<p>
</p>
<p>I completely agree! Why on earth would Coulter’s endorsement help Clinton?</p>
<p>H went to high school with Coulter (she was a year behind him). He had no idea who she was back then… didn’t make much of an impression in high school. We looked up what clubs she was part of, and although I can’t remember them all, the one that stands out is the Spanish Club… interesting considering her political bantering these days. I guess she became more narrow as she got older.</p>
<p>Rupert Murdoch is voting for Hillary too. And Limbaugh/Beck/Malkin all said they’d stay home and vote for neither.</p>
<p>Wow - I know it has been cold but did not realize hell had actually frozen over!</p>
<p>Going out to look for the flying pigs now.</p>
<p>Wednesday, Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post announced its endorsement of Barack Obama in the presidential election, complete with a stinging screed against the Clintons</p>
<p>2008
• The Post catches Bill Clinton falling asleep during an MLK Day event and chides him on Page Six.</p>
<p>• The Post (not exactly from left field but not super-obviously, either) endorses Obama for president and in the process takes assorted jabs at the Clintons</p>
<p>Am I the only CC’er who doesn’t think Obama is charismatic? He seems very stiff to me. Seems like an honest, ethical guy, but charisma? I don’t get that.</p>
<p>Honesty and integrity trump charisma in my book. They also trump deception and fraud.</p>
<p>“Am I the only CC’er who doesn’t think Obama is charismatic? He seems very stiff to me.”</p>
<p>It doesn’t come through in the debates, where he is competent, and thoughtful, but somewhat stiff. But I don’t know if you saw the speech after Iowa (and secondarily, the speeches after South Carolina and at American University) - maybe the most charismatic politician I’ve seen or heard worldwide since Indira Gandhi. </p>
<p>I was actually quite surprised ('cause I’d only seen him in the debates). I was in the gym watching him from a treadmill at a time, and I can tell you that everyone - absolutely everyone - slowed down or stopped.</p>
<p>Mini is right. Obama does not seem charismatic in a debate format, rather he seems wonkish, thoughtful and reserved. Give him a microphone and put him in front of a crowd and that all changes. Very charismatic and moving. I like it that he has both sides.</p>
<p>dke:
If you haven’t seen the South Carolina speech yet, check it out here:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iVAPH_EcmQ[/url]”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iVAPH_EcmQ</a></p>
<p>One thing that happens with his speeches is momentum. They start of slow and thoughtful and then build. The energy that grows until the end is just incredible.</p>
<p>swimcatsmom - please come wipe the water I spit out laughing at that last statement!</p>
<p>I agree with whoever said Clinton/Obama ticket is the way to go. Best way not to alienate supporters of both of them. Best way to beat the republicans. </p>
<p>Will it happen I don’t know. But imo, it’s the only way to win. Too many people who like one or the other will stay home if ‘their’ candidate isn’t on the ticket.</p>
<p>Maybe we can have a VP who doesn’t live in a bunker for 8 years…</p>
<p>swimcatsmom - too funny!</p>
<p>I actually had someone ask me last week why I am so drawn to Obama. The best thing I could say is that, when I read his books (first one written years before he became a senator), his integrity, honesty and vulnerability stood out to me. When I read his second book, I realized that he had the smarts to go along with it (I guess his being editor of the Harvard Law Review didn’t impress me enough?!?). Being from Illinois, I have been tuned into his career perhaps a bit sooner than some people and have not seen an instance where I should question the previously-mentioned attributes that I find important in a candidate.</p>
<p>This may be simplifying it, but you can’t argue with people about what it is that attracts them to a specific candidate. For some, it’s about the issues; for others, it’s about the character traits of the candidate. We have to respect that people choose candidates based on different priority systems. For me, this term, it is about charisma, honesty, integrity and intelligence. If a candidate has those characteristics, then I trust them to do what’s best for our country.</p>
<p>Hillary would never, never, never, accept a VP position.</p>
<p>Barack might, but I think he would be foolish to do so. A VP in most administrations is an anonymous position. A VP in a Clinton administration is worse than anonymous - between Bill and Hillary gobbling up all the air, poor old Barack would feel lucky if he could attend some funerals of former heads of state. He has earned the right to be a well known and respected member of the senate - he will be far more visible from that position for an ultimate run at the presidency.</p>
<p>I am with Ann Coulter. No way will I vote for McCain. He has backstabbed conservatives so many times I have lose count. He is now running ads saying he is a true conservative, but that is simply not true. He is a remarkable man, but I cannot image supporting him.</p>
<p>Fundingfather, being a vice president is the surest way to become president. Obama just needs to be a good soldier, head up some initiatives of his own (Gore on the environment, any one?), and wait for his turn. Hmm…</p>
<p>Truman and Alben Barkley (who?) Nope
Eisenhower and Nixon – went on to near-miss election in 60, and won in 68
Kennedy and Johnson – took over presidency in 63, reelected in 64
Johnson and Humphrey – nominated and lost in 68 (to former veep Nixon)
Nixon and Agnew – nope
Nixon and Ford – became president in 74
Ford and Rockefeller – nope
Carter and Mondale – nominated and lost in 84
Reagan and Bush – elected in 88
Bush and Quayle – nope
Clinton and Gore – nominated and nearly won in 00
Bush and Cheney – nope, but it’s pretty clear that Cheney was never going to be a candidate.</p>
<p>Five post-war veeps went on to be president. Another nearly did (Gore). It’s a good career path. It’s also a good salary, nice perqs, and it’s indoor work with no heavy lifting. If you don’t mind going to all those funerals, there’s a lot worse jobs than being vice president.</p>
<p>what is the official job of the VP. Maybe we can redefine it.</p>
<p>I think Clinton/Obama has
a) the potential to defeat the republicans
b) something for everyone
c) a chance to turn the VP into an active participant. I disagree that he would have to be relegated to a negligible role. There is plenty to do that no one person can do.</p>
<p>WashDad - </p>
<p>Being a sitting VP is fairly good way to get to be president by having the current president die or resign, but it’s a lousy platform from which to get <em>elected</em> president.</p>
<p>In the 20th century, T. Roosvelt, Coolidge, Truman, Johnson, and Ford all were VPs who moved up when the president did not finish his term. But GHW Bush was the only sitting VP that century who was elected president. And the last one prior to Bush was Van Buren in 1836.</p>
<p>I’ve been watching the West Wing :)</p>
<p>Chief of Staff is much more powerful and respected than VP</p>
<p><a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Disclosure_(The_West_Wing[/url])”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Disclosure_(The_West_Wing)</a></p>
<p>I also don’t think either of those candidates is suited for a VP role-</p>
<p>Obama would be silly to accept a VP spot. What a quick way to end his career in a dead end position. If he doesn’t get the nomination, it would be best to sit out and hope for McCain to win and make a run for it again in 4 years.</p>
<p>As for Hillary, she would be a drag on a ticket as a VP. Obama would be smarter to tap a seasoned individual like a governor.</p>
<p>"Hillary would never, never, never, accept a VP position.</p>
<p>Barack might, but I think he would be foolish to do so. A VP in most administrations is an anonymous position. A VP in a Clinton administration is worse than anonymous - between Bill and Hillary gobbling up all the air, poor old Barack would feel lucky if he could attend some funerals of former heads of state. He has earned the right to be a well known and respected member of the senate - he will be far more visible from that position for an ultimate run at the presidency."</p>
<p>I completely agree. The only person an Obama Vice-Presidential bid would benefit would be Hillary Clinton.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nixon and Gore both came within a hair of being elected (in elections with accusations of vote-rigging in '60 and '00). Since Nixon went on to be elected in his next try in '68, I count him, which makes a more than 50% chance of a VP going on to the presidency in the post-war era. The rate for senators is much, much lower. Only one senator became president without first being a VP, although many tried. I’m not sure why you eliminate the veeps who went on to take over for a president that died in office or resigned. It’s not uncommon (nine of 43 presidents did not complete all of their elected term), and represents real political opportunity.</p>
<p>Perhaps Obama’s best shot if he has to try again would be to run for governor first, and then come back to presidential politics in '12 or '16. Of course, Nixon lost a bid for California governor between presidential runs, so that might not be a sure thing.</p>