I don't consider the following to be a dream team...But you can be sure that its the RNC's nightmare team,
OBAMA-CLINTON-12.
Biden's enough of a company man to graciously step aside, and Hillary is surely enough of a pragmatist to come through the back door. One must assume she is well versed at the procedure.
I heard it here first, well, you know, in my fuzzy liberal brain I mean.
Yes, Left wing Liberal progressive Satan worshipping whatever Beck is calling us this week bozos can own and love Buells. I'm just not too sure about showin' up at a rally without a safe passage exit visa.
Glad to hear you come out on the Satan Worship. A discussion of the principals of Progressivism might be interesting, but...
on the subject of Hillary going for the V.P. slot to lock in a turn after Barack?
Some big ego's involved. I dunno. I dunno if he'd go for it, or if she would. ( Michelle might want the job....) The Clinton Team is certainly prepping the public on the talk shows.
It might work great as a re-election ploy. Hmm. Buellbozo may be right that it's the RNC's nightmare.
My opinion on the RNC is rather low. I think they pass the nomination to the guy who's turn it is. Or something stupid like that. They need good candidates. They don't seem to pick them good.
But I'm thinking Hillary in direct challenge for the nomination in 2012. Her minions are pretty critical of Barack. Crisis too good to waste and all that?
Which may indeed lead to the compromise ticket I've suggested. I can't help but remember what happened 2 yrs after Newt and the boyz came bustin' through with the "Contract With America" in 94. Bill Clinton won a second term in 96, and with bi-partisan help and cooperation balanced the budget and brought down the defecit.
Even the Bushies who created the tax break said the nation couldn't sustain it for more than ten years, when they wrote the damn thing.
I'm bettin' on the back door thing...for my own demented reasons.
I don't understand exactly why, but Hillary seems to becoming a very competent Secretary of State. Currently, she seems to be doing us more good vis a vis the opinions of the nations we must co-exist with than BO with his recent Asian swing.
This is a level of worldpolitik that the ex-governor of Alaska seems to be lacking in. It can be cram taught, but not experienced. A VP the world already knows and respects is a valuable tool to a perhaps less than ideal CinC. A good example might be the presidency of Mr.Cheney.
Sorry, 'bout that last ya'll...I tried not to, I really did.
I can't help but remember what happened 2 yrs after Newt and the boyz came bustin' through with the "Contract With America" in 94. Bill Clinton won a second term in 96, and with bi-partisan help and cooperation balanced the budget and brought down the defecit.
Clinton did something Obama can't or won't, move to the center.
For Obama to utter these words, he would have to dismantle EVERYTHING passed in the first two years of his Presidency.
Clinton won a second term because he was able to triangulate (with the help of the toe sucker) between liberal base and conservative opposition. Clinton moderated which secured the independent vote.
That and the RNC nominated a corpse with ED to run against him.
The "balanced budget/surplus" is a myth:
Clinton "cooked the books".
FY Year Ending National Debt Deficit FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
The Law of the Infinite Cornucopia, put forth by Polish philosopher Leszek Kolakowski suggests that for any given doctrine one wants to believe, there is never a shortage of arguments by which one can support it.
I am mostly lurking these days, just watching this Wonderful Government in action. The good news is that I just returned from a great week in the Soviet Socialist Republic of the Upper West Side and people there are disenchanted with Obama. He will be a one-termer as long as Palin doesn't score a political coup on the campaign trail.
Dialogue/the dialectic/good conversation is much preferable to most of this. Too bad that's no longer fashionable.
Dialog, agreed, good. the dialectic, it's bullcrap. The basis of marxist argument is that the argument is reality. it's not. Smoke and mirrors.
Good conversation....this. Total agreement.
Too bad that's no longer fashionable. Again. same page. agree.
Since WW2, the Rep's have been mostly a minority. They haven't done majority well...except for the period during Clinton where they did good work. Since WW2 the Dem's have mostly been majority, done some good, lots bad, and the argument is which, when. They really got evil and vicious while in the minority. Seemed like spoiled brats to me. Both side have flaws.
D's long history of racism, welfare state, class warfare dialectic while they, themselves ( the "ruling class"...not the voters ) got richer and richer. graft, Corruption..etc.
R's long history of antipathy to labor movements, ineffective at making their argument, even when it's notably a better or truer ideal. Utter inability to fight marxist/alinski/maoist arguments, since they fail to grasp the concept of how to lie and win. graft, Corruption..etc. And, the real funny part, a history of a very few "Family Values" advocates with hilarious sexual episodes.
