If you were Barack Obama would you choose Hillary Clinton as your running mate? I have been thinking a lot about this and discussing it with my soul-mate. We both like Jim Webb, junior senator from Virginia, and think he would be a good choice for VP. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Webb But I haven't really decided.I am worried that if Obama doesn't choose Hillary, the women who supported Hillary would vote for McCain, because they are just so pissed off. Or, maybe they won't. But I think Hillary really has no choice and has to campaign for Obama, whether he picks her or not, if she wants a future in Democrat party politics. She has to look like a team player and not an opportunist. Or a sore loser. As a result, Obama does not have to pick Hillary. Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free (sorry feminists). Would YOU choose Hillary?
![Irv Muchnick, Concussion Inc. [The Only Honest Reporting on Martin vs Villa/SLAPP]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjPD2coV7RQATuCUf-3rw1R677yxUImhkVfkwctN91m7yfi3nNdoiPeWor3ZFheb8-GpJgZmYhLB110qFaj3cJ-Chizn5_-t0OCc58nBiQZ8ExJNvSonqN7DCj2ETWDi4Wy0_OObaC3JgJ5_i8VJtUJ3RFDUDQf0VyiSghcV4xshIX6yCIdMs4SUh6t=s220)
![[Reneged] City Solicitor Kloiber Bans Cousin Jeffrey Anthony Defamation & Harassment of Villas](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjrGZtm_TCRriA3DHGTVASeEr_XIZD_pQqaf-fCuaf2k-ApQAze7ZAeVU-I6gHcE8Tt6WXadtqw_hAOHjaJe11PiUx2MPPSCMN-MC5RBeCcjKX_DjAhw7IS0eWcKGimIJ9oImiqAkx3jw5l6mT-LnUEQ3U2JmCZyik1BNyiLbXmHr-MSBjt3fMiO6k4=s310)
![[Reneged] Villa Defense Witness: "Judge" Anthony](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEilEA5zRbHJ2QZAT9qDc0rbK8z4aAEOKvk_sodBrrul56cu0MeXGjYPqfiUm1BuTWqDQakCDdKpcM6ozIrgcLLpHcBTlXWl5yC2ODubS5_xHNDtieJnNg-ucIejp3eZORHRROmETUoFGKiW/s220/10653495_508198589366170_7055316366826361693_n.jpg)
18 comments:
Actually, I did choose Hillary, something I never expected I would do.
I do think an Obama-Clinton combination is a Democratic dream team that would be very hard to beat.
Webb is very impressive as a senator, but I don't think two years is enough for him.
Clinton will reach voters that Obama or Webb could not get. I'm not talking about the "bigot" vote. I was astonished by the number of older women who registered and voted for Hillary here in Pa.
But it appears unlikely, according to all the pundits. Too bad.
Sorry Bernie! Like I told you about six months ago, it's going to be Obama-Richardson ticket. I could be wrong, but I bet you a nice greasy chili dog at the Ironpigs game, it will go that way.
I think I said it before, but I'd like to see an Obama/Edwards ticket, although, Obama/Richardson sounds decent, too!
Those women who will now choose McCain because they're pissed that Clinton lost are part of the reason that this country is in such trouble that it is -- because of the stupidity of the voters.
BC, You're on!
I would not be unhappy to lose that bet.
AJ,
I like Edwards too, but unfortunately I don't think his populist message would help get enough votes.
I'd be happy with Richardson.
Bernie may be right about the dream team of Obama/Clinton and that might help Obama in PA.
I think it would be a mistake for Obama to run with Hillary. They fought a long and divided campaign within their OWN party, but I think they would have a difficult time sweeping the country in an open presidential election. Unfortunately, I think they would be too controversial a team - the first black man for president and the first woman for VP? Obama may be better off choosing a "safer" partner, like John Edwards, to counteract the "white maleness" of McCain.
As for the Hillary supporters, I think she'll reach out to them and convince them to vote Obama. She and Obama have many ideals in common. I doubt Hillary's supporters would run to McCain. His views are so opposite.
If you want bigger government and higher taxes any VP choice will do.
Scott Armstrong
Scott,
I think govt. got pretty big under GWB. And tax cuts for the wealthy during a war??
Dottie,
George Bush is not admired by small government conservatives for his fiscal policies. That being said the idea that Democrats would reduce government or be more fiscally responsible is fallacy. Just recently the Democrats passed(with too much Republican help) that shameful farm bill. One could provide countless other examples of the left’s largesse. The Left/Liberals really believe in government therefore it follows that they also believe in the need to fund the vehicle that will in their view bring change.
“Tax cuts for the rich”? Isn’t this cliché getting a bit worn? Many middle class people benefited from the Bush tax cuts myself included. There is wide consensus that these same cuts spurred the economy to recovery after 9-11. Dottie, do you believe that taxing the rich at even higher rates will help the economy or provide better government services? Intelligent people can disagree on this.
Scott Armstrong
Scott,
Yes, taxing the richest Americans at a higher rate will help the economy by putting more of the tax burden of the backs of the fortunate wealthy souls who can afford it. Gratitude is an action thing. If rich people love America so much, as well they should, they should have no problem expressing their gratitude by paying more tax. DId you know that in the US the average CEO gets paid 450x what his average employee makes? We are the only country in the world where the ratio is this far out of whack. THe main problem with our economy is that the rich keep getting richer.
We'll have to agree to disagree on this issue, but I agree with you that there is too much bureaucracy in A-town city govt. I am a liberal dem but I do vote Republican if I like the candidate. I voted for several local Republicans.
I just see too many people working so hard just to get by in this country, my family included, and it just does not seem right.
Dottie,
The “fortunate wealthy souls” are already paying almost of the federal income tax. Increasing the taxes on them will only discourage investment; they will in short be giving their money to the government instead of re-investing in other job creating enterprises or they will forestall purchases that also have the effect of spurring the economy.
Do you have confidence that the government is the best steward of the nation’s surplus wealth? If you do then you are a leftist and that is where we disagree.
Please take the time to read Thomas Paine’s essay “Common Sense”. In this inspired writing one can clearly see that those who took up arms to free themselves of royal tyranny were also fighting for freedom from big government. This essay was read to the troop at a low point in the war and served to rally the colonists against the king.
Question, what is worse that a high paid CEO? Answer, a government with the power to control the pay of people in the private sector.
Gotta run, band parent meeting… more later.
Scott Armstrong
This post was delayed by an internet outage
Dottie,
Finally to address your comment on people working hard just to get by in this country; do you really think the government is the answer to this problem? What can the government do to improve the situation of the average working person/family? As a fiscal conservative I believe the government needs to create an environment where workers can prosper. This is achieved chiefly through minimal regulation and low taxation. Investment drives job growth, low unemployment drives up low end wage scales. The government needs only to be there for those who for what ever reason can’t take care of themselves. The rest of us need government out of our lives not intruding into it.
If you believe the government can be the engine for the economy can you provide a successful example of this? Europe as we speak is moving towards less government and lower taxes. They have been where the American Left wants to go and have had enough. Just last month many Labor Party MP’s lost their seats in local elections because the English are tired of high fuel prices and the sluggish economy. This sounds familiar. Many of the former eastern European nations have instituted flat taxes on income. They see it as very fair and extremely progressive, the more you make the more you pay, very simple. Fewer rules, less regulations make starting a small business easier. This is good for the economy, this creates jobs. They understand this.
But perhaps it is time for the nation to try the Left’s solutions, many will only believe liberal solutions won’t work when they see it with their own eyes and feel it in their own pocket book. I was twenty one in 78, I saw my hometown Pittsburgh just about close up. Thousands of people lost jobs in relatively small municipalities; one can visit these areas to this day and still see the blocks of board ups. I was crazy enough to quit my job and move out west in 81, the nation was in a recession and I was unable to find any work, even fast food or dish washing jobs. This was Carter’s legacy to the nation, a good man but a real believer in government regulations, higher taxes, and federal solutions. He was the last president to institute a “windfall profits tax” it was a disaster then, it will be no better now. Too many people are too young to remember any of this, history does repeat itself, perhaps there is a purpose to it.
Scott Armstrong
Dottie,
I do see this as a very productive conversation. Big government is anything that uses the Federal government as a solution. Question, are performance audits run on government programs? Answer, NO!
Can anyone defend the vast bureaucracy that is our federal government? That being asked does logic allow us to preclude that adding to it will improve any situation for anyone in this county.
Big Government is not exclusively Left, too many Republicans have now bought into the notion of the caretaker government. The caretaker government is the domain of the left, the Right (fiscal conservatives) does not believe in government solutions or the bureaucracies that are created to carry out all of the well intended programs.
Dottie, perhaps the connection between the pharmaceutical and oil industry and the federal government is the result of the many layers of regulations that have been imposed by the federal government for the past eighty years on these very industries. Do you doubt that these industries and all of the others are less closely tied to the Democrat Party? Are you aware that major US corporations and Wall Street are now contributing far more to the Democrats than to the Republicans? Is this now a problem or simply an expedient benefit? How do you justify O’bamas expenditure of a quarter of a billion dollars to gain the presidential nomination for the Democrat Party? How many hungry children could have been fed with this money? How many teachers could have been hired for troubled public schools? How many poor people could have been covered with adequate health insurance with this same money? Very many is the answer.
Dottie, once again, Republicans are always ready to help those who can’t help themselves or really need assistance. It is the Democrats who insist on universal solutions, one size fits all health care, child care, schooling…
If you review the history of the Patriot Act you will see that the Democrats supported it with their votes every time. In fact they helped to sponsor the original bill. After 9-11 the nation saw many Democrat leaders and pundits calling for just such a measure, they also saw these same leaders advocate for torture to be used on terrorist suspects if it would lead to useful information that could prevent further attacks. Before we went into Iraq many leading Democrats blamed George Bush’s father “not going all the way to Baghdad” in the first Gulf war.
Many have conveniently forgotten how hawkish the Democrats were before the second gulf war, they voted twice to put us in there, then when the going got tough they wanted out even though that would have meant a sure blood bath for the people of Iraq. Now that it seems clear the situation in that troubled region has turned toward democracy and triumph for the Iraqi people the media and the Democrats have switched to the economy has a way to denigrate George Bush and the Republican Party. It has been a sorry spectacle, one I dare say few should be proud to support.
Scott Armstrong
Scott,
Wow, thanks for taking the time to post such thoughtful comments. I'm not happy with the democrats and I realize democratic connections to big oil companies, etc, I don't blame republicans for everything that I think is wrong. I see cronyism, corruption, greed, in both parties. I don't think the govt. is the solution to all problems. I was 13 in 1978. I'm kinda tired so I'll have to sleep on all this! THanks again for commenting.
Dottie,
I am married to big Lefty, we get along and our kids hear both sides of many issues, most often very civily.
Scott Armstrong
Dottie,
I am married to big Lefty, we get along and our kids hear both sides of many issues, most often very civily.
Scott Armstrong
Scott,
I think it's great when lefties and righties can have a civil debate. Unfortunately in our family, some are so far to the right that we can't even discuss politics. They just hate liberals that much, and blame dems for everything. I would rather focus on things we have in common than our differences, although it is fun to debate those differences, until it gets too stressful.
I was against the war from the very beginning. Why didn't more of our elected officials speak out against it? I agree with some of the fiscal conservative ideas. I am for less bureaucracy and simple common sense solutions, less govt. involvement, but there are circumstances when people need help and there should be govt. programs. You say that there should be "minimal regulation" by the govt. I think there needs to be some limitations set by the govt. or things get too far out of whack.
In most European countries the govt. provides healthcare, it's not socialized medicine, it's a free market with limitations. I watched a PBS special on this last month and I was amazed. (Is PBS too lefty biased?) Pharmaceutical co's and hospitals can charge only so much. It is not humane for someone to die or suffer because they are refused medical treatment, and that's what happens in this country. We have free public education, why not healthcare? Or would you call that being a "caretaker?"
I like Ron Paul, he makes a lot of sense to me. He's an R, but I guess most people consider him a Libertarian? I haven't studied the different political philosophies in depth, but he seems to be a true conservative.
Do you have a background in accounting, economics, or poli sci? My POV is more from an arts and education background. I admit I could be more informed on a lot of issues you have mentioned. I am open to hearing other viewpoints, I think it is informative.
I'll let you have the last word!
We have free public education, why not healthcare? Or would you call that being a "caretaker?"
Dottie, public education is anything but free; anyone who owns property or rents pays in one form or another very high property taxes to support these schools. The amount of money spent per pupil in many districts has skyrocketed in recent years to absurd levels. The cause of this can often be traced to bloated and inefficient school administrations/bureaucracies. Many fear this same situation will be replicated by the federal government when a universal health care system is in place. Before we as a nation move towards this we should all ask ourselves this question, does the government provide us any service quickly, efficiently, and economically? As bad as the current health care system is right now, I doubt a government take over would lead to a better situation.
By the way, did you hear that Sweden passed a law that will require non residents to pay for any health care they receive? One had to listen hard to here this on the news.
Finally I worked my way through a three year art school in two years thirty years ago, I never went to college.
Keep up the great work on your blog.
Scott Armstrong
Post a Comment