that tried to impeach Former President Clinton for having a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Unlike a cocaine addiction, adultery (to my knowledge) does not impede one's capabilities of performing as President. In fact, if it did Jefferson, JFK, and a whole host of other presidents would have been out on there azzes.

Yes, the Democrats voted to go to war because they were fed lies by the President and his sycophants in the CIA and in other parts of the government. An unfounded correlation was painted between 9/11 and Iraq; unfortunately, Democrats foolishly gave in to that idiot, and he is an idiot, under the threat of Weapons of Mass Destruction (as if we should be the only country allowed to have these weapons).

Let's go to school (speaking slowly): FEMA is an acronym that stands for Federal Emergency Management Agency. I choose to place the majority of the blame where it's warranted.

I'm not sure that the President is a racist, though it wouldn't surprise me if he were. In fact, I would prefer it if he were racist because then I'd know that he isn't the incompetent President I believe him to be; that old women and children died after Hurricane Katrina's wake because he doesn't care about Black people and not because he didn't know what the hell to do or because he appointed the head of the Arabian Horse Association to manage national emergencies.

I'm sure you were the kid in kindergarten who couldn't color in the lines. I stated nor did I imply any correlation between Obama's habits and his imminent assassination. I also did not state nor imply that I was looking for news on BET...Did not I state that I glimpsed a 2006 recap in which individuals were making jokes?

If you have anything further to say (and I am sure you will) I will not respond. I have argued with a fool for long enough and pretty soon people will not be able to tell the difference.

You're already preempting by saying you won't respond? Given the complete lack of knowledge you possess regarding the subject matter, I would say that is a pretty wise decision.

1) The Coke- Obama has his own issues with this. I fail to see how the possibility of Bush using cocaine at some point in his life prior to him becoming President (or governor), impedes his ability to govern. Clinton was impeached because he broke the law.

2) Democrats were somehow used by the Bush administration...many liberals such as yourself use this, and it gets more hilarious each time. You're telling me people on the Senate Intelligence Comm were misled by the President? Even though they had the same access? Oh right, the CIA lied. I guess thats why most of the world came to the same conclusion, that Iraq had WMD. Even to this day, most rational people acknowledge that at some point WMD existed in Iraq. The intelligence lapse was losing track of what happened to them.

3) The simple fact that you're even trying to make fun of me is incredible. Yes, I'm well aware of what FEMA stands for. What you're obviously unaware of is how disaster relief works. Who responds first? THATS RIGHT! Its the local authorities and the state. Thats how it works, neat system huh? So yeah, when the Mayor doesn't order the evacuation until it is too late, thats a problem. FEMA obviously has problems, but then again we've never dealt with anything like that.

With that, good day.