« SNL's Fauxbama Blackface Thing | Main | Hello World! »

March 07, 2008

Dream Ticket?

This is what I think too, and I can't wait to see how Obama responds to it.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Dream Ticket?:



so now that obama has responded by thoroughly dismissing the idea, what do you think?

also, what do you think of the hypocrisy on the part of the clintons which obama points out?

I'd personally LOVE to see an Obama/Clinton ticket. Not so much the other way, for many reasons, one of which I fill out below.

I've also seen other folks suggest Clinton to replace Elliot Spitzer as NY Gov . . . a move which would CLINCH her eventual election as president.

But for right now? I don't much like the idea of living under 24-28 years of Bush-Clinton governance. Let someone from a different family sit in the Oval Office for a while. So to that end, while I'd vote for a Clinton/Obama ticket, I'm not sure the Senator from Illinois would share my opinion on this. In fact, I'm pretty sure he wouldn't.

n0m: it's waaay too easy to dig through things people said in public fifteen, twenty years ago and find a contradiction with what they're saying now.

especially if you allow, or expect, people to change their ideas over time, and with experience.

but let's assume that it IS 'hypocrisy' and not campaign positioning. i also think it's interesting that the "hyprocrisy" as you call it that obama mentions (which happened in 1992) happened at a time when obama himself was 30, too young to run for president.

hillary clinton has stuff on the public record from 30 years ago she probably regrets. obama doesn't have anything, regrettable or otherwise, on the public record that's older than four years.

now guess why i'm supporting clinton.

dennis, sorry but that's a bullshit argument. if hillary isn't qualified, then her dynastic association isn't going to qualify her. but the reverse is also true. if she IS qualified, then her eight years in the white house aren't going to disqualify her, nor are her connections in politics going to make her LESS effective.

plus, while it's possible that you DID object, i'm going to assume that neither you, nor any other man who's using this excuse now, complained in the 2000 election about that politically dynastic gore family. and that's because it's okay for MEN to be part of a ruling family. WOMEN, not so much.

i'm pretty much working on the assumption here that anyone who objects to hillary's dynastic links is really objecting to her gender. it's going to be a fact from here on out on this blog.

hmmmmm . . . my "dynastic" argument is bullshit . . . because of your "assumption . . . that anyone who objects to hillary's dynastic links is really objecting to her gender."

just to make sure i'm not misunderstanding you . . . your assumption trumps my argument?

well, it's your blog. and it's my choice to read it. and maybe this is just a crappy day for you. and maybe i should make better choices.

but for some reason, i remember you being way too rational to allow assumptions to trump arguments, in any forum.

(which, by the way, wasn't really much of an argument . . . i said "I don't much like the idea" . . . which really makes it a preference, and not a statement relying on evidence to persuade.)

in other words: even on yr own blog, it just ain't all about you. hillary may win, or she may lose. get over it.

and it's been nice getting back in touch with you too, old chum. here's wishing you a fine career. and i hope you'll be feeling better sometime soon . . .


p.s.: for what it's worth, i caucused for bradley in 2000: i was in iowa city at the time. we made the head of "students for gore" cry. but then, politics is always about compromise. c ya!

oh dear, dennis, you're going to take your ball and go home?


The comments to this entry are closed.

Join My Mailing List!