Could Hillary Force Her Way Onto the Ticket?

why should she? To become a sure loser?

Why? So she can sabotage his campaign and set herself up to run against an even more unpopular canidate in ’12 than Bush is today? She has NO reason to support Obama, her path is quicker if he is unsuccessful… And I think he knows that. He doesn’t need to nominate Hillary per say, he can still reach out to that wing of the party and protect himself at the same time. Taking her would be the easy way out, if he truly promotes change, he will leave her off his ticket and reenforce HIS vision for the country.

I’m sick and tired of pundits and Obama supporters squashing the idea of a Obama-Clinton ticket. What makes Obama supporters more important than Hillary’s supporters. Even some of Obama’s supporters would like Hillary on the ticket. When articles are written about the pairing, there is a huge overview of negativism. Hillary has worked just as hard as Obama and she has won many states important to the General Election. If another person is selected to run with Obama, it would be a slap in the face to Hillary and her supporters. But why am I not surprised, it’s been like that from the beginning. And the media wonders why there is a very real threat of the Democratic Party not unifying. And also, the DNC wants Hillary to drop out because they think it will damage the party. The party is already damaged. The real issue is repairing the damage.

No convention is going to cripple its presidential nominee by rejecting his first major decision as nominee — the recommendation for vice president. So the only way Clinton could ever be on the ticket is if Obama decided he wanted her. Any effort to “force” her way onto the ticket would not only fail, but destroy her Senate career and all future prospects as well.

s. valenti,
Speak for yourself.
I voted for Clinton and contributed to her campaign.
I DO NOT LOATHE OBAMA.
America should have priority over the Democratic party
The Democratic Party comes before the Nominee
The Nominee comes before a party adherent.
That is how it is in my book.

Steve_NJ is NOT a Hillary supporter. He’s from Obama’s campaign… now the Obamabots are sucking up to us.. no thanks. We are not supporting your puppet. I just wrote an angry one page letter to Dean and the Members of the DNC, telling them that I have denounced the Democratic Party, and intend to change my political affiliation to Independent.

Obama is not going to win because the Republicans fought hard through the media to push Hillary out and keep him in. Hillary is still in people. Kentucky Tuesday. They are doing what they did with WVA. They are trying to thwart her argument for popular votes which means they are twarting our choice.

So DMK,
your saying-
there’s only one Steve in NJ?
Damn, what a statistic.
DUH.

IRMA- What are the specific *policy* differences that make you want Hillary over Obama?
I’m only asking about policy here- let’s stick to the question, I am truly curious.
Your friend, Bud

obama copied Hillary’s policies.. People don’t need a fake or copier…

Americans will vote for who is the best to this country, no doubt about it…

Why would she want to join up with him.. I agree, it’s Obama’s only shot, but I don’t think she’ll do it. He’s toast, and she knows it.

Hillary doesnt want the ticket. She just wants them to offer it to her to get concessions. They need her – like it or not. Someone’s got to rally her troops, and i can tell you, Obama cannot do it.

Hussein knows his brand is empty suit. He needs Clinton Brand. MSM promoted an idiot in 2000 and they are doing it again. God bless this country.

Never gonna happen.

Right on the money, Sillylilly

According to Obama, Hillary is Winning
The Obama campaign has argued that Super Delegates ought to vote in accordance with the “will” of the people. Really? Then let’s run the numbers. Under that metric, who would have a lead in Super Delegates? The Super Delegate total from the states that Hillary has won thus far (including FL and MI) is 418, to Obama’s 372. If the MI delegates are split 50/50, Clinton still wins 403.5 to Obama’s 386.5. If Super Delegates are counted according to Barack’s formula, Hillary wins the nomination. Period.
The numbers are even more impressive after Hillary crushed Obama in West Virginia. WV has 11 Superdelegates. Hillary is now ahead, even if you exclude FL and MI: she leads 374 to Obama’s 372.

Mrs. Clinton’s objective for remaining in the contest, and spending additional millions of personal wealth, is not pursuit of the second spot. By remaining in the race, she is annoying the Dem’s liberal left wing to no end. You might say, “she’s getting a little payback”, and sending them a message @ the same time. It will be several weeks before we know the facts and objectives.

Do you think Obama can win GE without her help? No
Can get the Reagan democrat to vote for him? No.
Can he get Hillary’s supporter? may be only 50%.
Nobody can help to become a president except Hillary and Bill.
Voters don’t feel confidence to vote for her because of his empty suit.

“Nobody can help to become a president except Hillary and Bill.”
Good GOD…..

Why she want to accept VP position with Mr. fast talker? She is more qualified to be a president.

To HRC supporters:
Could you BE more self important? The handful of Clinton supporters to stay at home crying in the corner is hardly going to matter, especially when THOUSANDS of young people are being registered everyday. They want a good future and don’t give a hoot what you do.

sally you better check your link again, that post is awarding delegates by winner takes all, which according to mark penn thats how he thought the nomination process went too, but it doesnt.
She is behind in
popular vote, delegates won, states won, and super delegates
hillarys metrics have changed over and over again… im sorry but hillary is losing… and at the end of this, she will have lost in every category still

The choice of veep is entirely Obama’s. That said, unless Hillary Clinton is on the ticket, I am voting for McCain. And I am not alone.

SALLY
i just really want to know how you are figuring these numbers, its just baffling to me, you are the only one with these numbers…..the only one
If you want to include florida and michigan even though they broke party rules, then how can you NOT count caucus states?
thats just silly… so count every vote! until we start to lose, then stop counting the vote

I love the Mission Impossible reference, ’cause factually that’s all Hillary has left!!!

hahaha….
Hillary talking positive… Now that WOULD be news!
It’s time the Clinton camp woke up to reality and drop out! Enough damage has been done by a campaign that was both faulty, negative, wasteful and futile!

Obama is going to crash and burn in November if he swipes the nomination. Sen. Clinton shouldn’t save him from his demise. NO Obama/Clinton. I will not vote for that.

Never Obama: I’m like you. I don’t want to see Hillary on the ticket with Obama, especially not that she’s in the No 2 position under the control of Obama. Absolutely No!!!
Let Obama pick another loser to run with him and we don’t vote for him in the fall. Let him lose badly then Hillary run in 2012!!!

No, An Obama/Clinton ticket would be disastrous.
It would energize the base of the Republican party.
The baggage she carries would surely drag the ticket down.
Along with Hillary Clinton comes her loose cannon of a husband Bill Clinton.
Her negative campiagning against Obama will be used by Republicans…How will she defend her words?
Obama needs a VP with actual experience. Possible a govenor or someone strong on foreign policy.
Kathleen Sebelius: A white women. Governor of Kansas. Catholic. An Ohio native. Father of an Ohio governor. Also has deep roots in Michigan. And carries no baggage.

I think Sebelius would be a very strong candidate. That would be a strong ticket in the Fall.

No, Julia, it was decided by the VOTERS.
You Clintonistas just can’t get past that huge fact, can you. The Democrats chose their candidates, it just wasn’t her.
That’s the FACT. Nothing more, nothing less.

True Truth… You talk about Chicago politics like its a bad thing; perhaps you have no idea how it actually works. I actually live in Obama’s old Illinois district, I have followed his career for the past 7 years, and I can assure you that he ran as a reformer and was perceived as such by his constituents; indeed, we have been extremely proud, but certainly not surprised, with how well he has done nationally and how his reputation for effecting change has followed him. At the same time, his great gift was working with varieties of political types, including hard core opponents, a skill that is absolutely necessary to make it in Chicago politics. It is precisely because no one will let you get away with being stupidly dogmatic (read: ideological) on politics that Chicago is such a great training ground for uniters. This, a disciplined and principled pragmatism, is precisely what I look for in a President. And I cannot wait for the next 8 years…

Americans, you should think hard, very hard about who you are voting for??? As an American, vote for your country! Vote for the one who is the best to lead United States of America!! America deserves the best!

no way Clinton would share a ticket with obama
Obama is going to be so roundly defeated in November by Dem. women who have watched this horribly flawed process and the nasty media insults at Hillary because we sit home.
I predict that a “real” black candidate won’t be able to run for the office for 20 years thanks to Obama.
It isn’t a race issue folks, it’s a misogamy issue that Obama is finally going to pay for
sweetie…

Mary, you should be ashamed.
No one in the Obama camp is a woman-hater.
Where do you get that vituperative nonsense?
Do you mean because we take it personally that she has NEVER EVER ONCE said she will restore the Constitution? That is not about women. That is about her being craven, her playing in politics, as usual without scruples, without courage. When is she going to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign AND domestic?
Why does she lie about her position on Michigan on NPR? She is taped, saying MICHIGAN does not count. Those things are not about women, those things are about lies.

NY Times reported she may be pushing for Obama to adopt her health care policy and putting her in charge of its implementation. She could then claim the legacy of providing Americans with her version of universal health care. John and Elizabeth Edwards may be helping this happen.

People do realize that a call for change without any concrete goals and objectives is a call to take action on an abstraction. How well has that worked for other actions taken on abstractions: “The War on Drugs” “The War on Terror” etc…

Hummm, has anyone thought about a McCain/Clinton ticket; I think they get along with each other better than anyone else. Additionally, as a life long Republican, this would be the best and only way to ever get me to vote for Obama lol !

“the media arranged it”
Can you say Reverand Wright?, Bittergate, now Sweetiegate?
Give us a break, Obama isn’t that much different policy-wise than Clinton.
Are you in love with the “idea” of Hillary being president?, or do you respect her policies and wishes?
It would be a grave error to vote for McCain over Obama-Her own words.
Stop acting like a bunch of hysterical, petulant infants and do what is right for the country.

This is the new Obama spin to try and get Hillary supporters to back their LOSING candidate. Forget it. Hillary has proven that she is the stronger candidate, and she has the popular vote to back her up. Superdelegates, time to start backing the winning candidate, not the loser candidate, sweeties.

Write Hillary Clinton on the ballot she will get more votes than Obama and if she can attract some moderate Republicans she could defeat McCain also.

Their ticket will be called
BITTER SWEET(Y) and it is coming your way. You better accept it or lose.

cathy, she lost. So what do you propose be done at this point to not lose the base?

ouchy,
maybe you feel good where you are but a lot of other people won’t agree on you…
Obama, as a state senator, one of top Chicago politicians, guess, he won’t take any responsibility on the biggest political fixing scandal in Chicago by his pal…
Eaxctly like he said he is not responsible to the church he has been with for 20years..
Exactly like he vote 100 “present”, can’t take responsibility…

libre, please tell me how she will get more votes?
She started out ahead, remember.
I don’t understand why you all don’t understand that ‘clinton fatigue’ set in a long time ago. Which is the main reason she is behind.
You talk like someone made up those numbers Obama won by in those 12 straight wins. I mean c’mon….what is REALLY going on here??

The simplest thing for Hillary to do is run an independent campaign and beat both McCain and Obama … neither of which can win if she runs!!

Randy: So I guess you’d prefer to “stay the course”

Hillary needs to run as an independent. If she joins the Obama ticket, she’ll be sidelined indefinitely. Michele Obama will see to it. Count on it. Hillary you have my vote!

Reading the comments on this page it seems the old adage is true – you get th politicians you deserve.
I dont think America deserves a president like Obama.
Too many redneck, hillbilly, uneducated, racist self important wallmart shoppers to actually vote an articulate, intelligent free thinker into the white house. You prefer frat boys like bush who destroy everything in their path – intentionally or unintentionally and are leading to the end of an era.
All we need is a fiddle and a good seat to watch this new Rome burn.
Prove me wrong and vote Obama and maybe Americans can once again hold their head high in the world and be the beacon in the darkness it once was.

mandelay, you mean sidelined like hillary sidelined al gore? THAT kinda sidelined?

SILLYLILLY;
SOME DEGREED WHITE RICH FOLK ALSO MAKE MISTAKES ;-)
POOR BEBE

As an African American man, I have nothing but love for Hillary Clinton. As many women voted based on gender, I too voted on race and issues. No one knows the difficulty a black man faces daily to succeed in a white male dominated society. Women also face discrimination, but as a black man I can’t relate to that sort of discrimination.
I know how hard Obama must have worked to get to where he is today. Especially with an arab name.
If Hillary Clinton were to be the nominee, I can’t speak for every African American but I would vote Clinton. I just prefer Obama.

There is no question that if MSM did their job we would not be having this conversation. But, since they won’t, I ask you to go to http://investigatebarackobama.blogspot.com/
Then perhaps we can talk about Hillary’s nomination in the upcoming months. NOBOMA. NOT NOW. NOT EVER!

“I’m telling you, the Clintonistas are on a ROLL today! Pure comedy GOLD!!!”
They totally are! watching you “Clintonistas” string words together to form sentences is pure comedy! Keep it up!!! I know it’s tough with that high school or lower education. But like Hillary, You won’t think about quiting!!!

Lou,
You are delusional.
RUSH LIMBAUGH – the same Rush Limbaugh that broguht us this
would have us believe that he backs Clinton. That’s because he is so scared of black men that having one for president would surely give him a coronary.
Why else are they afraid of Obama and back Clinton? Because she represents business as usual. He has made legitamate change in this country with his wonderful bills and laws whereas she has barely done butkus.
One last thing is that he knows all the dirt on her and he has little to no dirt on Obama.
So those 400 bloggers for Rush – I’m guessing you’re one of them and I’m guessing that’s why you’re fake-supporting Clinton.
Nice try.

Look up the “A to Z Guide on Clinton Scandals” found on Rush.com to see what I was pointing towards.

I AGREE WITH VANESSA THAT KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, GOVERNOR OF OHIO MAY BE A GOOD VP CHOICE AND I’M SURE THERE ARE OTHERS.. GOVENOR SEBELIUS MAY GET SENATOR OBAMA A GOODLY PORTION OF THE OHIO, MICHIGAN, CATHOLIC, AND FEMALE VOTE PLUS SOME OF THE BLUE COLLAR VOTE.
FOR HILARY TO THINK SHE SHOULD BE VP IS ABSURD. HOW CAN SHE RECONCILE ALL OF THE NEGATIVE THINGS SHE HAS SAID DURING HER CAMPAIGN ABOUT SENATOR OBAMA? THE REPUBLICANS WOULD ONLY HAVE TO RUN TAPES OF HER SPEECHES TO WIN THE GENERAL ELECTION.
IF HILLARY IS THE VP CHOICE THEN NOT ONLY WILL THE DEMOCRATS LOSE THE GENERAL ELECTION BUT IT WILL ALSO TELL THE WORLD THAT ACCORDING TO THE DNC A BLACK PERSON IS NOT CAPABLE OF PICKING A RUNNING MATE AND NEEDS HELP. THIS WILL ALSO PROVE, ONCE AND FOR ALL, THAT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY DOES NOT SUPPORT PEOPLE OF COLOR AS THEY TRY TO MAKE US BELIEVE.
IF HILARY IS SHOVED DOWN SENATOR OBAMAS THROAT BY THE DNC OR BY HER EMBARRASING CAMPAIGN TACTICS I THEN URGE ALL AMERICANS OF GOOD FAITH, BOTH BLACK AND WHITE, TO VOTE FOR SENATOR McCAIN…I KNOW THAT I WILL. I WOULD RATHER HAVE “4 MORE YEARS OF GEORGE BUSH” THEN TO LET SUCH A TRAVISTY AND INSULT TO PEOPLE OF COLOR EVERYWHERE TO SUCEED.

Historically, the choice of VP is given to the nominee. There are a number of well-qualified candidates who would add significantly to the ticket.
That having been said, offering Hillary the VP slot would certainly recognize the depth and breadth of her support. Whether she would accept it is a huge question, though, but perhaps (as much as I don’t want to admit it and don’t find the idea appealing) it would be the best move.
Hopefully, Hillary on the ticket would appease the hard-core Clintonistas who appear ready to give up abortion rights and another 4,000 plus military deaths in Iraq to support Hillary by electing McBush. Whether it would contribute to the growth of the independent voters that Senator Obama has been courting successfully remains to be seen.
But a forced vote for Hillary would be a huge mistake.
Obama 2008 — Yes, WE CAN!!!

I don’t see how adding someone that ran the Washington Generals of campaigns helps you in the Fall.

I am a white american, lifetime republician and i read these blogs everyday. it makes me sick to listen to you democrates bicker over who you will vote for and who you want vote for. This is all about the color of his skin, If he was a white man this bickering would have never happen. you dont see it with any of the other white canidates who was running and got out when they realised they were not going to be the canidate. I am ashamed of america that you guys still cant see past a persons skin color. By the way i am from kentucky and big family of republician voters. Who all will be voting for Obama skin color means nothing its who is willing to help the people and he will do more to help us than anyone will.

that’s the one RealWoman. He claims he will come out with proof soon.

A true democrat (or American for that matter) who cares about the future of this country would vote for the nominee of the Democratic party. Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have similar policies. Don’t base your decision on gender or race. It maybe true you’re an avid supporter of Hillary Clinton and can’t stand the idea of voting for her opponent. As a professional working woman in male-dominated engineering industry, I completely empathize with what she’s gone through and probably would have voted for her if Barack Obama wasn’t in the race because of her qualifications. However, Barack has a vision for this country that I’d never seen. He’s ran an excellent campaign and registered more new votes than ever. He’s brought politics to the younger generation (btw, will be running this country in our golden years). If you support her because of her policies, you should seriously consider taking a second look at Barack Obama, whether she’s on the ticket or not. If you think you can vote with good conscience for McCain, than you are probably not a true Hillary supporter because their views on substantiative issues, like Iraq, the economy and healthcare are like night and day.

black man,
as a black woman, I cannot understand why you would just prefer obama?
if you grew up in this country as I did you and I as black people have a shared experience-that even if we had met only once we would have plenty to talk about.
obama does not share our experience.
the little obama has claimed to do to help the black people in america was in the end to help him-he helped reg. people to vote. if obama were as much for our people as our people seem to be going for him. he would not have done to alice palmer what he did.
also, i urge you to look into what obama did the the other black members of the harvard law review association.
there are many other things that should have caused black people to pause before running out there to vote for him.
and as far as his white mother-well, it seems to me, he tried to discard that part of his heritage the minute he hit the mainland.
if obama were “every american” because he is biracial-he would not have sat in that church for 20years. there is no excuse for it. people can keep telling themselves all of the things they tell themselves. but if obama was anything like what he claims to be now-every fiber of his being would have told him to get out of that church.
black man, have do you go to a church that teaches black liberation theology?
i do not?, and would not.
it is all wrapped up in marxism-his mother, it really will not help heal the scars this country bears from slavery. if anything it is out for revenge.
no black man, i am sorry to say, by the time obama got to the mainland-he was well past being a part of us-the black people.
by the time obama reached the mainland-his teachings and any love for america had already been tainted with:
his marxist mothers teachings
and his father and step-fathers religion.
and the msm and obama can keep telling us whatever they want to tell us.
but those are facts that cannot be denied.
black man, i want a black president also,
but it should have been one who had lived here all of his/her life, had the experience that all american black and white have grown up with. and someone all of us could have seen come into his/or her own.
obama is not the one.
with john mccains history as a war hero running for president this was not the year to put obama and his history on the dem. ticket.

larry is one of those manufactured scandals.
That’s the kind of scandal you make up that leaps to all the stereotypes.

Aussie Tony said: “From the viewpoint of an outsider (I’m from Sydney)”
Perhaps that’s where your post should end. Sorry – there are a lot of cultural and local dynamics here. I am a world traveler and internationalist, but you cannot even begin to understand US race, gender, and class relations as some casual foreign observer.

Vote for God not for CAIN.
Let Barack choose as he needs. There is nothing wrong with Hillary as a vice president.
The only important thing is not to let a flip-flopper and lier like CAIN to get into power.
We do not want Cain back.
Names do matter.

Maybe the Bush (a descriptive in the past) Administration could lend her some tanks and rocket launchers so she could stage a coup at the convention. Outside of that I don’t see any reason that this incredibly divisive figure would be brought on to a ticket to bring Americans together.
I think some quiet time and a little … or a lot… of therapy might help Hillary. But Hillary can not help the party in the November election except as a cheerleader..

Wow, Richard you sound so knowledgeable, too bad you can’t figure out that half the voters are with Hillary.

out of law school obama went to help people with a voter reg. drive.
google emil jones, and alice palmer.
some of the very laws and rules we have right now to help abused, foster children can about because of the work sen. clinton right out of law school do.she worked with marion right eld.
she also went to south texas to help migrant workers-
i wish people would stop trying to put obama work right out of college against sen. clinton’- there is just no comparison.
the biased clinton haters will deny this.
but sen. clinton has a very good well documented record of doing good work.
so please stop trying to put obamas record next to sen. clintons.
he has done what he has done.
but she has done a lot more

The problem with an Obama/Clinton ticket is that Hillary and Bill will undermine Obama’s presidency, just like they have undermined his candidacy.
Despite Hillary’s efforts to show her admiration for Obama, I’m not buying it. Within 24 hours she went from being honored to be with Obama to shaming Obama. A President needs a VP who is loyal and trustworthy. She is neither.

Cindy: in reference to your shaming Obama comment.
That’s so very typical of how things have gone in this campaign. The reason Hillary said her “shame on you” comment was in response to the false ads he was running about her health care plan. But of course, she got all the criticism. What a farce this primary has been with the 24/7 sales and support provided by the media to Obama free of charge.

Bill Clinton’s LEGACY is what got us George W. Bush. Now you want Hillary’s legacy to give us McCain. How long is America going to let this family screw up our elections? Enough is enough!!

Jane you wrote:
“and concluded that the decadence of the Roman Empire happened from within and questioned if the decadence of America would not start in the White House.”
Atta girl, you are so right, what could be more decadent than having oral sex with a young intern while your wife is right down the hall!!
Clintons gave us Bush and now McCain?? I will not be held hostage by the Clintons yet again. We have voices too and WE will be heard!!

O.K. Class, let’s see if we have the facts straight….
Bill Clinton so sullies the Democratic Party with the whole sordid Blue Dress mess that voters, in huge numbers, turn their back on the Party and vote Republican or stayed home in protest and we got for POTUS , an idiot named George W. Bush.
Now…Hillary Clinton has turned off Democratic voters with this whole “Fuzzy Math” “Media Bias” thing that voters, in huge numbers are going to vote Republican or stay home in protest and we will GET for POTUS an idiot named John McCain.
Why oh why does this make sense. Anybody, anybody??? Bueller…

TO ALL HILLARY FANS!
Hillary is all but finished now… Don’t think so? Then go to all the main blogs (ABC, CNN, HuffPost, etc.) and take a look…
Besides this story here, there aren’t any new stories about Hillary at all.
Why you ask? Because she is irrelevant now!!
Bye, bye Hillary!!!!

“What a farce this primary has been with the 24/7 sales and support provided by the media to Obama free of charge.”
I assume you were laughing when you said that. I don’t know how anyone could say that seriously when Jeremiah Wright was the 24-hour news shows’ poster boy for weeks.

I would rather see he run with Mccain. I will not vote for Obama, I don’t care who he puts on the ticket.

No way should Hillary accept the VP position with Heinz57. Why should she prop up Mr. Empty Suit with her brains? Even with her on the ticket, I refuse to vote for Obama. Hillary or McCain only!
A Proud, Black, Hillary Supporter
Rise, Hillary, Rise!’08
(It ain’t over until the lady in the pantsuit says so!)

In case no one noticed, she’s not on any news coverage, political website or the minds of anyone but you. The train has left the station.

GE has started said: “O.K. Class, let’s see if we have the facts straight….”
If you have to ask: NO! Sorry your analysis is weak. Bill Clinton was the only two-term Democratic President in 60 years. We have only had two Democrats since 1964, and Bill was one of them. I’d say the party was dead when he got to them. Hillary’s stat is worth pondering. Although the media is in the Obama and Edwards afterglow, the fact remains that no Democrat has won the White House without West Virginia since 1916. Pretty amazing.

Don’t be ashamed of your gender. There are men and women behind this movement. There are people of all races involved. I am not bitter. I feel empowered. People like you just make me even more determined. Thanks for the jolt of inspiration! The more you come after us, the greater likelihood that we will defect. You are a great resource to our cause. Keep up the great posts!!!!!
A self-identfied white woman from Bush Land said: “I find it hilarious that Hillary supporters are posting blogs IN FAVOR OF McCAIN? That defies reason and speaks of bitter women who feel scorned just like Hillary. Some of the bloggers I read sound like they are the ones who lost the nomination. They are driven by blind rage that Hillary has instilled.
Hillary is a pathetic example of an American woman. If people think all women are like her I would be ashamed of my gender.”

Capt Hill Res says:
Hillary “George Wallace” Clinton
does not want to be VP.
This week she is representing the “hard working white blue collar workers” of America!
Hillary “George Wallace” Clinton and PA Gov both have said that they know “these people” well and even though they may not have a college education, they are “socially conservative”(culturally deprived and helplessly bigoted)and could not in good conscience vote for a black person (American) ever.
Well tell that to the thousands of African Americans who have and are dying and suffer permenant injuries every week of the year in this and past wars for THIS country called America.
It’s not funny but African Americans have voted for white people must of their lives as well as ethnicites.
Are we to believe these “hardworking” blue collar Hillary supporters are that far out of the mainstream? If this is true, then I thank my parents for making sure we were not that far removed from society. It still is important to me to respect people as well as individuals.
The “hard working white blue collar workers” are going to go ahead and vote against their best interest if a mixed race man is the nominee? Repub will continue the trillion dollar war with our tax dollar, high gas and food prices under McBush? They would vote Repub because their Dem choice didn’t win or not being giving the VP slot?
Then don’t get mad when it’s said you are bitter and clingers. Think about it people. Do not let the Repubs get in again no matter what. You and I can’t afford it. Put you pride aside.
Democrates ’08

Posted by: GE has started, she’s not invited | May 16, 2008 6:55:13 PM
…… Wow!
HILLARY DID THAT?
wow
WOOF WOOOF WOOOOF WOOOOOF
B O .. GET DEODORANT~~~

Paul,
Your opinion is appreciated as a citizen of the world. However, most Americans have immideate needs and are less concerned about how others around the Globe view them. I doubt that is their focus at all. We are Americans first, and world citizens second. We, as Americans, have been infinitely more generous in terms of foreign aid than any other country. We, as Americans, have opened our land to immigrants since this country’s inception. We must be doing something right because those immigrants surely are still coming here in droves.
Paul, this is like family. I can say something about a family member, but those same words from you would never be tolerated. Do you understand that? No offense meant but NOBAMA.

“Eric, sorry but the Dems were dead as a presidential party.”
Because Reagan, who was (for some reason) personally popular, won twice and George the First rode in on his coattails for one term? I hardly think that qualifies as “dead.” Twelve years is unusual for one party to hold the White House but not unprecedented.
“Also, a lot of the older monopoly by the dems in congress resulted from the legacy of dem-controlled districting.”
That doesn’t explain how the victory of ’92 turned into the disaster of ’94.
“FYI: according to census projections, the dems are screwed. the following states will gain electoral votes for 2012: Texas, Florida Arizona, California, Georgia, Nevada, and Utah.”
California is a Democratic state, and Florida and Nevada can be competitive, maybe even Georgia too. That doesn’t necessarily spell disaster.
“So keep the party divided between white “rednecks,” moderates, coastal elites, etc. and see what happens. The Repubs have a lot to look foward to!”
Republicans have even worse problems trying to keep their coalition between fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, and the religious right from falling apart.
“Finally, we wont win texas. you must be hallucinating.”
That wasn’t my contention. The point was that the old adage said that a Democrat couldn’t win without Texas, but that has been disproven. The idea that the Democrats somehow need West Virginia is nonsense.

@Bishop – Yeah, our girl is in it to win it. I am sending her another donation tonight.
A Proud, Black, Hillary Supporter
Rise, Hillary, Rise!’08
(It ain’t over until the lady in the pantsuit says so! :D)

No — because having one two-term president in 60 years is pretty pathetic. Also, not having any of those candidates win a majority of the popular vote is pretty pathetic. Also, having multiple blowouts is pretty pathetic. Between 1964 and 1980, all we had was Carter, and he only won because of Ford having pardoned Nixon and Reagan being a jerk. Subsequently, he was blown out. That’s a lousy record.
“Because Reagan, who was (for some reason) personally popular, won twice and George the First rode in on his coattails for one term? I hardly think that qualifies as “dead.” Twelve years is unusual for one party to hold the White House but not unprecedented.”

Apparently you do – because you always respond to people who indicate their race. But you never respond on gender, age, nationality, etc. Race is an obsession with you….
“Guess what? No one cares what color you are.”

sillylilly | May 16, 2008 4:59:27 PM
With a name like silly lilly
I wouldn’t expect to be taken
too seriously.
And as for the DODO description of Hillary followers…… it was given us by BOZO so it can be disregarded.
or not.;-)

“No — because having one two-term president in 60 years is pretty pathetic.”
We can debate back and forth over definitions. You used the term “dead,” but there’s a natural back-and-forth in two-party politics. By your definition, the Republican Party didn’t have a two-term president between Grant and Eisenhower, a period of 80 years. Was the Republican party “dead” during that time? Several presidential deaths and assassinations prevented an eight-year presidency, similar to 1960-1968. But Kennedy/Johnson was really one eight-year administration.
“Also, not having any of those candidates win a majority of the popular vote is pretty pathetic.”
Well, you conveniently pick the time period you want, excluding Johnson’s landslide of 1964. But you’re wrong – Carter did win a majority. And Clinton’s pluralities were substantial. The presence of a strong third-party candidate will often prevent a majority result, as it did with Nixon in 1968.

Eric please. If you believe that the last 60 years has been a boon for Democratic presidents, then you are just pushing a hard line just to disagree with me. The desperation of the Dems to get in office has a lot more to do with just Bush — it’s the long absence. You guys keep raising the SCT as a weapon against us voting for McCain. Well, if the Court matters so much, then the last few decades have been pathetic for presidential politics. Clinton is the only Dem since Johnson to appoint someone to the Court. Of course, that’s because Carter only had one term. What a huge drought. If Stevens had not evolved and Souter had not been mistakenly nominated, then all but two Justices would be conservative. If you call this Democratic presidential success, then great. You shouldnt worry about us voting for McCain then. What’s another four more years stacked on top of the decades of Republican control?

Also, Eric: The stretch of years you mentioned differ from the recent Dem debacle because there were tons of Republcan presidents during that time, and the last 20 years of that stretch were the extraordinary Roosevelt/Truman years. The preceding 60 years were dominated by Repubs. (only 12 years of Dem. presidencies). By contrast, since Truman left office in 53, we have only had 20 years of Dem presidencies — and Clinton accounted for over 1/3 of that time. That’s a pretty poor record.

Paul – the answer to Bush is not misogyny. It is not false racially progressive politics. It is not an absolutely biased media that shuts down dissent. That’s why we had Bush in the first place – the media shut down dissent..and was itself shut down and co-opted by Bush. It should not mean that our leaders and fellow democrats bash poor and uneducated voters, just because they are white, but praise black voters, who are among the poorest and uneducated of voters. This is hypocrisy. This means these same people will drop black people if it suits them. You cannot be sexist and degrade poor people and truly believe in racial justice. The mind does not work that way. These are issues the world community should embrace. It is SELFISH for “citizens of the world” to only think about what THEY perceive is best for international affairs, when domestically, this would mean legitimating awful biases. Why should the world community’s interest in going beyond Bush supercede our interest in having a party that stands true to the values it espouses? Please answer that.

Tony and countallthevotes,
The simple answer is strong leadership on the challenging issues America faces and in a way that fits thoughtfully into the world.
And the issues are not this color or that color, this collar or that collar, man or woman, or other divisive topic. They might include some of the following for America if you all took the time to focus on them instead of trying to beat down the foreigners and any others you can make into a bogey man:
- the horrendous daily loss of lives and new casualties and the waste of billions in a misguided war,
- the failed efforts to route out Bin Laden and his terrorists
- declining long term security as American leadership continues to misunderstand and mishandle foreign policy, religion generally, and religious terrorists and extremists specifically,
- lack of economic progress in the last 8 years and rapidly growing economic misery for the typical American,
- financial crises – made in America by the way, which are infecting the global finanacial system and bouncing back in other shapes and forms and knocking on America’s door with secondary impacts,
- the decline of the dollar in America and as a global reserve currency,
- the vacuum in health care for millions in a faulty system that desperately needs overhaul to expand and guarantee full coverage while at the same time reducing costs,
- the loss of homes by millions,
- growing social security challenge that is underfunded as boomers rapidly approach retirement,
- the twin skyrocketing budget and current account deficits because of an intransigent President and other leaders who (1) started a false war and must now rebuild the massive devestation and destruction caused and (2) blindly funnel money without sufficient check or balance to American conglomerates such as Haliburton in rebuilding effort, (3) don’t know when to “stop throwing good money after bad”,
- spiraling oil and gas and other commodity prices that are out of control,
- changing America’s energy policy to one that would replace oil and gas dependence with truly long term sustainable energy from sun and wind (if Bush had taken his political capital and his principle that popularity does not matter to this issue by dramatically raising the mileage requirements for vehicles at the start of his Presidency among other things it would have been much better spent than on the Iraq war)
- change America’s environmental and science policies, which have historically fueled its growth in productivity, return them to unmatched in the worked from – stick your head in the sand and pray,
- leading a global attack on the lethally real and exponentially growing environmental issues including pollution, global warming and polluted water, and
- need I go on – you can do this better than I….
Hillary is keeping the campaign away from these issues because she can’t win on them. I am not sure how well she understand some and I am pretty sure she does not have the leadership skills. She managed to lose the campaign and she is now blaming mysogyny and reverse racism or whatever.
I view her continuing with the campaign now as more of keeping her hand in a poker game and hoping to win with dirty tricks. I had a lot more respect and anticipated much more from Hillary and Bill Clinton than what I have seen. America is in too much peril for this kind of gambling……

This Obama supporter will not vote for a Obama/Clinton ticket. I would vote for Ron Paul before voting for a Clinton anywhere on the ticket period

Paul, what standing do you have to say that race and gender are not important social issues here in the US? They are even mportant in Canada, according to the scholarship I have read. Have you looked at Sherene Razack’s writings on racism in Canada? Important issues are often “divisive” because they challenge privilege. Abolishing slavery, getting rid of Jim Crow and apartheid, giving women the right to vote, protectng abortion rights, developing gay rights, etc, are all divisive but extremely important political issues. Only someone clothed in societal privilege (white, male, heterosexual, wealthy) can dismiss “divisive” issues of race and gender as unimportant. Thanks for defining what people of color and women in the US should feel are important voting issues. We are indebted to you for your superior insight.
PS: This little tidbit just proves your embrace of misogony and your elitism: “I am not sure how well she understand some and I am pretty sure she does not have the leadership skills . She managed to lose the campaign and she is now blaming mysogyny and reverse racism or whatever.”
Rich…very rich…..typical male position (to borrow from Obama). Just call her “sweetie.”

Paul, continuing to show his true colors, says: “That person needs to be able to unite people and bring about intelligent and appropriate solutions. This is never going to be Hillary’s strong suit. If you think it is, you are entitled to your opinion…”
But Paul, Obama has not united his own party. So what are you basing this on? And we already tried the “it’s ok to have a less intelligent president” and got Bush. I’m waiting for you to call Clinton a “smart little girl” trying to make in a “man’s world.”

Paul, I am not discounting you as an outsider. I am discouting you as someone clearly biased against Clinton and as someone so privileged with respect to race and gender that he can dismiss these issues as irrelevant. Sharene Razack is not a US citizen, but she would not dismiss race or gender…

Paul said: “This election is a defining moment for America, another term or two with poor leadership will sink her to where she will not be able to recover in a lifetime.”
Yeah – and an adminstration built on hypocrisy and the silencing of dissent and poor people will crush the country too! You, of course, cannot see this because you have exhibited absolutely no concern for women and people of color in your posts. Well, there are a lot of “citizens of the world” who think these are important issues. Ask Nelson Mandela! If I were a white western developed country male, I’d probably think these issues are irrelevant and that “war” is the only issue. Well it’s not. And race and gender are linked to warfare. If the Dems are not true on race and gender, then they will have no credibility. that’s why i’m not supporting the dems. Tell that to your progressive Canadian buddies. Scratch. I’m visiting Canada in a few weeks. I’ll tell them myself.

I don’t agree if Hillary becomes his VP.
She is brilliant.
It doesn’t mean Hillary supporters would vote for him if the DNC put her as his VP.
Don’t even try it, DNC!

Paul — you are contradicting yourself, and the record speaks for itself. You say that race and gender are not unimportant – but they magically have nothing to do with this election! Odd.
Paul said: “And the issues are not this color or that color, this collar or that collar, man or woman, or other divisive topic.”

There are two levels of politics and in life. The low context and the high context.
The low context is about our daily life and how we cope with our own emotions and struggle for existence.
The high context is the ideas, the philosophy that shape the main guideline of our existence and life.
The Monica affair has to do with the low context level that is Bill’s own problems. He said in the documentary that it happened because he had the opportunity and also because he was very angry at that time and very stressed by his job.
His conclusion : never let anger sit in your system, you end up doing things you wouldn’t do otherwise.
Now Kennedy had many affairs in the White House, all the staff knew and didn’t want to talk about it. His wife suffered in silence. By that she was able to deal with the high context level. She turned the White House into an elegant place, to express and embody the rich cultures of America.
Guess what, in history books that’s all that remains. Like a big fresco or painting of humanity, the little details with be rounded up to the benefit of the main design.
No one will care about Bill affair, but his policy will be remained as something achieved during his terms as a president. Hillary conducted herself well during the scandal. What if the Republicans had done the same thing to Kennedy, I wonder how he and Jacky would have handled this.
Hillary was able to keep the high level context to save the White House. She was good.
About this election, precisely your BO is trying to carry the high context level by making believe he is a godly creature. “He will carry out great designs for America”.
But some have investigated his background and discover his ties to his reverend Wright rather troublesome. He is all but projections of idealism. And that is wrong.
America has done good things and bad things. Like many of us and many countries themselves. If some americans want BO to be the redeemer, that’s your right but this is an illusion.
According to my analysis, from a biological and psychological point of view, Hillary is the best choice. Why? America has had the position of superpower. In order to keep that position, it has got involved in world politics some times making wrong decisions because of lack of knowledge of the terrain (low context level).The Irak war may be an example. But trying to help build democracy there is not wrong. But the american people suffer from the war bill. So any president has to deal with this domestic concern.
Since globalization, economy has switched and we have gone from industrial capitalism to financial capitalism.Pressure is everywhere in every country except in rising economy like China or India. But their people have being living in misery so they still have far less than americans. America has to adapt itself to the new world map. It has been playing the politics of expansion, like an empire. Imagine you have been inhaling in all this time to expand your lungs and communicate with others through a dynamic way. It cannot last forever. It’s now the time for relief and easing out. But you cannot just let all the air out in one shot, like expiring suddenly, you have to control your expiration. BO would be like expiring in one shot. Switching from expansion to just go around and deal with enemies as if they are harmless.No you have to control your change of regime.
Hillary, the way she had control during Bill’s years and her capacity of having interests in other cultures make her a good profile. She fits more to the legacy of the american presidents. And if her supporters want to vote Mc Cain, it’s because they don’t trust at all BO. Mc Cain is a politician also but he has more to say than Bush. He is not all that liked by the republicans, because he is moderate. So is Hillary. That for her supporters to want to vote for Mc Cain in protest against the DNC can be explained.
Racism has been an issue in America. Things have improved. Go to Africa and you will agree with me.
But sexism has just come out of the dark room and now pointed at by Hillary supporters. Is this issue a low context or a high context level? Is a mid-context level I guess.Everyone has male and female qualities. Some people, like Hillary has a more complex combination of these qualities and the way she express them. People are not used to that kind of thinking.
Look at Merkel, the german Chancelier, she is very good for the country. Of course, a lot of sexist germans hate her. But she does a good job.
In the 21st century the gender issue has to be dealt with. Is America so behind that it resists progress?

BO has been using the media machine to play the game of inevitable because from now on, it is all the way downhill no matter how hard he tries, he is still going to loss.
He is not a fighter. He has no stamina for a hard fought battle. He can’t win. Therefore, he counts on the party leaders to use Maths rather than common sense.
Hillary will not settle for VP. She is on a mission that a VP will not fit in. Hillary is a big time player. Those have been belittling her would be disappointed.
BO can not make the difference even if he campaigns. He is counting on somebody to do his job. Very sly move.
The one who can tough out win the nomination. Hillary will last and win.
There is one life to live and only that much money that you can spend. The Clintons are on a mission to turn the country back to normal.
Edwards is the worst back-stabber. Hillary won the confidence of working class and the poor. BO stands for the affluent. He endorses BO in order to beat Hillary and inherit the support. His eyes blinks and rolls in his speech and he is not working for the poor anymore.
Hillary to the top or Independent.
Hillary can win in the Nov.

To top it it was Ted Kennedy that really stuck out and shot down the Clinton VP idea along with a snide dig at her to boot. Nice Teddy. Real nice.
Shows who calls the shots on the Obama campaign really. Its better to have a popular junior senator whose moldable and in need of more support than someone who gets on with it and is a bit too independent maybe??
I’m really starting to hate the democrats. Also before Bo supporters go into overdrive, I know he voted against the war but in the previous post I’m talking about YOUR FANATICAL CAMPAIGNING NOT HIM.

Regular readers of this blog may recall that I have stated a number of times, over the past several months, that I felt that if Sen. Clinton were to win the nomination she would HAVE to select Sen. Obama as her running mate. But that if Sen. Obama wins the nomination he might select her, but that there is no way that she would accept being second — she’s been number two all her life. I still believe that! I also still believe that Gov. Bill Richardson is Sen. Obama’s best selection for VP.
But, I now have a new theory. I emphasize a theory. Maybe Sen. Clinton really IS trying for leverage. But not to force Sen. Obama to select her for the VP slot. Instead, she may offer him her full support as long as he promises to select HER as his first nominee to the United States Supreme Court, should an opening occur.

James Danley,
What a wonderful idea. HRC as a Supreme Court Justice might rally her supporters. In fact, that would be the only thing that might motivate me to support him. She is imminently qualifed. She has the academic credentials, having graduated from Yale Law School, when only 27 women were even admitted. She has legal scholarly work that has been highly acclaimed by her peers, that well precedes her tenure as First Lady. She has worked as an attorney on sophisticated issues, both public and private.
Hmmmmm!
Note also that Obama has been mentored, sponsored, groomed, supported, endorsed by Lawrence Tribe of Harvard Law School. He has always longed for a SC appointment. Though his age is against him, he has many other problems which would not bode well for an ultimate appointment.
There has also been talk that Obama might appoint Prof. Kmiec who is an arch conservative. Kmiec, to the amazement of people who know him, has endorsed Obama. Note, Kmiec is an ardent, traditional Roman Catholic who is anti-abortion. Kmiec himself has addressed the possibility of a SC appointment under Obama. He points to statements Obama has made that reveal that Obama has said that he is personally against abortion and that if he (Obama) were to oppose abortion legislatively he would have to do so on non-religious grounds.
Bottom line, no one can promise you the SC appointment. You need advice and consent of the Senate. Article II, Sect. 2. Further, there would be no way to enforse such an agreement by Obama and anyone else.

geevill,
Rick, have you read the latest article in the London Times on Obamamania?? Fodder for discussion since it deals with media coverage.
Barack Obama: The Great Redeemer by Gerard Baker
Excerpt:
“The idolatry of Mr Obama is a shame, really. The Illinois senator is indeed, an unusually talented, inspiring and charismatic figure. His very ethnicity offers an exciting departure. But he is not a saint. He is a smart and eloquent man with a personal history that is startlingly shallow set against the scale of the office he seeks to hold. It is not only legitimate, but necessary, to scrutinise his past and infer what it might tell us about his beliefs, in the absence of the normal record of achievement expected in a presidential nominee.
If the past 40 years have taught us anything they have surely taught that premature canonisation is an almost certain guarantee of subsequent deep disappointment. “

News Alert!
Breaking News Alert
The New York Times
Saturday, May 17, 2008 — 12:01 PM ET

HoosierSue,
That is exactly what I learned last night. Obama hired 400 new paid bloggers to infiltrate these blogs. I did note new people and new ideas yesterday and today. These bloggers are not posting crazed ideas. Rather they are posting strategic tidbits.
I really do not like being manipulated. It won’t work. NOBAMA, NO MATTER WHAT!!

Disambiguates,
Who is Kathleen Sebelius? I listened carefully to her last speech and was not impressed at all. Do we know anything about her? Just curious. I know she is from a red state and probably has more political experience than Obama.

Kathleen Sebelius is a very inspirational speaker. She is often called upon to provide opposition responses. She is so good that she is a Democrat in a red state. Take a look at her. She is the sort of candidate America needs – education, health care, economy. She has won the governor job twice.
By the way I am not affiliated with anyone. I would like to see some good candidates. A Teddy Roosevelt or FDR could not ge through the crap today because of the political machines at work.

Read realpolitics.com. Obama still leads the popular vote even counting FL and MI. They are the source for these sorts of totals.
The point is that more people would have voted in both Michigan and Florida had the elections been “real”. At this point it is pissing into the wind as it does not matter.
We have to move on to get some good people into the political arena. The old boy groups who currently have control have been keeping the good candidates out.

One can google Kathleen Sebelius. She has a business background and her husband is a federal magistrate judge. She is great – and a good candidate as opposed to some one who was manufactured for and by the media.
I love this “beware” crap. Do you think one could actually pay someone to read most of this sillyness.

No matter how one looks at it, Hillary is a lost cause at this point. I think our duty as citizens is to find good candidates and get behind them. Maybe the governor of Kansas is not the one for you, but I am sure if you look you will find ones that are qualified.
The old political machines – and yes the Clintons have a huge one – are putting forward candidates that will support all of their lobbyist/payoff pals. We need to get past that.
One line I heard the other day, “I do not want health insurance. I want health cares. Insurance companies keep me from getting care.” No one is talking about – only insurance. We are also expecting science to save us – and we are not funding science and we have told all of the kids that we can get scientists from India or whereever – terrible thing to do to the kids.

James Danley,
Obama has too many political debts to too many legal scholars. His nomination to the SC will be dictated by the “big boys” for sure, like Kennedy, Dodds, Richardson, Dascle, Dean, even Pelosi. Note, none of them are legal scholars and are any of them even lawyers?? Obama is a puppet; others pull the strings.

Hillary should say screw you to Bill. He is the one who caused her the most harm – in previous years and in this election season.
I know a loto of people like the revenge vote idea of having Bill back in the Whitehouse.
I’d like to have the people in Silicon Valley who gave us the boom in the 1990s back. We have sold them all out to foreign interests through our bankrupt trade deals. Ask any kid if electrical engineering sounds like a good career.

Get to the real issues instead of your petty speculations about things that you don’t know about. Get to think on your own and stop being robots repeating the arguments that take you nowhere. Can you BO supporters answer simple questions? Why your inspirational leader, advertises his own persona as if he is a godly creature? Why according to the DNC rules so many delegates are needed but none of them has reached the required number, and yet she has been asked to step down? Sure BO has the advantage but the race is so tight, so why not let all the voters have their say? Why the string of endorsements of Kerry and Mc Govern, Kennedy etc… supposedly help BO to attract voters to his side so he can seal the nomination didn’t work out that way? Why you supporters repeat like robots the same words as your inspirational leader : fearmongering, divisive, words that he easily uses when he doesn’t want to answer some questions. Why doesn’t he want to debate anymore? Why you always project negative talk and speculations instead of doing real thinking and get to understand what is at stake in this election? Answer those questions and maybe you will get HC supporters to line up behind your messiah idol.

She ran an ad in Oregon that’s very nice. Of course she still runs as president. A blog commentator, said the problem is that in some people think the nomination is sealed and that they don’t have to vote anymore.Spread words around that primaries are still held.

DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS – TAKE NOTICE
———–ROE v. WADE———–
Two of the current justices of the United States Supreme Court will probably retire within the next four years. One is 75 and the other is 84. This will give the new president the ability to nominate two new justices. If McCain is elected you can be sure the new justices will be just like Roberts, Scalia and Thomas: willing to overturn ROE v. WADE. So think when you vote!!!

Perhaps it would help if some of you understood the separation of powers clause in the United States Constitution and the limitations of the Executive vis a vis the Supreme Court. Then talk about Roe v. Wade. This is pathetic.
No president can set aside Roe v. Wade!! What planet are you from??
Roe v. Wade has been around a long time. There has been infinite opportunites to overturn it. It has not happened. The president can only nominate a person for the Supreme Court. The President cannot just appoint. Recall the Bork hearings. Recall what happened to Bork. The President nominates with the advice and consent of the senate. There are hearings. That is how it is done. President can only do this if there is a vacancy on the supreme court, as in when a SC justice dies or retires.
In the worst case scenario, and it is really implausible, Roe is overturned. That does not mean that abortion is constitutionally prohibited at all. All that means is that the state may then regulate if it so chooses.
Does anyone really think that, in this day and age, their state will prohibit abortions?? This is not the ’60′s. It will never happen.
Get a grip and stop trying to scare people into supporitng Obama. That is pathetic!!!

JOdy Platt,
Hold your horses!! It ain’t over by a long shot! Note, Kentucky and PR. Note, FL and MI. NOBAMA for me. it ain’t over until the lady in the pants suit says it it.

Lisa,
Do you know anything of the Supreme Court? Have you read any legal opinions? Did you know that about a third of those nominated have never been confirmed? Do you realize that we will have control of the Senate and that Bork will never happen?
Do you know Prof. Kmiec is on Obama’s short list for the Supreme court and that he is definitely anti-abortion. Did you know that Prof. Kmiec recently endorsed Obama over McCain? Let me get you some statements of Obama and Kmiec:
For those unfamiliar wiht Prof. Kmiec, he is a noted legal scholar, and ardent Roman Catholic and definitely anti-abortion. He has the credentials and standing to become a serious nominee for the United States Supreme Court. Also, he is a member of the IL bar, and has written for the Chicago Tribune.
IN writing on Obama, Prof. Kmiec has quoted Obama’s positon on abortion as:
As he [Obama] writes, “I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.”
Note, one COULD view Obama’s personal position on abortion as influencing his “present” votes on a woman’s right to choose while an IL state senator.
Prof. Kmiec also posits the following question/statement:
“[B]ut here’s the question: Does Obama’s thoughtful appreciation of faith mean that he would work toward the protection of life in all contexts even if that protection cannot be achieved in a single step? I am inclined to think so . . .”
Interesting endorsement, no matter how you read it.

countallthevotes I am not talking about Roe v Wade. I am talking about the Supreme Court in general. There are a lot of issues out there. I want more research on stem cells. And with a republican in the white house the court will turn conservative. It’s already borderline. It does not matter if the dems are in control in the house and senate, they will have to compromise with the pres just like they did with Bush. You are really fooling yourself if you think it won’t happen.

rhbate, I just don’t understand how people can dismiss the Supreme Court so lightly. I don’t just think of the next 4 years. I think of what will happen with a conservative Supreme Court. And it will happen with McCain.

rhbate, I just don’t understand how people can dismiss the Supreme Court so lightly. I don’t just think of the next 4 years. I think of what will happen with a conservative Supreme Court. And it will happen with McCain.
Posted by: lisa | May 18, 2008 12:49:06 AM
__________________
Again, let me say that I agree with you completely. Someone posted you saying that it was implausible that a differently composed court would overturn Roe v. Wade. Total nonsense. Practically of the Southern states plus many others including Utah and Nevada.
Additionally, there are other problematic areas that would result in a significant set-back of liberal issues. So stick to your guns. If McCain was in a position to nominate judges to the supreme court you can bet they’ll be imitations of Roberts, Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

rhbate and lisa,
You choose to demonize anyone who might be nominating a SC justice, except for Obama. Is Obama the only person you think capable of making the correct choice? That is just plain foolish. We have had so many fine justices appointed, none of whom have been nominated by Obama. Name a SC justice who is not compentent.

rhbate and Lisa,
You also assume that abortion is the end all and be all of a voter’s decision. It is not. People are concerned about the economy, gas prices, educational loans, two wars, foreclosure relief etc. Abortion is not a hot button issue that it once was and voters are not one trick ponies.

“You also ignore the fact that Bork never got appointed.” You only display your ignorance: no one is ever “appointed to the Supreme Court. The process is as follows: The president, whoever it is, nominates his choice, the matter is then sent to the senate judiciary committee. Usually there is a discussion and finally they decide whether to confirm the nomination or not.
Posted by: countallthevotes | May 18, 2008 1:08:39 AM

The process is as follows: The president, whoever it is, nominates his choice, the matter is then sent to the senate judiciary committee. Usually there is a discussion and finally they decide whether to accept or reject the nomination.
Sorry, I left something out
If they agree on the nomination, the matter is then sent to the full Senate for approval or rejection. Usually the final vote is along party lines.

Rhbate, you wrote: “…a supreme court composed of a majority of Democrats can do what it wants, just as the supreme court did when it “elected” Bush.”
Actually it was the people of Florida who elected George W. Bush. You may not have heard, but several newspapers actually recounted the ballots and Bush still won the state of Florida in 2000. Now as for the actual decision, the US Supreme Court ruled that the Florida State Supreme Court errored when they allowed different methods of counting chads in different counties. The US Supreme Court also ruled that the full statewide recount could not be competed by the deadline that was imposed by Florida state law; that the Florida Supreme Court did not have the authority to change the law to extend the certification deadline.
Now then, it was Al Gore who tried to steal the election by cherry-picking a handful of overwhelmingly Democratic counties for recounting, instead of immediately asking for a statewide recount — to which he was entitled.

Talk about bias. I happened to read a negative article about the Clintons in the New Republic and they had underneath their ad, a big one with BO image on top, and beneath a small ad “Bill legacy” by New York Times. I went to NY Times and found big articles about the Clintons.
Fortunately, in their comments column, all the Hillary supporters bring more than blind support, but facts to respond some false accusations. One’d better get informed so not to fall under the anti-Clinto propaganda.

James Danley,
Thank you for your clarifications in response to rhbate. You saved me time and effort.
Go Hillary 2008, if not then McCain

Rhbate, sorry another correction! You wrote: “Usually the final vote (for a Supreme Court nominee) is along party lines.”
“Usually” is too strong a word. Here are the votes for the nominees from the Johnson Administration to the present:
Abe Fortas — Confirmed by voice vote (Aug 11, 1965)
Thurgood Marshall — Confirmed 69-11 (Aug 30, 1967)
Warren Burger — Confirmed 74-3 (Jun 9, 1969)
Clement Haynsworth, Jr. — Rejected 45-55 (Nov 21, 1969)
G. Harrold Caswell — Rejected 45-51 (Apr 8, 1970)
Harry Blackmun — Confirmed 94-0 (May 12, 1970)
Lewis Powell, Jr. — Confirmed 89-1 (Dec 6, 1971)
William Rehnquist — Confirmed 68-26 (Dec 10, 1971)
John Paul Stevens — Confirmed 98-0 (Dec 17, 1975)
Sandra Day O’Connor — Confirmed 99-0 (Sep 21, 1981)
Antonin Scalia — Confirmed 98-0 (Sep 17 1986)
Robert Bork — Rejected 42-58 (Oct 23, 1987)
Anthony Kennedy — Confirmed 97-0 (Feb 3, 1988)
David Souter — Confirmed 90-9 (Oct 2, 1990)
Clarence Thomas — Confirmed 52-48 (Oct 13, 1991)
Ruth Bader Ginsburg — Confirmed 96-3 (Aug 3, 1993)
Stephen Breyer — Confirmed 87-9 (Jul 29, 1994)
John Roberts, Jr. — Confirmed 78-22 (Sep 29, 2005)
Samuel Alito, Jr. — Confirmed 58-42 (Jan 31, 2006)
While the 3 rejections were basically along party lines, only two of the last 16 confirmations (Thomas & Alito) could be characterized as being basically along party lines.

James Danley,
Thank you for your clarifications in response to rhbate. You saved me time and effort.
Go Hillary 2008, if not then McCain
Posted by: countallthevotes | May 18, 2008 10:37:43 AM
___________________
While I have not practiced before the US Supreme Court, I have handled a myriad of cases dealing with Constitutional issues, several of which are usually can be Googled, because they were cases of first impression. The cases were before the 2nd Appellate District, California Court of Appeals.

I am supporting Hillary Clinton all the way to the convention. She is the strongest candidate of either party. Hillary will be the best President. Vote your convictions! The only vote that is wasted is the vote that is not cast.