ELEPHANT-DONKEY.com

DonkeyDude said 04/14, 05:43 PM
First of all, McCain cannot win by pairing with Ron Paul, and I say that as a Paul admirer (if only for his candor and seeming political independence). McCain needs to appeal to social conservatives, and he would benefit from an alliance with Condi or even Huck.

Second, Obama did not "snub" Hillary's "offer" for VP. He simply pointed out that it was not her place to "offer" him the post when he is the one winning the race so far. Also, to be clear, she did not offer him anything; she merely suggested that the joint ticket would be ideal. However, you are a fool to doubt that she mentioned this for any reason other than to marginalize him and make voters think they could get a "two-fer" by voting for her over him. Typical Clintonian hoodwinkery.

Third, Gore would never agree to be at the bottom of another ticket - it would truly be a demotion for him. This is especially true if a Clinton were at the top of the ticket, because that means that Bill and Hillary are numbers 1 and 2, leaving the VP as the ultimate lame duck. He has already complained about that during his VP stint. He would make a great presidential nominee, but the Dems cannot render null all those votes.

DonkeyDude said 04/22, 06:52 PM
McCain needs to pick someone who will shore up his support among conservatives and help brand his ticket as tough on terrorism. He also needs to pick someone with some economic/financial credentials to help voters overlook his "don't know much about the economy" admission.

Condi is not hated quite as universally as Bush, and she would help undercut some of the demographic advantage(?) an Obama or Clinton candidacy would have.

More interestingly, the Dems. I'll repeat: Gore will not accept a VP offer. He has stated so. As I discussed above, this is especially true if Clinton is the nominee, as he is tired of playing third fiddle to that duo. And his relationship with Billary has been strained over the years.

Barack will not pick Hillary. A ticket's "brand" is important, and her negativity would undercut his message of hope/change. And she'd probably have him assassinated (half joking). He might pick another woman, but a Washington outsider like Napolitano. Biden or Dodd would be my pick.

Clinton might have to offer it to him b/c of his popularity, but she wouldn't want to after this contest. He'd turn it down for the same reasons as Gore, but it would help his chances in 2016...

DonkeyDude said 04/24, 04:35 PM
With all due respect, I think it is telling that you are borrowing Bill's words. You seem very susceptible to "the party line." I agree that the two of them are popular, and with different subsets of the party's base. I agree that the fight has been polarizing and one idea to unite the party would be to have both of them on the ticket. However, I don't think it would be wise for Obama to offer her the VP slot because it undercuts his message of "change" (he has says that she is "establishment") and "hope" (she has run a very negative campaign) and "bipartisanship" (she is extremely polarizing).

That said, I think this debate has strayed into idle conversation. This was the first debate I ever accepted, and I wouldn't have done so if I knew then what I know now. It is hard to win a debate when there is not a controvertible fact at issue.

I disagree with some of your assessments of the VP situation, but I do agree with much of what you've said. I guess the things I'd take issue with are your notions that: A) Hillary actually has a chance at the nomination; B) She "offered" Obama the VP slot and he "snubbed" her; and C) He should choose her if (when) he gets the nomination.