<p>Both McCain and Obama have a tremendous power to draw huge numbers of swing voters just by their choice of the right VP candidate.</p>
<p>There are many issues about Obama I do not approve of. His 20 years association with a Pastor who taught hatred is cause enough for me not to vote for him. Add to that his inexperience, most liberal stance on issues. </p>
<p>However, if he chooses Hillary, I would not hesitate to vote for that ticket. I would feel more secure with Hillary on the ticket.</p>
<p>Similarly, if McCain chooses Mitt Romney, I could be swung toward McCain too.</p>
<p>For voters like me who are ‘undecided’ and ‘on the center’ on various issues, the choice will become very tough if it boils down to choosing between Obama/Clinton vs McCain/Romney match.</p>
Hillary has plenty of shady characters in her past too… some of whom did things far worse than make some distasteful comments in church. </p>
<p>
First off, I’m always amused by this idea that Hillary is ‘more experienced’ than Obama. For one, the plain facts are that Obama has served more time in elected public office than Hillary. I don’t think being first lady counts as serious experience… she didn’t even have a security clearance. I recognize that she was more active on the issues than most first ladies, but then again Obama wasn’t exactly just sitting in a leather chair at a law office all those years either. </p>
<p>However, more importantly ‘experience’ has not been and probably won’t be the winning tagline in this campaign. Not recognizing that soon enough was probably one of the biggest things that doomed the Clinton campaign. Over the last 8 years this country has learned the hard way that ‘experience’ is no golden ticket to success. Dick Cheney had an incredible amount of experience when he went on the ticket… Donald Rumsfeld had incredible amount of experience when he was appointed and look what happened there! </p>
<p>
John McCain’s record shows that he agrees with Bush on 95% of the issues of the day. So you would somehow go from being a strong Hillary supporter to giving up on the democrats and vote for the republican candidate that agreed with Bush 95% of the time and whose campaign is largely being run by lobbyists? When all these disgruntled Hillary supporters take a good hard look at the facts, I really find it hard to believe that droves of them will suddenly turn into republicans.</p>
<p>I know a lot of Hilary supporters are pushing for it, but really doubt that she’ll be chosen for the VP spot. For one, I think she’ll be able to accomplish a lot more for the country as a strong leader in the Senate working to create and pass the bills (after all Congress is where the real work happens) so there’s something sensible to send down the street for Obama (hopefully) to sign.</p>
<p>I’m centrist and independent and McCain’s choice of VP will be very important to me. McCain needs to demonstrate his independence from the ultra-right conservative base. He won the primary despite tremendous opposition from the base. Unfortunately he has been pandering to the right and his overtures to Jindal are very troubling to me. Romney would be a bad choice too.</p>
<p>Obama had some liberal stances during the primary and I disagree with many of his policies. I would love to see Obama distance himself from organized labor and choose someone from the right or center of the Democratic party or even from the Republican party.</p>
<p>Axelrod is a lobbyist. Obama has a lot of lobbyists working on his campaign. </p>
<p>Obama adopted this anti lobbyist rhetoric when he decided to run for the president. if he was so against lobbyists why didn’t he stop using them when he got to the Senate? </p>
<p>He voted for Dick Cheney’s energy bill after he was influenced by Exelon lobbyists.</p>
<p>Tega, can you give examples of Axelrod’s lobbying? I could not find any information on his Wikipedia entry. Not all lobbying is nefarious. Human Rights Watch or the American Cancer Society lobby, as do oil companies. So it’s not enough to say someone is a lobbyist.</p>
<p>I have 2 words for you . . . Charles Keating.</p>
<p>McCain’s railing against lobbyists and special interests etc. is so disingenuous, I could scream. Not only is his history completely suspect (and he’s lucky he wasn’t indicted) his campaign is run by lobbyists and special interests.</p>
<p>I’ll see your Charles Keating and raise you a Tony Rezko. Good lord, a convicted felon (corruption and bribary) bought Obama’s driveway and yard for him, giving him free use of the property (the only access to the Rezko property is through Obama’s yard).</p>
<p>You can’t get more corrupt that having a crook buy your house for you.</p>
<p>When people make silly comments about McCain being against lobbyists and corruption I wonder if they’re suffering from memory loss. This is, afterall, the same John McCain that was nearly thrown out of Congress after being found guilty of… wait for it… corrupt activities and accepting gross favors from lobbyists in exchange for political favors (free vacation rides on corporate jets, etc.). </p>
<p>McCain arguing against special interests and lobbyists is about as genuine as the tobacco companies putting out anti-smoking adverts.</p>
<p>Obama’s railing against lobbyist is also disingenuous. This guy has basically used lobbyists all his political life except when he decided to run for the president. </p>
<p>To put in rocketman08 terms: “[Obama] arguing against special interests and lobbyists is about as genuine as the tobacco companies putting out anti-smoking adverts.”</p>
<p>Furthermore, I can’t speak for anyone else, but when it comes to lobbyists, my big concern is where the candidate’s campaign fund is coming from. If you hire people to work for you, it’s very clear what you owe them: a salary, and that’s all. When people give you money, though, the implication is that they want something in return, usually influence. That’s where taking money from lobbyists and their clients becomes a problem. As a practical matter, once you’re in office, you have to pay back the people who paid to put you there. If your donors and your constituents are one and the same, that’s great. If your donors are industry coalitions, well, constituents will get the short end of the stick every time.</p>
<p>I forgave Hillary for voting for the war (although I would have liked to have heard her say that it was a screwup to do so) and I forgive Obama for voting for the energy bill. He did work to improve the bill by introducing and promoting amendments that would lower the tax breaks for the oil companies while increasing them for alternative sources and raising CAFA standards.</p>
<p>“You can’t get more corrupt that having a crook buy your house for you.”</p>
<p>Interresteddad, do you honestly believe that the Clintons surrounded themselves with Saints? Hillary is lucky that she didn’t have to suffer the vetting that the republicans would have enjoyed on her behalf. She would be praying for the return of the phantom sniper fire. :eek:</p>
<p>True, but there seems to be a lot of Clinton supporters who seem to say they don’t want to vote for Obama because of X, Y and Z even though X, Y and Z probably applied to Clinton too…</p>
<p>One might remember that McCain says the scandal was his wake up call and the birth of his ‘maverick’ self, fighting corruption for the rest of his senate career. Bennett(a dependable democrat) and one of the prosecuters, considered McCain to be a very honest man.</p>
<p>I don’t think there is any hiding the fact that there is a double standard. The support for Hillary is based on gender. A man with her experience and beliefs can’t cut it - that would be Obama.</p>
<p>thanks for the link. I had read that article before. I still wonder, though. Axelrod’s firm is described as doing ad work for Exelon. Does this qualify as lobbying? He obviously thinks not since he has not registered as a lobbyist.</p>