Democratic Campaign Deathwatch Thread

[ConspiRaider]

The only Gore scenario that could actually work is so Machiavellean in its scope that it'd never happen.

The country would have to begin to see the current situation as a deadlock that will not be solved. (This is entirely possible, of course, as I can see this going to a ridiculous standoff and SCOTUS having to determine Florida/Michigan. By that time would anyone be left to vote Dem?)

If such a view starts to take hold, Gore would then need a stalking horse to directly take on the deadlockees on his behalf. This would require going after both of them as not having a clear majority and both of them as harming the party and the party's chances to take the White House.

The party hacks (aka "super delegates") could, in such a scenario, push either or both of the leading candidates to back out and throw their support to the great peacemaker, Gore. Put Hillary on the Supreme Court, give Obama the veep slot or make him the Ambassador to the UN.

Problems galore with this scenario, of course. There are no "king-makers" like in days of old. And there's no logical party to play the "stalking horse" role. Edwards could maybe do it, but probably wouldn't.

Ah, well... just another fantasy. What we're probably going to get is a bloody mess. Right now both camps are licking their wounds a retrenching from the catfights of the past couple of weeks. Look for more slander and innuendo around Monday morning. And meanwhile, McCain is now doing Letterman impressions and looking statesmanlike.

Yep, FMW, agree we got ourselves one helluva mess. My fantasy - but really it's a workable solution - is the Hillary (prez) / Barack (veep) ticket. I don't care if they've got to lock themselves in a smoky room for a week to hammer this out. It's the one all-healing, unbeatable ticket given the situation as it stands today. Instead of having 2 unconventional candidates butt heads and foment hate and turmoil in the process - you simply bring them both together as a unified ticket. It ensures a Democratic presidency for 2009-2013. But watch how we sappy Democrats will NOT do this. Egos will self-cancel, and McCain slips into the Oval Office via the broom closet.

Gore's mindset is away from the political process, you can ascertain that when you hear him talk. He's exactly where he wants to be. Gave politics his best shot for about 25 years, and he has now adapted to a different mindset.

 

[The Atheist]

Yep, FMW, agree we got ourselves one helluva mess. My fantasy - but really it's a workable solution - is the Hillary (prez) / Barack (veep) ticket.

What a strange definition you must have of "workable".

Curious to know: as an avowed and fairly strident Billary supporter, will you vote for Obama if he wins the nomination? I'm interested to find out how disenfranchised your mob are going to be - if at all.

 

[T.A.M.]

yes we should simply reverse the whole idea of elections, give the Presidency to the runner up, and the VP job to the winner...lol

Obama is ahead in nearly every category, and will likely remain so in June, yet Hillary supporters are calling for Hillary to be given the job anyway, and to give the winner the consolation prize.

Democracy at its finest.

TAM

 

[BPSCG]

I see no reason why the party would completely fall apart if Gore was chosen and didn't choose either Obama or Clinton. In such a situation I don't see how he could chose either one. How about a Gore-Edwards ticket?

Seriously, I don't think you could force Gore into this mess at gunpoint, and I don't blame him at all, if anything I think he saw this coming 2 years ago.

Interesting that some commentators - and Democratic party bigwigs - think that maybe the Democrats should shove Obama and Clinton aside and nominate Gore for president - because, apparently, favoring a lily-white guy who didn't even campaign wouldn't be racist or sexist if the Democrats were to do it.

Which brings us back to Al Gore. Pish-tosh, you say, and you're probably right. But let's play a little. Let's say the elders of the Democratic Party decide, when the primaries end, that neither Obama nor Clinton is viable. Let's also assume—and this may be a real stretch—that such elders are strong and smart enough to act. All they'd have to do would be to convince a significant fraction of their superdelegate friends, maybe fewer than 100, to announce that they were taking a pass on the first ballot at the Denver convention, which would deny the 2,025 votes necessary to Obama or Clinton. What if they then approached Gore and asked him to be the nominee, for the good of the party—and suggested that he take Obama as his running mate? Of course, Obama would have to be a party to the deal and bring his 1,900 or so delegates along.

I played out that scenario with about a dozen prominent Democrats recently, from various sectors of the party, including both Obama and Clinton partisans. Most said it was extremely unlikely ... and a pretty interesting idea. A prominent fund raiser told me, "Gore-Obama is the ticket a lot of people wanted in the first place." A congressional Democrat told me, "This could be our way out of a mess." Others suggested Gore was painfully aware of his limitations as a candidate. "I don't know that he'd be interested, even if you handed it to him," said a Gore friend. Chances are, no one will hand it to him. The Democratic Party would have to be monumentally desperate come June. And yet ... is this scenario any more preposterous than the one that gave John McCain the Republican nomination? Yes, it's silly season. But this has been an exceptionally "silly" year.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Beeps,

Yeah, I'm aware that the pundiots are promoting the idea, but as I said, and as the article said, .... They ain't gonna hand it to him. My scenario is a little more accurate. He'd have to actively go after it, and someone really big and weighty in the party would have to be his stalking horse. And the only person with that much clout is Bill Clinton and he assuredly ain't gonna do it. (Jimmy Carter? No. He has respect but no power in the party.) Is the NY Times strong enough? Don't think so. Ditto, Washington Post.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Interesting that some commentators - and Democratic party bigwigs - think that maybe the Democrats should shove Obama and Clinton aside and nominate Gore for president - because, apparently, favoring a lily-white guy who didn't even campaign wouldn't be racist or sexist if the Democrats were to do it.

In the first place, it wouldn't be racist or sexist if it so happened that the only hemi-demi-semi plausible compromise candidate was a white man, which he is; and in the second place, the scenario you quote doesn't involve "shoving Obama aside" but his active co-operation.

In the third place, it's about as likely as monkeys flying out of my butt.

 

[BPSCG]

Beeps,

Yeah, I'm aware that the pundiots are promoting the idea, but as I said, and as the article said, .... They ain't gonna hand it to him. My scenario is a little more accurate. He'd have to actively go after it, and someone really big and weighty in the party would have to be his stalking horse. And the only person with that much clout is Bill Clinton and he assuredly ain't gonna do it. (Jimmy Carter? No. He has respect but no power in the party.) Is the NY Times strong enough? Don't think so. Ditto, Washington Post.

I agree, it's very unlikely, unless...

Say Clinton manages to stay alive with a convincing win in Pennsylvania and even pulls off an upset or two before the primary season is over. Suddenly the delegate race is a lot closer. The exchanges between the candidates get hotter and the supporters of both get increasingly locked into an acrimonious "if my horse doesn't win, I'm going home" mentality. In the heat of the campaign, Obama forgets a microphone is on and comments to an aide, "Why's she so bitchy? Is it her time of month again already?" which gets plastered all over the front pages until Clinton knocks it off with an ill-advised comment that anyone who opposes her plan for universal "free" health care coverage "is going to have a lot to answer for."

Suddenly Nobel laureate Al Gore looks statesmanlike.

If you're not a baby boomer, you don't remember The Patty Duke Show from the early 1960's. Sitcom in which Patty Duke played two parts - a New York teenager who's never seen anything outside of Brooklyn Heights and her identical cousin, who's the sophisticated daughter of a diplomat and has been all over the world.

One episode, they both run for class president. The campaign gets increasingly ugly. During a debate, they make wild, nasty accusations against each other. Meanwhile a third candidate, a girl with all the personality of a bowl of oatmeal, says nothing during the debate except "vote for me" two or three times.

Election day - the third girl wins because the rest of the students are so turned off by the two loudest candidates.

Likely scenario? Of course not.

Of course, how likely was it a year ago that a first-term senator would make the Democratic party swoon into its arms by mouthing strange platitudes like "We are what we have been waiting for"?

 

[Dr Adequate]

Yep, FMW, agree we got ourselves one helluva mess. My fantasy - but really it's a workable solution - is the Hillary (prez) / Barack (veep) ticket.

Obama's ahead on total delegates, he's ahead in pledged delegates, he's ahead in votes cast, he's ahead in states, he's ahead in superdelegates who have to face popular election, he's ahead in the polls, he does better than Clinton on match-up polls against McCain, and he's ahead on fundraising.

So if one of them should concede defeat at this point, I don't think you have to be a "Hillary Hater" to think that it should be Clinton.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Of course, how likely was it a year ago that a first-term senator would make the Democratic party swoon into its arms by mouthing strange platitudes ...

"Strange platitudes"? I call oxymoron.

 

[ConspiRaider]

yes we should simply reverse the whole idea of elections, give the Presidency to the runner up, and the VP job to the winner...lol

Obama is ahead in nearly every category, and will likely remain so in June, yet Hillary supporters are calling for Hillary to be given the job anyway, and to give the winner the consolation prize.

Democracy at its finest.

TAM

Doc -

Excuse me - "we"? What do you mean by that?

You're a Canadian and so what you say about our elections down here doesn't carry a whole helluva lotta weight. You're a spectator - nothing more. It's exactly as if I was commenting boldly on Canadian elections and taking sides and slamming one of your candidates as if I knew what I was talking about. Doesn't really carry any weight up there, does it. Can even be seen as colossally and blunderingly silly.

Obama is NOT ahead in every category, and in fact the race can be considered dead even. This - despite an insane Hate campaign hurled against her by the Obama camp and the lion's share of the American media. And cheerleaded, incidentally, by the likes of uninvolved foreign spectators such as yourself who are probably just looking for cheap entertainment. Who really don't know what the hell is going on concerning this election.

Here's how idiotic your statement is: Giving the "winner" the consolation prize. Winner? And just who is that?

You also show your flagrant ignorance as to how, via caucuses, Obama's support seems bigger than it actually is. Caucuses - the stupidest idea we Yanks have ever come up with - are group-pressure voting cells. They really don't reflect how a person would have voted had they been allowed to enter a booth and vote in privacy and secrecy. Leave it to us Yanks to confuse and complicate. The fact is, when Democrats are allowed, in U.S. states, to vote in private? More do so for Hillary. Which is exactly how ALL states vote in the general election.

The Democrats, let's say 5 months ago, were going to take the Presidency with easily their best candidate: Hillary Clinton. Then Obama charges in and upsets the entire equation. If he'd have done it fairly? That'd be fine. But he's done it by whipping up a whirlwind of insane hatred against Hillary Clinton. He deserves to lose for that. His candidacy is fragmenting the Democratic Party and possibly moving the Presidency into the Republican camp. This is Obama's "new kind of politics". Divisiveness and Hate. Oh yeah, what a great President he'd make.

But it's easy for you to sit up there in you cozy little Canadian enclave and add to the Hate Hysteria, isn't it.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Doc -

Excuse me - "we"? What do you mean by that?

You're a Canadian and so what you say about our elections down here doesn't carry a whole helluva lotta weight. You're a spectator - nothing more. It's exactly as if I was commenting boldly on Canadian elections and taking sides and slamming one of your candidates as if I knew what I was talking about. Doesn't really carry any weight up there, does it. Can even be seen as colossally and blunderingly silly.

Obama is NOT ahead in every category, and in fact the race can be considered dead even. This - despite an insane Hate campaign hurled against her by the Obama camp and the lion's share of the American media. And cheerleaded, incidentally, by the likes of uninvolved foreign spectators such as yourself who are probably just looking for cheap entertainment. Who really don't know what the hell is going on concerning this election.

Here's how idiotic your statement is: Giving the "winner" the consolation prize. Winner? And just who is that?

You also show your flagrant ignorance as to how, via caucuses, Obama's support seems bigger than it actually is. Caucuses - the stupidest idea we Yanks have ever come up with - are group-pressure voting cells. They really don't reflect how a person would have voted had they been allowed to enter a booth and vote in privacy and secrecy. Leave it to us Yanks to confuse and complicate. The fact is, when Democrats are allowed, in U.S. states, to vote in private? More do so for Hillary. Which is exactly how ALL states vote in the general election.

The Democrats, let's say 5 months ago, were going to take the Presidency with easily their best candidate: Hillary Clinton. Then Obama charges in and upsets the entire equation. If he'd have done it fairly? That'd be fine. But he's done it by whipping up a whirlwind of insane hatred against Hillary Clinton. He deserves to lose for that. His candidacy is fragmenting the Democratic Party and possibly moving the Presidency into the Republican camp. This is Obama's "new kind of politics". Divisiveness and Hate. Oh yeah, what a great President he'd make.

But it's easy for you to sit up there in you cozy little Canadian enclave and add to the Hate Hysteria, isn't it.

You need some colored fonts in there, but it's not bad for a beginner.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

You need some colored fonts in there, but it's not bad for a beginner.

I think it probably needs a few more !!!!!!!!! as well.

 

[ZouPrime]

Since when being a spectator means being ignorant of a topic? The opposite argument could be said; we Canadian don't have any vested interest in seeing either Clinton or Obama win, so we may actually see the race more objectively than americans. The Canadian coverage of US politics is excellent, and we have access to the exact same sources of information than americans.

 

[ZouPrime]

Obama is NOT ahead in every category, and in fact the race can be considered dead even.

It is one thing to root for a losing candidate - but deluding yourself about the chances of Clinton isn't healthy at all. Almost every single indicators imaginable put Obama ahead of Clinton. Most delegates, most votes, most states, but also winning support in key Clinton states (look how the race is getting closer and closer in Pensylvania), most money raised, unpledged candidates rallying to Obama every day vs half a dozen for Clinton since Feburary, polls consistently showing Obama is a better candidate than Clinton for democrats AND republicans... the list can go on and on. You can rant all you want over caucus etc, and in some instances you may be actually right, but in the end the sum of all these indicators point overwhelmly towards an Obama candidacy. If can't see this, you are simply in denial.

 

[BPSCG]

I love when CR gets into full-throated foaming-at-the-mouth-in-fury rant mode...

Doc -

Excuse me - "we"? What do you mean by that?

Doc? You mean Dr Adequate? Or did you mean T.A.M., who you quoted? Or just any furriner who happened to get in the way?

Caucuses - the stupidest idea we Yanks have ever come up with -

Now that's just not true. There's Dancing With the Stars. Then there was American Motors Corporation's Pacer:



And don't forget striped bell-bottom trousers.

And disco.

 

[Lurker]

I like Hillary quite a bit. She's tough, political, damned intelligent, and she seems to have picked up Bill's quality of fence-mending. She was all set to go for the move-in to the Oval, and we needed that certainty. Us Dems and the country. Then everything turned on a dime and the relentless pounding of her began.

I voted for Hillary in the primary but I think it is time for her to drop out. She can't outright win the nom. At a convention, unless htere is a strong reason, I don't think the Dems should move away from the current leader in delgates and that will be Obama.

Conspi, I hope you will have no problem voting for Obama. You decry the mess and rift in the Democratic party, but if Obama is the nominee and you refuse to vote for him, you will be exemplifying that rift perfectly.

I prefer Hillary cause I like some of her positions a bit better but there really is not much difference between the two so would have no problem voting Obama in November.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Doc? You mean Dr Adequate? Or did you mean T.A.M., who you quoted?

All Obama fans have mind-melded into one vast malignant super-entity.

YES WE CAN.

 

[T.A.M.]

Doc -

Excuse me - "we"? What do you mean by that?

You're a Canadian and so what you say about our elections down here doesn't carry a whole helluva lotta weight. You're a spectator - nothing more. It's exactly as if I was commenting boldly on Canadian elections and taking sides and slamming one of your candidates as if I knew what I was talking about. Doesn't really carry any weight up there, does it. Can even be seen as colossally and blunderingly silly.

Obama is NOT ahead in every category, and in fact the race can be considered dead even. This - despite an insane Hate campaign hurled against her by the Obama camp and the lion's share of the American media. And cheerleaded, incidentally, by the likes of uninvolved foreign spectators such as yourself who are probably just looking for cheap entertainment. Who really don't know what the hell is going on concerning this election.

Here's how idiotic your statement is: Giving the "winner" the consolation prize. Winner? And just who is that?

You also show your flagrant ignorance as to how, via caucuses, Obama's support seems bigger than it actually is. Caucuses - the stupidest idea we Yanks have ever come up with - are group-pressure voting cells. They really don't reflect how a person would have voted had they been allowed to enter a booth and vote in privacy and secrecy. Leave it to us Yanks to confuse and complicate. The fact is, when Democrats are allowed, in U.S. states, to vote in private? More do so for Hillary. Which is exactly how ALL states vote in the general election.

The Democrats, let's say 5 months ago, were going to take the Presidency with easily their best candidate: Hillary Clinton. Then Obama charges in and upsets the entire equation. If he'd have done it fairly? That'd be fine. But he's done it by whipping up a whirlwind of insane hatred against Hillary Clinton. He deserves to lose for that. His candidacy is fragmenting the Democratic Party and possibly moving the Presidency into the Republican camp. This is Obama's "new kind of politics". Divisiveness and Hate. Oh yeah, what a great President he'd make.

But it's easy for you to sit up there in you cozy little Canadian enclave and add to the Hate Hysteria, isn't it.

ok, take it easy. My god man.

I meant we in the philosophical approach to Democracy sense. Of course I am Canadian, and JUST an observer on your elections. My point was about the notion, IN GENERAL, of giving the top job to the (at this point in the USA race) 2nd place person.

1. In all my encounters with you, I do not recall you being so angry or spiteful, I would say perhaps I brought it on myself, but I think your reaction is out of proportion to what I said.

2. My interest is more than "entertainment". I want the leader of your country to be someone who is charismatic, who can communicate well, who can bring a broad group of people to the table. Now you may not think Obama is this person, and may think Hillary is, but I think differently.

3. I have NO FLAGRANT IGNORANCE on how your election system works. I have been following it closely, and I know precisely how caucuses work. I also know that Nevada wasn't criticized by the Hillary campaign for their caucus, nor were any of Bills victories in such in 1992 etc...

4. To be honest with you, I personally would treat your comments on our leaders and our policies with respect, if I felt your points were valid, and you were making an honest attempt to discuss things, with honest motives. I would hope you would see it the same way. Where you live has not bearing on it, IMO, when it comes to discussing things. As well, Canada is but a small little blip on the world stage compared to the Mighty USA, so the effect of your elections is much much more important on the world stage then that of ours.

5. Please show me where OBAMA has promoted and pressed this "whirlwind of insane hatred against Hillary Clinton."?

6. From your posting, I can see that a fair bit of your discord seems to be with Obama daring to come in and challenge the heir apparent. This is common for Hillary supporters, and perhaps there is some validity to the anger and emotion that come with it.

My god, my god is it really that bad...do you hate the idea of Obama winning (or Hillary losing) that much?

I have always stated that my original dislike for Hillary was a "gut response". Watching these elections and how her campaign has conducted itself has only strengthened my dislike for her, but it is still just my opinion, and obviously YOU do not give my opinion much weight, so relax.

TAM

 

[ConspiRaider]

You need some colored fonts in there, but it's not bad for a beginner.

Ooohh.

I guess I'm supposed to be impressed because you got yet ANOTHER Language Award! Well well well! Didn't you win THREE of those cash awards last year? And now look! Yet ANOTHER cash award this year and we're not even a third of the way through 2008 yet! My my my!!! Gosh! Out of 16,000 JREForum members, and yet YOU win 3 last year and already 1 this year! Oohh, that must be your brilliance on display, yes?

Ooooh, by comparison why you're so correct, I'm just a beginner!

Your homework: To brush up on how Obama manages to use his base for hate-spewing while seemingly remaining squeaky clean himself: See the "effing whore" video by radio talk show host Randi Rhodes. Count the number of times she calls Hillary Clinton a "effing whore" and report back here with your answer. Off with you now!

 

[BPSCG]

Ooohh. I guess I'm supposed to be impressed because you got yet ANOTHER Language Award! Well well well! Didn't you win THREE of those cash awards last year? And now look! Yet ANOTHER cash award this year and we're not even a third of the way through 2008 yet! My my my!!! Gosh! Out of 16,000 JREForum members, and yet YOU win 3 last year and already 1 this year! Oohh, that must be your brilliance on display, yes? Ooooh, by comparison why you're so correct, I'm just a beginner! Your homework: To brush up on how Obama manages to use his base for hate-spewing while seemingly remaining squeaky clean himself: See the "effing whore" video by radio talk show host Randi Rhodes. Count the number of times she calls Hillary Clinton a "effing whore" and report back here with your answer. Off with you now!

Fixed it for you.

BTW, I agree that Randi Rhodes is a despicable harridan.