Compromise Time for the Democrats?

[targus]

I can imagine Clinton on the top spot and Obama as the VP. I cannot imagine the reverse. Clinton needs Obama when all is said and done. Obama does not need Clinton.

I can't imagine why Obama would want to be VP to the Clinton co-Presidents. The Clintons know their way around the White House and how things are done and will know exactly how to keep Obama out of the spot light. If the typical VP does nothing more than attend funerals for heads of State can you imagine how irrelevant Obama would be?

Can anyone point to Al Gore's accomplishments as VP other than pricing out ashtrays?

 

[saturneptune]

I can't imagine why Obama would want to be VP to the Clinton co-Presidents. The Clintons know their way around the White House and how things are done and will know exactly how to keep Obama out of the spot light. If the typical VP does nothing more than attend funerals for heads of State can you imagine how irrelevant Obama would be?

Can anyone point to Al Gore's accomplishments as VP other than pricing out ashtrays?

I dont know that Obama would want to be VP. You make some good points. The only reason I can think of is if he is losing by then, it is an excellent office to run for President in the future.

I hope they do not reach a compromise and continue to fight until the party is fractured.

 

[TomVols]

No way this is happening. Both sides are showing their dark sides in their attacks. Obama's attorney breaking into the conf call Tuesday night for Clinton's people is showing a desperation similar to what happened in the 2006 Senate race in Tenn. 2000 Dem keynote speaking Harold Ford Jr (quite Obama-like in his own right and current DLC head) was tied with Bob Corker, a Chattanooga businessman. Ford literally crashed a Corker press conference and challenged Corker, though Corker was trying to get Ford to debate him in formal debates. Immedately after the stunt, Ford fell behind Corker for good and Corker is now the jr senator from TN.

Obama is showing he has the blood-thirst for power that typical politicians have and that the Clintons have had for years. Neither side is going to give up or give in. Accepting the VEEP to the opponent would be viewed as such. Besides, should Obama lose to Hillary (a real possibility), hitching his wagon to a possible failed attempt at the WH would damage his cred in 2012 when an older McCain may or may not run for re-election, and Obama would be the presumptive frontrunner.

 

[TomVols]

Incidentally, what Democrat is happy right now? Despite all their votes, party big shots are going to end up deciding who the nominee is. How is that...well, democratic? And disenfrachising voters in MI and FL? Is this the same Dem party from 2000 and 2004?

Wait...yes it is.... :type:

 

[KenH]

What's more pathetic than the Democratic Party? The Republican Party as it attempts to continue the failed presidency of George W. Bush through the candidacy of Senator McCain.

 

[TomVols]

What's more pathetic than the Democratic Party? The Republican Party as it attempts to continue the failed presidency of George W. Bush through the candidacy of Senator McCain.

But at least that's what the voters seem to want and are going to get :laugh:

 

[dragonfly]

But at least that's what the voters seem to want and are going to get :laugh:

Delusional at best!

The republican's don't have a chance unless they conjure up some incident, which they are good at doing, in order to gain the White House in 2008. My money is on the Democratic Party, preferably Obama, but Clinton will do nicely as well.

ABAR! (Anything but a republican)

 

[KenH]

But at least that's what the voters seem to want and are going to get :laugh:

Evidently not as the latest polls I have seen today show Senator Obama winning by 12 points over Senator McCain and Senator Clinton winning by 6 points over Senator McCain. Not that I put any stock in polls for the general election until starting around September 15.

 

[webdog]

Delusional at best!

The republican's don't have a chance unless they conjure up some incident, which they are good at doing, in order to gain the White House in 2008. My money is on the Democratic Party, preferably Obama, but Clinton will do nicely as well.

ABAR! (Anything but a republican)

So you prefer a homosexual child murdering candidate. Nice. Oh well for Christians having higher morals...

 

[StefanM]

So you prefer a homosexual child murdering candidate. Nice. Oh well for Christians having higher morals...

Homosexual?

 

[webdog]

I forgot the "...supporting"

 

[rbell]

Ken,

I disagree with your opening premise.

A "backroom deal" would cause, IMO, a virulent anti-dem reaction.

Real-life scenario: Infighting and "dealing" that went on between the democratic contenders for governor of Alabama in 1986 caused a HUGE reaction among Alabama voters--causing them to vote for a completely unknown, Primitive Baptist preacher who became Alabama's first Republican governor since Reconstruction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Hunt

I see a parallel happening on a national scale. Only McCain (though not popular) is still at least known.

 

[dragonfly]

So you prefer a homosexual child murdering candidate. Nice. Oh well for Christians having higher morals...

Which candidate is this supposed homosexual child accused of murdering? :laugh:

 

[Crabtownboy]

Back room deals

Hmmm, a back room deal .... could not be worse than what we've had the last 8 years. :laugh:

 

[targus]

But it's all just backroom deals. Even the elected canidates end up governing based on their own backroom deals. Rarely is anything done in government because it is right and just or because it is the will of the people.

 

[Crabtownboy]

But it's all just backroom deals. Even the elected canidates end up governing based on their own backroom deals. Rarely is anything done in government because it is right and just or because it is the will of the people.

You know, for the most part you are right. In our "modern" times the back room is often called "special interest." The back rooms may be very nice restaurants, but still the analogy holds.:BangHead:

 

[TomVols]

Ken and Dragonfly:

You misunderstand: I said the Republicans wanted a McCain candidacy, so at least they got what they voted for. Ken is right about GE polls. We have no idea what the electorate will do until the fall.

 

[dragonfly]

Ken and Dragonfly:

You misunderstand: I said the Republicans wanted a McCain candidacy, so at least they got what they voted for. Ken is right about GE polls. We have no idea what the electorate will do until the fall.

Thank you for this explanation. You are correct that, evidently, the republicans do want McCain since they have made him their candidate.

I will say that of all the republicans running this time, McCain is the best of the bunch. Although I don't support all of his positions, I do respect him for serving his country the way he did during the Viet Nam war.