I like Randi Rhodes. She makes Ann Coulter sound nuanced and reasonable.CS:
What Randi Rhodes said was so uncalled for it almost defies the need to "denounce" her, as it is a given...that said, yes I think it would be a good thing for Obama to make comment on it.
Randi Rhodes has been suspended for this, so if she gets "let go" all will be well...perhaps.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/04/air-america-suspends-radio-host-for-clinton-comment/
TAM
Democratic Campaign Deathwatch Thread
- Thread starter Foolmewunz
- Start date
Do what now?
Matthews on Obama's speech after his preacher's vile remarks.
"Worthy of Abraham Lincoln."
Better than Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have A Dream" address - the "best speech ever given on race in this country."
"I think this is the kind of speech I think first graders should see, people in the last year of college should see before they go out in the world. This should be, to me, an American tract."
Obama gives Matthews physical delight:
"It's part of reporting this case, this election, the feeling most people get when they hear Barack Obama's speech. My, I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don't have that too often. No, seriously, it's a dramatic event. He speaks about America in a way that has nothing to do with politics. It has to do with the feeling we have about our country. And that is an objective assessment."
All that's left for Matthews at this point is to proclaim Obama is the second coming of Jesus Christ. Yeah, he knows where to draw the line.
Dr Adequate
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2004
- Messages
- 17,766
I'm not so sure, I think both Clinton and Obama can see reasons to let this one lie. Inflating the story and giving Rhodes more publicity can only benefit one group of people, none of whom are Democrats.
As it is, a quick google suggests that the MSM aren't making much of the story. That would all change if Obama called a press conference about it.
Dr Adequate
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2004
- Messages
- 17,766
You must be relieved to know that no-one will ever feel even a fraction of that amount of enthusiasm for John McCain.
Some of his more devoted supporters might knit him a new pair of slippers, but that's as far as it'll go.
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader, TLA Dictator
DERAIL - Sorry to be posting this so late in the game, but you guys were arguing at 3 AM my time.
There are better bios of Burr than the Vidal version. Several have posited that, certain congressional candidates' penchant for playing Mr. Dressup notwithstanding, Hamilton was every bit a posterior portal as Burr, and was perhaps even more directly the author of the election debacle of 1800.
The system was the fault in 1800. Specifically, the states' delegates each cast two votes. If your party controlled the most states you were supposed to have them vote 60/40 in favor of your own presidential candidate. But within the parties you had factions within factions. The Dem-Rep plan was for one state's delegate to cast a vote against Burr, thereby giving Jefferson a majority. This failed, for reasons not yet fully documented in any history I've read of the time. (Possibly some Burr shenanigans, but most accounts of the time put it down to just plain error.)
(Hamilton, in fact, was a Federalist and it was a convenient leak of one of his letters criticizing his own party's prime candidate and sitting President - Adams - which pretty much doomed them. Hamilton was actually scheming to have the Federalist V-P candidate made president! So in the scope of "OMG, the VP candidate might win!", Hamilton's equally the cad in that scenario.)
Elizabeth I
Philosopher
Well, at least he didn't say, "You know, my spouse was instrumental in getting NAFTA passed, but I WAS SECRETLY AGAINST IT ALL THE TIME."
Nor has Obama come out with some bs story about being under fire at the time a schoolgirl was curtsying and presenting flowers to him.
Conspi, you seem like a reasonable and intelligent person. How can you seriously look at that woman and conclude she is anything but an attention whore of the most debased sort? And narcissistically convinced that she is "owed" the Presidency besides. She will say or do anything to get there.
I cringe when I hear the word whore, even when used in a relatively benign way like that...it just sounds so mean, horrible.
That said, I agree that she, and many of her supporters, feel very deeply that she is "owed" the presidency, and are now very upset that it likely will not go to her...
TAM
That said, I agree that she, and many of her supporters, feel very deeply that she is "owed" the presidency, and are now very upset that it likely will not go to her...
TAM
Elizabeth I
Philosopher
I cringe when I hear the word whore, even when used in a relatively benign way like that...it just sounds so mean, horrible.
That said, I agree that she, and many of her supporters, feel very deeply that she is "owed" the presidency, and are now very upset that it likely will not go to her...
TAM
I don't know of another word that so economically and accurately conveys the sense of being so desperate to get, or do, something, as that one. I use it sparingly.
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
I've never heard of Randi Rhodes and she doesn't speak for Obama, but Hillary certainly speaks for Hillary and she's been off the reservation in her attacks on Obama, such as by saying that John McCain would make a better commander in chief, to the point that even Nancy Pelosi had to say something about it.
ETA: And Obama Girl didn't like that either:
Last edited:
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 36,374
Thanks. I expected as much.
I think it’s very unrealistic for either candidate to accept the vice presidency.
The position has no inherent responsibilities outside of what the current president decides to give it*. That also means that they get no meaningful experience unless the president wants them to. If a VP ever decides to run for office later, they will then be in the difficult position of either having to endorse their president’s style and position 100% (after all they were a “team” right?) or be considered disloyal. The American voting public is not open to any other position, nuanced or otherwise.
While it’s true that Obama and Clinton are close on many positions, they are not identical. And their campaigning style is very different and strongly indicates important differences in morals.
ETA: In the past 50 years IIRC only 4 VPs became president:
Johnson (LBJ)
Nixon
Ford
Bush Sr
Two of those were due to assassination and impeachment. The remaining two were Republican. I can’t recall if a Democratic VP has ever won the presidency. Regardless if they have in the past, I would think it would be an extremely difficult position to run from for any other office (the presidency, governorship, senate, etc.).
ETA2: In Nixon’s first bid for presidency, he was put in the difficult position of having to defend “his” (that is the “Eisenhower/Nixon”) record against Kennedy – despite the fact that Eisenhower despised him and only had him as his VP for political reasons. Famous quote – when asked what policies Nixon had helped shape, Eisenhower said “Give me a week, and I might think of one.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Nixon
* Two exceptions -- these are the only responsibilities that the president can't take away from his or her vice president:
• If the Senate is tied, then the VP can cast the a tie-breaking vote.
• If the President dies in office, then the VP replaces him.
The position has no inherent responsibilities outside of what the current president decides to give it*. That also means that they get no meaningful experience unless the president wants them to. If a VP ever decides to run for office later, they will then be in the difficult position of either having to endorse their president’s style and position 100% (after all they were a “team” right?) or be considered disloyal. The American voting public is not open to any other position, nuanced or otherwise.
While it’s true that Obama and Clinton are close on many positions, they are not identical. And their campaigning style is very different and strongly indicates important differences in morals.
ETA: In the past 50 years IIRC only 4 VPs became president:
Johnson (LBJ)
Nixon
Ford
Bush Sr
Two of those were due to assassination and impeachment. The remaining two were Republican. I can’t recall if a Democratic VP has ever won the presidency. Regardless if they have in the past, I would think it would be an extremely difficult position to run from for any other office (the presidency, governorship, senate, etc.).
ETA2: In Nixon’s first bid for presidency, he was put in the difficult position of having to defend “his” (that is the “Eisenhower/Nixon”) record against Kennedy – despite the fact that Eisenhower despised him and only had him as his VP for political reasons. Famous quote – when asked what policies Nixon had helped shape, Eisenhower said “Give me a week, and I might think of one.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Nixon
* Two exceptions -- these are the only responsibilities that the president can't take away from his or her vice president:
• If the Senate is tied, then the VP can cast the a tie-breaking vote.
• If the President dies in office, then the VP replaces him.
IchabodPlain
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2007
- Messages
- 1,252
Twice. Recently, Harry Truman in 1948 over Thomas Dewey, and Martin Van Buren also did it in 1836.
Over the last fifty years, the US has had ten Presidents, with four being former VP's, and over the last 100 years it has been roughly the same with seven out of seventeen Presidents being former VP's. At 40%, them's not bad odds...
Last edited:
technoextreme
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2007
- Messages
- 3,785
And now I know who I want to become president of the United States... Oboobie errr Obama.
Last edited:
Cool Ichabod, thanks.
I looked up these two men’s history, and I think that they help support my point that normally, being VP doesn’t help you win the presidency unless you of course inherit it through your predecessor’s death or resignation.
Truman inherited the presidency the term before when Roosevelt passed away. Although he is now regarded as one of the USA’s best 10 presidents, most people had a low opinion of him during most of his political career. He was the compromise candidate for Roosevelt’s 4th term’s VP. Roosevelt never bothered to consult him or even involve him in major decisions while he was VP.
I doubt Truman would have won in 1948 if he hadn’t inherited the presidency in 1945.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_S._Truman
Martin Van Buren got along very well with the president he served with and served two terms with him. President Andrew Jackson was determined to help him become president and Van Buren publicly said his goal was to "to follow in the footsteps of his illustrious predecessor"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Van_Buren
I can’t think of another similar relationship in the last 50 years between these two men. Campaigning must have been much easier for Van Buren than for other former vice presidents (in the future) when there was not one thing he wished to disassociate himself from in Jackson’s presidency.
Also per this link there were 14 VPs in our country’s history that became president later. However most of them became president as a result of assassination, natural death or resignation. Only 5 were elected to the presidency in their own right.
http://www.usatrivia.com/Vpstats.html
Of the five elected in their own right, two of them were John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. These were respectively the first and second VPs of the nation and became the 2nd and 3rd presidents of the country. I think we can say those were special circumstances.
I'm not a statistics maven, but I'm looking at the odds differently.
The first three presidents served 5 terms and the last term ended 1809, about 200 years ago or 50 4-year terms. So … that leaves 3 vice presidents who won the election on their own out of 50 terms or 6%.
If you don’t’ want to consider John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, founding fathers of the country, as special circumstances that changes the stats to 5 vice presidents out of 53 terms or 9%.
I am excluding the VPs that gained the presidency through death or resignation, because I don’t think most presidential candidates want to think that is the way they will gain the presidency.
An interesting point of trivia is that the only former vice presidents to win two elections as president are Jefferson and Nixon. However, as Nixon had to resign the only former vice president to serve a full two terms as president is Jefferson.
So, given USA history and given the dynamics between Obama and Clinton, I don’t think that either one of them will think it’s a good idea to accept the vice presidency slot.
IchabodPlain
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2007
- Messages
- 1,252
No problem.
Truman was a terrific president, at least when you consider the circumstances under which he came into office. He only held the VP position for 82 days when FDR died, and as you stated, was not in the inner circle of the the White House when FDR was President. Most Americans at the time were unsure of his abilities when he took office, and took over as the US was still in the Pacific theatre of WW2.
That is probably true, but he probably also wouldn't have won the Presidency in '48 if he he did an abysmally poor job as President when he took over in '45.
Yep. Jackson was a very popular, albeit controversial figure in his day, so Van Buren did have a leg up. Also the Whig party couldn't find a prominent nominee to run against Van Buren, and they ended up with two candidates who split the opposing vote, giving Van Buren the Presidency. But yeah, rarely do you see such political comradery so high up the eschelon; must have been nice while it lasted.
Mine was simply the number of former VP's who became President in the last 100 years (1908-2008), regardless of how they got there.
Bush Sr.
Ford
Nixon
LBJ
Truman
Coolidge
T. Roosevelt (probably my favorite President, at least in this century).
That is a sizable number.
If the loser is asked to be the winner's running mate, they should take it. The VP is a heartbeat away from being President, and in the event of a successful Presidency, the VP usually is the de facto Nominee of the Party in the November after the President leaves office (Bush Sr in 92 and Gore in 00).
Last edited:
Of the seven you mention, only 2 were admitted into their first term by election. The others gained office via the natural death, assassination or resignation of the president.
I don't think its that difficult for a VP to run for the presidency and even to win his party's nomination. However, looking at USA's history, it appears that often serving as VP creates stumbling blocks that makes it more difficult for the VP to win a first term in the presidency by election.
You mentioned Gore and Bush.
Some might argue that one of the reasons that Gore didn’t win the election was because he didn’t know how to handle Bill Clinton’s support or how to discuss his vice presidency in the Clinton administration given the fact that Clinton had almost been impeached and a sizable segment of the voters were unhappy with the Monica affair.
IIRC, Bush won despite having to deal with a great deal of flack about how he called Reagan economics "voodoo economics” before he decided to accept the vice presidency in the Reagan administration. His Democratic opponent, Dukakis, was unusually inept in handling the PR aspect of his campaign and that probably had a great deal to do with Bush becoming the rare exception of a former VP getting voted into the Presidency.
Despite the fact that Obama and Clinton have similar positions on many of the issues, because of the differences in their character I can't see how, hypothetically, Obama would have an easy time of it defending his role in a Clinton/Obama administration should he decide to accept the VP slot and run for the presidency, say in 2016.
(This is assuming that enough of the super delegates decide to ignore the popular vote and cast theirs for Clinton -- so far Obama is in the lead (and in the lead in donations as well) and has no reason to give up his campaign.)
My imagination doesn't extend that far to guess what Clinton would do in a similar position. I'm still stymied trying to imagine sniper fire while accepting a card from a little girl at a relaxed welcoming ceremony at an airport in Bosnia.
Another issue is that at this point its difficult to see how either candidate would be willing to give the other one any meaningful responsibilities as VP, and IMHO the loser would be better staying in the Senate where they would have much more control over their political career.
Deciding to accept the VP on the off chance that the president might pass away, be murdered or forced to resign while perhaps statistically viable (about 1 out of 5 chances (5 out of roughly 25 terms in the past 100 years)), just seem too morbid to contemplate.
I had forgotten about that! Another major reason why Van Buren beat the odds and won the presidency in an election.
Heh. I think the main reason that occurred was because both Jackson and Van Buren put a lot of time and effort into founding the Democratic party.But yeah, rarely do you see such political comradery so high up the eschelon; must have been nice while it lasted.
Last edited:
IchabodPlain
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2007
- Messages
- 1,252
I don't necessarily see what difference that makes. I was originally just pointing out that, recently, former Vice President's have accounted for a number of our former Presidents, and that it is a good place to position yourself to become president in the future, whether it be by assassination, resignation, impeachment, or running afterwards.
Yes, I agree with you to a point. A VP can have a certain stigma attached to it when running for the General Election. Namely that one can be seen as "riding the coattails" of the President with which they served (Hilary has experienced this, and she was only the First Lady of a President!), and to a lesser extent the impression of 'more of the same' in a finicky nation.
Gore lost for several reasons (and some still don't think he actually lost). Had he won his home state (TN), or if Nader wasn't on the ballot in FL (or if a few hundred of his supporters voted Gore in key counties), heck if Pat Buchanon wasn't on the ballot in FL, he'd have won. Not to mention lackluster debate performances, a lack of clarity and charisma, and a few others as well.
Clinton still had a wide majority of support (IIRC around 60%) when he left office, I just think Gore failed to capitalize on it. But given all of this he still won the popular vote, and nearly won the Presidency in one of the closest elections of all time (or is it? I forget).
Dukakis nailed up his own coffin, but Bush was another example (much like Gore, only Bush won), of a VP following his former popular running mate to the White House.
I think it would be a wise political move to unite the Democratic ticket, mostly because I think it would knock McCain out of the race (and I'm a McCain supporter, OMG!
), and ensure a Democratic White House, and probably a Democratic Congress as well. Either way the ticket would be formed, the support would be much stronger than if either goes it alone, and would give the Dem Party free-reign to enumerate their agenda, as mandated by a landslide vote in Nov by the general public. Hilary/Obama would be the conventional choice by some, for many of the reasons you posted. But I actually think an Obama/Clinton ticket would be equally good, because Hilary seems more to be a backroom-headbusting-dealmaker, while Obama is better in speeches and public appearances (and really one of the most charismatic political figures on the scene in a while).
Both Senators come from Democratic states (NY & IL), so I don't think the Party has to worry too much about losing seats.
Not just that, but the credentials being a VP in a successful administration can give one the opportunity to run for President him/herself.
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 36,374
Now can we please come back to reality and stop discussing the silly notion that a Democrat will be in the position of Vice President after the election....
While I agree that those can be factors, I think the must difficult stumbling block is when a VP is asked to justify decisions made by his “team” even if in fact he had no input into them.
A good example would be Nixon when he ran against Kennedy in 1960. Kennedy accused the Eisenhower/Nixon team of allowing the Soviet Union to overtake the USA in offensive missiles. Eisenhower hated Nixon, and Nixon played no role in his administration (except when he had to temporarily assumed the position of president when Eisenhower was ill). Now I haven't read the 1960 articles so I don't know what Nixon's response was, but he must have been between a rock and a hard place. If he said he had no input in the Eisenhower administration, he was screwed. If he said he agreed and that he would rectify it in his administration, than he was also screwed because he was either being disloyal to his "team" or admitting in another way that he had lacked influence.
Sources: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Nixon#Vice_Presidency
We agree that there were other factors as to why Bush Sr won and Gore "lost". (I agree that he didn't actually lose.) However, my point was to try to demonstrate why running on a record of VP isn't the easiest thing to do and may go a long way towards explaining why, of the 14 VPs that became President, only 5 of them did so by winning their first term in an election.
Well, I have mixed feelings about that. I would wonder how many voters would realize that that the "united ticket" would be a political manuver that would have no meaning in reality, that its likely whoever took the role of VP would in reality just have a title and not any true input into the next administration.I think it would be a wise political move to unite the Democratic ticket, mostly because I think it would knock McCain out of the race (and I'm a McCain supporter, OMG!
I think the best thing that could happen is that after the loser concedes is for both Obama and Clinton to do their best to "make up" and for the loser to sincerely campaign for the Democratic nominee. I think that would appear to be more geniune and reasonate better with more voters than a "united ticket".
I think the only reason I posted as to why Clinton could head the ticket would be if the super delegates supported her rather than went with the popular vote. And FWIW, I think would be very foolish because Obama is not only doing better in popular votes, but he is also doing extraordinarily better in donations from the public as well. I don't see them the same way. Part of the reason I'm in favor of Obama over H. Clinton is because I think he does better in backroom politics. I'm basing this on the type of support he got while he was in the Illinois Senate and I'm also basing this on the type of bills he was able to sponsor and co-sponsor in the US Senate. Clinton only co-sponsored 20 bills during her 6 years in the Senate, and most of them (15) were pure fluff. (Analyzed in one of my posts in the "accomplishments" thread posted recently in this forum.)
While she was the first lady working on the health insurance project, she seemed to have arrived at the one method guaranteed to irritate the most people and get the least support possible. All in all, I don't view her as someone who has a talent for negotiating well. Since frequently a Democratic president has to deal with a Republican Congress during most of their term, I think its an important skill to have.
I was referring to the loser’s control over their individual career, not the impact their decision would have on the Democratic party.
I'm an incurable optimist.