Who is going to be the Republican Vice President?
Some think Democratic Senator and McCain buddy, Joe Lieberman. Since, he already won once as a Vice Presidential candidate, he's worth consideration. But, the last thing McCain needs is somebody to the left of him if he wants to raise money.
Some say South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham (I checked, he's a dude). Being from a conservative state may help. But, while McCain may need a little help holding onto a few southern states, he does not need help with South Carolina.
Mitt Romney perhaps? The former governor from Mass, could help with a possible swing state like Michigan may be, is more popular with conservatives, and has executive experience that McCain and Obama lack. But, I think Romney pulled out because he expects to be the front runner in 2012 if McCain does not win in November, and running for on a losing ticket will not help his chances (Which means if he is McCain's choice, many Republicans truly believe they have a good shot to win).
Secretary of State Condi Rice is a possibility. In this position, she is the closet any African American has been to being President, due to the Constitutional line of secession. Also, her name on the ticket could steal some of Obama's thunder. But, I doubt she will pull away many black voters from Obama and having a top cabinet member from the Bush Administration on his ticket cannot help McCain.
Either one of the young governors from Florida or Louisiana could be a possibility, but they do not fit the "experienced reformer" method McCain seems to be going with.
My feeling is that McCain is likely to go with Gov. Mike Huckabee. While still in the race, Huckabee won several southern states, and while out of the race, received substantial votes (10 % in NC). His evangelical connections would keep the Democratic ticket from being able to pick off Georgia, North Carolina, Louisiana, or Arkansas. Lastly, Huckabee running would mean the return of Chuck Norris to the campaign trail (Imagine Attorney General Chuck Norris).
Of course, Huckabee has said many stupid things (noted in previous blog) and will likely say something else that could hurt his cause.
As apparent in my Democratic VP ideas, I honestly don't know. Somebody needs to get me some inside information.
Rabbit
Saturday, June 7, 2008
Friday, June 6, 2008
YouTuber of the Week
I've decided to start a YouTuber of the Week. The winner will receive nothing except for play on my blog.
This week's Youtuber of the week has made quite a splash with her racism, sexism, and sheer stupidity.
The only only thing I can't seem to figure out is if this is Operational Chaos or if Hillary Clinton supporters really are as stupid as she thinks they are.
Rabbit
This week's Youtuber of the week has made quite a splash with her racism, sexism, and sheer stupidity.
The only only thing I can't seem to figure out is if this is Operational Chaos or if Hillary Clinton supporters really are as stupid as she thinks they are.
Rabbit
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
CNN, Fox, MSNBC
What is the difference between these cable news channels?
As I flipped through the three this is what I saw:
MSNBC: Hillary Clinton to suspend her campaign for President and endorse Barack Obama on Friday (Hmm, sounds important)
Fox News: Should Father Flegler be reinstated to his church? (Fox talking about Barack Obama's former church? I don't believe it. Don't forget, Fox News is not a credible news source)
CNN: Lou Dobbs talking about Barack Obama's flagpin. (CNN isn't bad, but Dobbs is)
So, what did you learn?
If the term "liberal" is accurate when talking about MSNBC then, "liberal" must mean talks about actual news.
Rabbit
As I flipped through the three this is what I saw:
MSNBC: Hillary Clinton to suspend her campaign for President and endorse Barack Obama on Friday (Hmm, sounds important)
Fox News: Should Father Flegler be reinstated to his church? (Fox talking about Barack Obama's former church? I don't believe it. Don't forget, Fox News is not a credible news source)
CNN: Lou Dobbs talking about Barack Obama's flagpin. (CNN isn't bad, but Dobbs is)
So, what did you learn?
If the term "liberal" is accurate when talking about MSNBC then, "liberal" must mean talks about actual news.
Rabbit
Let Your Voice be Heard
John Kerry is not the Vice President.
"But, Rabbit, the only person to have more people vote for John Kerry in an election ever was George Bush in the same election. So, since so many people support John Kerry for President he should be Vice President."
Nobody has ever told me that John Kerry should be Vice President because he was a close second in the race for the White House in 2004.
Now, Hillary Clinton supporters are staking her claim to be Barack Obama's running mate. Don't get me wrong, she should definitely be considered for the position. But, she is not entitled to that position.
The position of Vice President has been redefined (no matter how much it angers you) by Dick Cheney. It has become more than just a ceremonial right hand to the President, but a vital player in decision making. Dick Cheney would never be elected President, but he is the epitome of what a neo-conservative is.
So, under the Dick Cheney rule of being a Vice President, I recommend Sen. Joe Biden, Sen. Chris Dodd, Gov. Bill Richardson, and Rep. Steny Hoyer. All of these people have loads of experience and are strong minded, tough liberals.
Under the electability rule, Hillary Clinton is worth consideration. However, I think that she will only bring Obama people who will vote for him anyway if she publicly endorses and campaigns for him.
Now, there are a couple of wild cards, Chuck Hagel and Mike Bloomberg. Hagel is a Republican Senator from Nebraska who has become very critical of the Bush Administration on the Iraq War. Bloomberg is the mayor of New York City and was a Republican but, is now an Independent. As a billionaire, he could end the weak theory from conservatives that Obama is a socialist. Both candidates would increase the feelings many have that Obama wishes to move beyond partisan politics.
But, I have to personal picks for the running mate. First, is Senator Jim Webb of Virginia. Webb is a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy, like John McCain, and served (As a Marine) in the Vietnam War. He served as Secretary of the Navy under Ronald Reagan and pushed the popular GI Bill through the Senate. Webb's presence of the ticket will deny Republicans the ability to claim Democrats do not support troops, he increases Obama's electability in the south, and he will moderate Obama's ticket.
The second personal pick I have is for a woman from Arkansas, who is not Hillary Clinton. Sen. Blanche Lincoln from Arkansas could also moderate Obama's ticket. Not to mention, the help she would provide in courting southerners and women. She also endorsed Hillary Clinton so this could help with the healing of the Democratic Party.
Bottom Line: I went to www.HillaryClinton.com and sent a message saying that she should try to become the best Senator New York has ever had. She could help the United States in so many ways, and if that is what she wants to do, she can do it that way.
Rabbit
"But, Rabbit, the only person to have more people vote for John Kerry in an election ever was George Bush in the same election. So, since so many people support John Kerry for President he should be Vice President."
Nobody has ever told me that John Kerry should be Vice President because he was a close second in the race for the White House in 2004.
Now, Hillary Clinton supporters are staking her claim to be Barack Obama's running mate. Don't get me wrong, she should definitely be considered for the position. But, she is not entitled to that position.
The position of Vice President has been redefined (no matter how much it angers you) by Dick Cheney. It has become more than just a ceremonial right hand to the President, but a vital player in decision making. Dick Cheney would never be elected President, but he is the epitome of what a neo-conservative is.
So, under the Dick Cheney rule of being a Vice President, I recommend Sen. Joe Biden, Sen. Chris Dodd, Gov. Bill Richardson, and Rep. Steny Hoyer. All of these people have loads of experience and are strong minded, tough liberals.
Under the electability rule, Hillary Clinton is worth consideration. However, I think that she will only bring Obama people who will vote for him anyway if she publicly endorses and campaigns for him.
Now, there are a couple of wild cards, Chuck Hagel and Mike Bloomberg. Hagel is a Republican Senator from Nebraska who has become very critical of the Bush Administration on the Iraq War. Bloomberg is the mayor of New York City and was a Republican but, is now an Independent. As a billionaire, he could end the weak theory from conservatives that Obama is a socialist. Both candidates would increase the feelings many have that Obama wishes to move beyond partisan politics.
But, I have to personal picks for the running mate. First, is Senator Jim Webb of Virginia. Webb is a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy, like John McCain, and served (As a Marine) in the Vietnam War. He served as Secretary of the Navy under Ronald Reagan and pushed the popular GI Bill through the Senate. Webb's presence of the ticket will deny Republicans the ability to claim Democrats do not support troops, he increases Obama's electability in the south, and he will moderate Obama's ticket.
The second personal pick I have is for a woman from Arkansas, who is not Hillary Clinton. Sen. Blanche Lincoln from Arkansas could also moderate Obama's ticket. Not to mention, the help she would provide in courting southerners and women. She also endorsed Hillary Clinton so this could help with the healing of the Democratic Party.
Bottom Line: I went to www.HillaryClinton.com and sent a message saying that she should try to become the best Senator New York has ever had. She could help the United States in so many ways, and if that is what she wants to do, she can do it that way.
Rabbit
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
But You Forgot Something
Hillary, I understand that Barack has a lot to do in order to win over your supporters, and I understand that you ran a tough race.
But, you forgot something.
You Lost.
Say it.
Rabbit
But, you forgot something.
You Lost.
Say it.
Rabbit
Monday, June 2, 2008
Woman President: Not Yet, But Soon
Some arguments I'm not really allowed to make. But, I found this one interesting because it comes from a feminist perspective.
Rabbit
Woman president: Not yet, but soon
WASHINGTON -- Hillary Clinton isn't going to be elected the first woman president -- not this year, anyway. The reasons for this outcome have gratifyingly little to do with her gender. It may not seem that way right now to Clinton supporters seething over her treatment, but the 2008 campaign has propelled the country significantly closer to the moment when a woman takes the oath of office.
Yes, there have been sexist episodes and comments. Yes, it's infuriatingly more acceptable to make cracks about gender than about race. But the notion that Clinton was the victim of unrelenting, vicious hatred because she is a woman -- is it safe to call this reaction overwrought? Clinton managed to win more votes than any primary candidate in either party had ever before. It's hard to square that result with the notion that her candidacy exposed a deep vein of misogyny.
Considering the inexplicably intense emotions that Clinton evokes, the litany of ugliness is surprisingly short. Meanwhile, the 2008 campaign has rewritten the rule book on playing presidential politics when the team is coed.
The female candidate gets to be ironically, refreshingly post-feminist. "If you want a winner who knows how to take them on, I'm your girl," Clinton announced early on. "I'm very comfortable in the kitchen," she said last month, chiding Barack Obama for not being able to stand the heat of hard questions.
For male candidates, gender remains a treacherous minefield whose danger zones the 2008 campaign only began to chart. Think of John Edwards commenting on Clinton's bright coral jacket ("I'm not sure about that coat") when asked in one of the debates to mention something he disliked about his opponent. You can bet a male candidate won't be dispensing fashion commentary in 2012 -- if there's a woman running.
And Obama won't be calling female reporters "sweetie" again anytime soon, as he did last week in brushing off a query from a local television reporter. The reporter got the last laugh, pointing out in her segment that "this sweetie never did get an answer to that question."
This sweetie rather liked that.
More important than helping candidates figure out how to talk about gender, Clinton's candidacy has dispensed with damaging myths about women's capacity to compete in presidential politics. Not tough enough? If anything, Clinton came off as too tough. Too emotional? Clinton teared up in New Hampshire -- and, confounding male pundits, this display of vulnerability helped her win. Too fluffy? Clinton, perhaps to her detriment, out-wonked the competition.
She demonstrated stamina and determination, a dogged workhorse to Obama's delicate thoroughbred. Improbably, she ended up winning the white guy vote -- and not all of that can be explained by the notion that those voters faced an unpalatable choice between gender and race.
From a feminist perspective, Clinton's was not a perfect candidacy.
Part of that stems from a fact outside Clinton's control: that her route to power was derivative, the Adam's rib outgrowth of her husband's career.
Hillary Clinton has been elected senator, twice, in her own right, but the fact that her road to the White House involved standing by her man, no matter how badly he behaved, made her a flawed vessel for the feminist cause.
And Clinton's least attractive campaign moments came when she took up the gender card and chose to play it as victim instead of trailblazer. The notion that the male candidates were ganging up on her because she is a woman instead of -- remember back when? -- the front-runner was silly. The complaint that asking her the first question in debates was evidence of a double standard was even sillier.
By contrast, one of Clinton's most powerful lines came on Super Tuesday, when she thanked "my mother, who was born before women could vote and is watching her daughter on this stage tonight." It's easy to forget, in the passions of the time, the long way traveled in a relatively brief span.
Like the mountain climber forced to turn back just before reaching Everest's summit, however, women still face an achingly long climb. If you care about seeing a woman elected president, one of the biggest disappointments of this campaign is the paucity of credible women waiting in the wings, in either party.
If not 2008, then when? If not Clinton, then who? There are no obvious answers. Then again, four years ago, Obama was an unknown state senator, and almost no one imagined that an African-American could win the presidency in 2008.
Ruth Marcus is a columnist for the Washington Post; marcusr@washpost.com. Copyright 2008 Washington Post Writers Group
Is it Over? Are we There Yet?
Tomorrow the Democratic Primary season will be over. So, by the end of the week, after "superdelegates" choose sides, there will be a Democratic nominee for President and the general election will unofficially begin.
This will be the case because the Democratic Rules Committee reached a compromise on what to do about the delegates in Florida and Michigan, two states that moved their primary up before February 5. Now many people, regardless of candidate choice, think this is a dumb rule. But, I am not one of those people. Having a few early contests give candidates the opportunity to show their ability to campaign. A good showing in Iowa and New Hampshire can show the viability of a candidate before the huge Super Tuesday contests. However, I do think Iowa, New Hampshire, and the other few early contests should not have that early contest right for every election cycle. I would prefer different smaller states the right to have early primaries, so they can have more influence.
Here is a missed fact about the primary election. Republicans also stripped delegates from a few states. Florida, Michigan, South Carolina, and Wyoming were stripped of half of their delegates by the Republican National Committee. However, the candidates were still allowed to campaign in those states and the party has not faced a public relations nightmare from this decision. Now, the Democratic Party have given Florida and Michigan half of their delegate votes.
On this issue, the Republicans did what they do best, public relations. They have come out looking much better, even though the Democrats have penalized fewer states.
But, this is not enough for Hillary Clinton, of course because she is still losing. She now must persuade superdelegates to endorse her to win the nomination. Her main argument for this is that she has won the popular vote. But, that is not completely true. She had more people vote for her in primaries. However, if caucus votes are included, Barack Obama wins the popular vote. It is quite disgraceful of Sen. Clinton to claim the popular vote in the name of not disenfranchising voters. She makes that claim while disenfranchising Alaska, Colorado, Idaho, Minnesota, North Dakota, Nebraska, Hawaii, and Wyoming, as well as those who voted "uncommitted" in Michigan because Obama was not on the ballot.
Rabbit
This will be the case because the Democratic Rules Committee reached a compromise on what to do about the delegates in Florida and Michigan, two states that moved their primary up before February 5. Now many people, regardless of candidate choice, think this is a dumb rule. But, I am not one of those people. Having a few early contests give candidates the opportunity to show their ability to campaign. A good showing in Iowa and New Hampshire can show the viability of a candidate before the huge Super Tuesday contests. However, I do think Iowa, New Hampshire, and the other few early contests should not have that early contest right for every election cycle. I would prefer different smaller states the right to have early primaries, so they can have more influence.
Here is a missed fact about the primary election. Republicans also stripped delegates from a few states. Florida, Michigan, South Carolina, and Wyoming were stripped of half of their delegates by the Republican National Committee. However, the candidates were still allowed to campaign in those states and the party has not faced a public relations nightmare from this decision. Now, the Democratic Party have given Florida and Michigan half of their delegate votes.
On this issue, the Republicans did what they do best, public relations. They have come out looking much better, even though the Democrats have penalized fewer states.
But, this is not enough for Hillary Clinton, of course because she is still losing. She now must persuade superdelegates to endorse her to win the nomination. Her main argument for this is that she has won the popular vote. But, that is not completely true. She had more people vote for her in primaries. However, if caucus votes are included, Barack Obama wins the popular vote. It is quite disgraceful of Sen. Clinton to claim the popular vote in the name of not disenfranchising voters. She makes that claim while disenfranchising Alaska, Colorado, Idaho, Minnesota, North Dakota, Nebraska, Hawaii, and Wyoming, as well as those who voted "uncommitted" in Michigan because Obama was not on the ballot.
Rabbit
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)