Clinton to make Obama her Veep, ROFL

[bigfootzx]

It seems Bill Clinton is at it again suggesting Obama is not ready to lead the country but he would make a good Vice-President, as if Obama should bow down to all that is Clinton. How desparate are they to think this would influence voters that they know who is the best choice.......pretty darn arogant!!! I wonder if Hillary even cares what Slick Willie says???

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/10/dems.campaign/index.html

President Clinton Saturday suggested a Clinton-Obama ticket would be "unstoppable."

"With all due respect. I won twice as many states as Sen. Clinton. I've won more of the popular vote than Sen. Clinton. I have more delegates than Sen. Clinton. So, I don't know how somebody who's in second place is offering vice presidency to the person who's in first place," he said.

[disrupter]

She is operating on faith,

just as GWB does.

I rest my case.

[bigfootzx]

Does that mean shes a corrupt mud slinging woman who can't be trusted?
Sounds like it to me. Dirty tactics are a sign of how she will operate as president. Like Obama should take a bow and be her boy in the Veeps office because the Clintons think the public will agree with them. I hope this spoils any chance of Obama asking Hillary to run as his Veep after he kicks her butt in the primaries.

Bill and Hillary are banking on swing voters and undecided people who may agree with the logic, which is a risky way to campaign. This is a negative stunt that backfired and shows how pathetic the Clintons are.

[JCBoston11]

Political beaurocrats are a dime a dozen. Someone's skin or gender does not make them a great leader. Its their personality that shows leadership. If it was just about experience then Biden, Dodd, or Richardson would be the nominee.

Hillary has benefited from family connections and name recognition. Her achievements are dubious and if she's running on the experience theme, it won't be enough. Its not that she is a woman, or that she was first lady, or that her last name is Clinton, but she has never won anything as her own person or served as a leader.

[bigfootzx]

Look at what the Bush legacy has done for us. Do we need a Clinton legacy too? God forbid we have a Bush trifecta. Sorry Jeb!

[JCBoston11]

There should be no Florida or Michigan re-vote. Instead why not spend the money on saving homes in foreclosure. Do Democrats want to prove their stupidity by wasting more money on another election, that state officials had previously decided. If delegates need to be upset with anyone, it should be Nelson, etc for wanting to move up the date knowing that their votes would be punished. Forget about appeasing the delegates, rules are rules and they should be followed.

[bigfootzx]

True, but Hillary needs those votes and the Clinton camp will do anything to get a re-election. Maybe she should pay for it?? There will be no vote by mail as Howard Dean suggested, he jumped the gun and made them all follow suit with such a stupid idea. It was stupid to run the primaries in January in the first place. Ignorant dumbasses thinking they know something about politics, no wonder neither side remains the majority power for long.

[RandomNerd]

The real reason that everyone hates Clinton is because she is smarter and a better leader than them. Obama and Clinton share the same ideas, only Obama is charismatic and idealistic while Clinton is smart, somewhat charismatic, and experienced at politics. To give a bit of historical comparison, Jimmy Carter was idealistic and charismatic and he accomplished little as president and was kicked out after one term. On the other hand, FDR was very smart with lots of experience at politics, as well as charismatic, and he was one of our greatest presidents, pulling the US out of the Great Depression and WWII as well as established Social Security, Medicare, and many other social programs without which America would be in a much worse position than it is today.

Therefore, Hillary Clinton would make a better president because she has the experience and brains to actually get something done.

[bigfootzx]

Hillary Clinton is a neo lib with a socialist agenda. No proof she is smarter, in fact she is pretty fucking dumb to change her campaign issues from state to state and to allow racist attacks on Obama. Clinton is a loser and she and her siamese twin must not win.

[RandomNerd]

Who is Clinton's siamese twin? Secondly, if you had actually read the definition of Neo Liberal you would know that it is incompatible with a socialist agenda. You also have yet to provide proof that Obama is smarter than Clinton, becuase he only really made one speech to hundreds of people without tailoring it to their specific beliefs, allowed the story about his pastor to leak, and copied a friend's speech rather than write his own or at least have his own speechwriter write his own.

[bigfootzx]

Bill is the simese twin, so much for your imagination.

neo libs are real, social liberal is exactly what Hillary is, go read the link

Obama is a better choice than Hillary, smarter too, he stays on the issues, she lies and can't keep up with what she said from state to state

[RandomNerd]

Obama is a better choice than Hillary, smarter too, he stays on the issues, she lies and can't keep up with what she said from state to state
You are selectively listening to everything good ever said about Obama while ignoring all the things he did that I just listed. At the same time, you ignore the fact that a good leader should tailor her speeches to the individual states because people their care more or less about different issues. That is smarter than assuming one size fits all. Also with Bill Clinton you would get two experienced, smart, charismatic politicians. With Obama you get an inferior politician, and only one rather than two.

[bigfootzx]

wrong again as usual, she lies to sucker people for the votes

[Moby]

neo libs are real, social liberal is exactly what Hillary is, go read the link

Footz, I think the Nerd is right. I've read 5 articles on the Neoliberalism and while none of them agree exactly on neoliberal policies they all show no signs of socialism or fascism. In fact all the articles focused on pushing a strong market driven economy and privatizing government.

It sounds a lot more like the Goldwater style of conservatism in the fact that it cuts the size of government, cuts spending, increases trade and keeps us out of other country's business.

From what I can find the Neoconservatism movement puts far more government controls on our daily lives then anything I could find about Neoliberaism.