Redstate

"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921

She now has absolutely zero respect for the Netroots, and is openly flaunting it in order to get her message out to the superdelegates.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

David Paterson Must Go

Because no libs will see it then.

They also read us. They can't get enough of us in fact.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

Particularly the ones from dKos. You'd think that they'd respond to us the way we do to opposite-ideology blogs with 1/20th the traffic; which is to pretty much ignore them. Instead, they just keep watching us.

It's weird.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

They are obsessed with us. They talk about Rush constantly. Dems define their lives by their political enemies and all that they are against. Look at Sean Penn railing like an utter (and inarticulate) nutjob about Fox News. We'd go on just fine if all Dems and libs disappeared en masse (a kind of liberal Rapture but not to Heaven ;-) ) but without conservatives, FNC, Rush, etc., Dems would lose their reason for living. They'd have to invent us.

You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.

I think you have hit the nail on the head as to why Hillary persists in her campaign. She knows full well that her chances would be nil after 8 years of Obama and that a McCain presidency is her only choice. I can imagine that the moment McCain would be declared president-elect, she and Bill would be on the phone with those superdelegates saying, "I told you so."

She is going to be sure that if she goes down this year, she takes the Obama Movement in the Democratic party with her...

Not in this reality. My prediction is NO ONE who wins this year will get a 2nd term.

You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.

Well, that's true...any of the three would have a tough road to re-election. But still, if Obama were elected, Hillary would have to unseat him as sitting president as nominee to get a crack at it in 2012. So, for all intents and purposes, she would be out of the game until 2016 whether Obama won a second term or not.

That's what we thought about Bill Clinton. You should NEVER assume that.

"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas

Don't you people get it? Hillary has been through too much and she DESERVES the Presidency! :) It is her birthright.

Liberals believe the ends justify the means. Hillary will attempt to ram that lesson down everyones throat.

Ask not what I can do for my country, ask what my country can do for me. Washington Elected Elite

and Hillary will be sworn in on January 21, 2009...

And Rightly So!

Some definition of "is" thing.

--
Gone 2500 years, still not PC.

But she did win by being on the ballot.

1) Hillary as McCain's VP would negate McCain's key selling point to independent, which would swing these voters strongly towards Obama. Talking about "old" vs. "new" politics!

2) Adding Hillary's stratospheric negatives among Republicans with McCains's lukewarm acceptance (at best) would probably leave less than 25% of Republicans who would vote for this ticket.

3) We'd need to practice saying "zero electoral votes" and "fillibuster-proof Senate".

4) Not to mention the likely outcome if somehow, despite this all, you were right and John McCain won the election.

And Rightly So!

With Hillary riding shotgun, you just might have a point there.

However, I suspect that Hillary's conversion to Republican Vice Presidential candidate would have the same effect on her follower's as Shabbethai Zebi's conversion to Islam did.

That is, this would be far more likely viewed as political cynicism rather than novel or bipartisan.

And Rightly So!

McCain should head the ticket. He won the Republican nomination (bear in mind I write this assuming that Hillary will lose the Dem nomination), and his negatives are lower than Hillary's are. However--

A.) I do think that Hillary has a significant "base" of voters that she could bring to the ticket who would rather vote for McCain than Obama--along with a bunch of women voters in the GE.

B.) Part of the reason why Obama is doing so well (not the ONLY reason) is because of the "historical nature" of his ticket--i.e., electing "The first black president" (Ferraro is right). Well, a McCain/Hillary ticket would be an even more "historical" ticket--"The first bipartisan ticket in over a hundred years that has a war hero running for president with the first woman vice-president, who is also the wife of a former president of the opposite party". Anyway, on paper, it does sound pretty cool. :-)

...until you add some heat. :-)

Time for sleep. Have a pleasant night.

And Rightly So!

"Mixing chemicals sounds pretty cool too, until you add some heat"--very funny. I'm going to sleep too. Can't believe I'm up so late. Have a good night. :-)

If we're gonna have a unity ticket, I'd rather have Lieberman than Hill. Think that's slightly more plausible, too. (Though still not terribly plausible.)

I think that McCain might make Lieberman Secretary of Defense. The problem with putting Lieberman on the actual ticket, though, is that Lieberman is not liked by many Democrats and many don't even consider him a "real Democrat". Therefore, Hillary would feel like much more of a real "unity" ticket to many Democrats. Besides Lieberman does not have the base of voters (security moms, Latinos, seniors, and Reagan Dems) that Hillary has that consider themselves loyal Democrats, but would also vote for McCain in large numbers over Obama. Hillary is in a very unique position.

Remember when Lieberman tried for the nomination in 2004--he barely registered at like 4 or 5%. Besides, Dems just recently primaried him in 2006. Bottom line, he ain't too popular in Democratic circles.

Hillary is also a really seasoned debater and has had the whole election season to perfect her skills. She would eviscerate, in the VP debates, anyone that Obama chose a his running mate.

Anyway, I think the reason why we haven't had a "unity" ticket in over 100 years, is because both sides would have to compromise greatly, and most people naturally don't like to compromise. Just my take anyway.

Be especially careful when you're responding to the last comment on the thread that you use the right button.

And Rightly So!