May 09, 2008
"Vote Both": Sam AroraPolitics
Many people have been dismissive of a Democratic “dream ticket,” with Barack Obama as the presidential candidate and Hillary Clinton in the VP slot. For example, DailyKos, which is strongly pro-Obama, has been sharply dismissive of the idea, for a number of reasons. First, Obama has been putting himself forward as the “change” candidate, and the Clintons represent the opposite of “change.” Second, as a Senator from New York, Clinton doesn’t deliver “geographically” the way someone like Governor Bill Richardson (New Mexico) might [but what about Arkansas?]. Third, she is way too big a personality to be comfortable sticking to whatever message and strategy the Obama campaign is likely to devise. Fourth, all this talk of Hillary supporters defecting to McCain seems rather suspect — when it comes down to it, are committed Democrats really going to vote for someone who is pro-Life, pro-Iraq War, etc.? And finally, most people presume the two of them, by now, can’t stand each other.
Sam Arora thinks otherwise. 
He was, until recently, a spokesperson for Hillary Clinton, and is still described as a “Hillary-ite,” though he is no longer with the Clinton campaign. He and some other Hillaryites have started a site called “Vote Both,” to promote the idea of a Democratic dream ticket, with either of the two candidates on top. Their project has gotten some media attention, and profiles in articles like this one. Sam Arora was also interviewed on TV here (check it out — he’s a pretty smooth talker!).
SM had a post on Sam Arora (the same Sam Arora?) here, when he was a contestant for a reality TV show. Sam was also one of the “50 Most Beautiful People on Capitol Hill” a couple of years ago (see this). (I will leave it to others to ascertain whether Sam Arora really is, in fact, “hot,” as he has often been described.)
I was earlier skeptical about the joint ticket idea, but now I’m starting to think it could work, as long as the two of them can come to agreement on strategy and message (and agree that Bill should go back to Chappaqua, and stay there until January 2009). Obama is still a “change” candidate, but after Reverend Wright, he no longer seems quite as fresh or revolutionary as he once appeared, and I don’t think working with Clinton will tarnish his image. Finally, any personal bitterness the two of them might feel for one another would undoubtedly go out the window if they were to win the election in November.
amardeep on May 9, 2008 10:03 AM in Politics · T·r·a·c·k·b·a·c·k address · Direct link · Email post
>>Barack Obama as the presidential candidate and Hillary Clinton in the VP slot.
Hillary already has been the VP for eight years. Why would she be interested in the same job again?
Moreover, rumour has it that MichelleObama and Hillary cannot stand each other.
M. Nam
No. Bill should go back to Chappaqua until January 20, 2017.
Clinton might be thinking about the long game. If Obama wins the nomination but loses the presidential election, better she not go down with that ship as the VP candidate. Better to position herself for winning the nomination 4 years from now instead.
Clinton might be thinking about the long game. If Obama wins the nomination but loses the presidential election, better she not go down with that ship as the VP candidate. Better to position herself for winning the nomination 4 years from now instead.
On the other hand, a fair number of people might blame her for providing the Republicans with exactly the ammunition they need to attack Obama -- and contributing to his potential defeat. The best way to end that is to commit to helping him win to begin with. If he still loses, she will be absolved.
If Obama picked Richardson, would the KKK and other whackos have less incentive to go after him? Not sure, but considering McCain's age and all the worries about Obama's safety, the veep choices may get more scrutiny than usual.
Can anyone name a potential veep nominee who brings more to the table than Hillary? Only one comes to my mind: John Edwards.
Whoever gets the nomination needs to pick a white male (preferably Southern, preferably with some military cred) if they want to win the general election.
Hot.
It's the same Sam Arora. He was my intern in 2002 and he's amazing.
Must we? I hope not. But I've been away, so who knows what the newest class of commenters is like. Maybe they'll want to discuss the story. One hopes.
Hillary Clinton as veep = Dick Cheney in a pant suit
Do not want
Ek Myan mein do talwar kabhi bhaith nahi sakte :)
Must we? I hope not. But I've been away, so who knows what the newest class of commenters is like. Maybe they'll want to discuss the story. One hopes.
Hi Anna -- I only put that in because it appears one of his main claims to fame on the internet at least is "Capitol Hill's Hottest..." Maybe now with the Vote Both media coverage Google will start to rank his more serious activities highly as well.
Since when do the Clinton's represent the opposite of change? This is news to me.. Clinton and Obama have even admitted that they are much more similar than they are different in both their ideas and views.. between them, it mostly comes down to charisma vs experience
Obama is definitely not my favorite candidate (though I have no intention of throwing my support behind John McCain), but I would be much more inclined to support an Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama ticket if it were possible. If either one of them can set their pride aside and do something good for the Democrats, then maybe. But I doubt it's going to happen.
And yes, Sam Arora is a hottie.
This will be the general election, not a democratic primary fight. Any strengths Hillary Clinton brings to the VP slot (remembering that most people don't pay much attention to the VP slot) are better served by a Jim Webb or someone similar. The whole idea of an Obama/Clinton ticket (sorry hillary-supporters, Clinton ain't going to be the nominee. period.) is predicated on extrapolating conditions in a democratic primary season to a general election fight; I don't think this analogy applies enough to justify her being on the ticket and bringing her high negative ratings (and related clintonian scandals) along for the ride.
To be blunt, McCain's recent comments on appointing right-wing supreme court judges, coupled with the fact that JP Stevens is 88, should give any hardcore Clinton supporter (and they are demographically more likely to be women) pause. With the liberal/moderate judges older than the conservative ones, regarding things like roe v wade, I think a democratic nominee, such as obama, will be far more desirable.
Things change rapidly. not so long ago the worry was that obama wasn't 'black enough' to get the white vote. I will concede that if Clinton proceeds down the path she embarked upon yesterday (asserting that hard-working working class people are white people) she will get the divisions needed to perhaps necessitate her being placed on the ticket. somehow, however, I think being a VP with presumably little influence on the president would not suit her well. A future as senate majority leader seems more a propos.
Magic ball says "doubtful" for Obama/Clinton 08.
>>Magic ball says "doubtful" for Obama/Clinton 08.
There's always this possibility..
M. Nam
between hillary's astonishing "hard-working white americans" comment two days ago, a not-even-coded racist appeal of extraordinary brazenness and ugliness, and her gas-tax-holiday pandering, which is an insult to everyone's intelligence, she really shouldn't be qualified to be obama's dogcatcher at this point, much less his (or anyone else's) v.p. candidate.
but party unity has a way of bandaging all kinds of wounds...
You Amreekans play too nice. If Obama were a thug pol from my home state Maharashtra, forget #2 slot, he would’ve driven her out of senate. Sends a message, nothing personal.
Sam Aurora is way hot! He's got that 1050s slick hairstyle that is evocative of a young Nehru. (For now, we'll ignore the receding hairline, meaning he'll be quite bald by 45.)
Anyway, the fact that someone would spend any amount of time (or even make a full time job out of it) to promote an Obama-Clinton ticket, tells me that he's a twit. What an absurd idea. He must not have read the papers in the last few months.
If there is one man who can unite Obama and Clinton it's Sam Arora. He's the political Tim Tebow. Chuck Norris is the white Sam Arora.
I don't think it will happen. Obama will have to hire a food-taster ;-)
In any case, I don't think Hillary's comment about "...hard-working whites..." is a "not-even-coded racist appeal". She is simply expressing publicly what has happened in the primaries. Blue-collar Democrats (aka Reagan Democrats) are just not gravitating to Obama. Whether they do so in the GE is up in the air. The argument about JPStevens being 88 does not resonate with this group. The Democrats have been making this argument about the courts for years, and it doesn't work; Gore made it, Kerry made it (maybe even Dukakis made it). Bupkus.
I hate the idea of a ticket with Clinton. I'll just quote what I wrote on my blog a few days ago... "I have never understood why Hillary has not lost credibility as a viable candidate. And now they are talking about an Obama-Clinton ticket? But why? With experience, a brand-name in politics and a ton of money; she was unable to beat a junior senator from Illinois. What has she actually done that is so worth noting (in terms of bringing in the votes)? Except benefit from the great white fear such as this woman who believes Obama is the anti-christ from the Middle-east."
Also I don't understand:
Really? How so? If anything, he seems fresher and more revolutionary (to me) after the whole Wright affair. It would have been so easy for him to cut off ties immediately and distance himself. Instead he used the opportunity to speak about race in one of the most eloquent speeches on the subject by a politician in recent times. Only when Wright left him no choice (w/ comments at the National Press Club no less!), did he take an unequivocal stand.
Just because both are democrats does not mean they are the same. Clinton has shown the kind of bull-headed, irrational, selfish stubbornness that I find queasily familar. Throughout her campaign, she has pandered and played to whoever she has an audience with (gas tax is just one example), has lied, and has spouted all kinds of nonsense about Obama being elitist (the gall of a millionnaire calling someone who comes from a middle-class/working class background an elitist stuns the mind). Her vision, her message is fundamentally different.
libran38,
of course it is! "hard-working" + "white" + "american," spoken run-on stylee in the current context (and listen to the audio for the full effect, it's quite chilling) is as racist an appeal as it gets, and i might add, xenophobic to boot. now whether this is conscious or sub-conscious on her part, aware or unaware, i have not idea, but it shouldn't be on us to parse that. she is a political leader and fancies herself qualified to be president, so we should hold her to a high standard.
even peggy noonan (in today's wsj) figured it out. it's that obvious.
truly disgusting, and i hope desis understand that this concerns them, not just "white" versus "black" "americans."
Not sure about a Clinton/Obama ticket, especially after seeing this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMxPajbycgY
sonia, you say, "...spouted all kinds of nonsense about Obama being elitist..."
She didn't say that Obama was elitist, but his remarks were. You should go back and read the transcript of the debate. She makes that very clear.
Quiet Storm, I guess I don't see it that way, regardless of what Peggy Noonan says. Are you saying that she cannot publicly state the demographics that voted for each candidate?
by the way.. in case you hadn't heard... Obama's already asked someone to his running mate:)
Actually she does say that. Not in the debates, but in an interview with umm... I totally don't remember. But you can find the footage at Daily Show. (not the highest source for citation, but it's there). And the context in which she said it was even more smarmy. She said something like, "he did some san francisco benefit with $1000 exclusive fund-raiser"... in other words, "how dare he fundraise for his campaign. Elitist!" And again this coming from a Clinton ... (blechhkk).
Also if you are referring to teh "white people vote for me"... the inherent wrongness of that statement goes deeper than "stating demographics". Teh problem part is where she shamelessly panders to white voters and let's face it, white fear. "White people won't vote for a black president." ---something she wants you to wholeheartedly believe. Even despite stark facts to the contrary.
I would rather be in country run by Bush the 3rd then have to have Hillary on the ticket to beg for racist voters to choose them. If you really need them then it has to be Edwards, who is every older white woman's wet dream or Richardson, who is half white and between Obama and him they make one whole white man so that solves that problem.
I was just beginning to enjoy the fact that she is not going to be the President and you had to post this. Not that I am a big fan of the Bam but he if he is a real patriot he can spare the country the Clinton drama for the next 4 months . With Hill we get Bill and his constant need for attention.
I don't think Clinton is providing the Republican with any special material to bring up during the election. The main thing she talks about is experince, I think the old white man (Mccain) will bring this up during and would have anyways even if Hillary hasn't mentioned it.
One thing that Hillary hasn't brought up is Michelle Obama's Thesis and I think the republican will use it in the future.
31 · Jimmy said
Well, McCain can runs ads showing the 2nd most powerful democrat in the country saying the nominee of her party isn't qualifyed to be commander in chief, his only acomplishment being a speech he gave 4yrs ago. That's pretty good stuff.
No thank you
Webb is the best fit - might be able to turn VA blue, below the Mason Dixon line, has military experience, executive experience (Secretary of Navy) and served under Reagan so he'll help with the independents.
Clark - you really can't beat Supreme Commander of NATO when it comes to military experience, but he offers no regional advantage since he's from Illionis
Rendell - experienced, can really help in winning Pennsylvania, is a strong Clinton supporter, so it would help heal the rift without putting Hillary on the ticket
I don't think Richardson is a good fit for VP - let's be honest, race is a factor. He'd be better suited for something like Secretary of State.
Sebelius would help with the female Hillary supporters, but she can't counter the national security aspect. She might be needed if McCain picks Rice, which I doubt he will.
"of course it is! "hard-working" + "white" + "american," spoken run-on stylee in the current context (and listen to the audio for the full effect, it's quite chilling) is as racist an appeal as it gets,"
To you yes, and to other poc's, but people the most behind a candidate because he/she is of their own color, ethnicity, or religion are always the ones to be most offended at the thought anyone else would vote on such criteria. Let's say you're a typical-white-person youtubing Rev. Wright and his allies, with Obama thinking he explains it all by referencing his "typical-white-person" grandmother's crime of being afraid of crime--need I continue? Of course you may hear what you want to hear. Bill & Hill spent 18 years thinking they had the black vote in a bag, not without good reason. Then up pops the Big O, and poof go those votes. She's bitter mon. and arrogant. She didn't commit to the fact that most blacks will always vote for blacks, browns doubtless will vote heavily for a brown should one ever run; and mestizos for the first mestizo to run, likely to occur in the next couple decades; and in the privacy of their voting booths, whites will tend to vote for whites. Obama is getting most blacks, college students of various races and professional liberals, especially those in gated communities or making more than 100,000 a year. Not so much Hispanics or Asians (meaning Korean and Chinese descent), or the mass of whites, truth be told, though he's getting more of them than anyone would have thought possible two years ago. However, I didn't see a single Obama sign driving through Pennsylvania (yeah, I'm sure they were there, but Ron Paul was all I saw.) I didn't think HC had a chance among working class whites--the firemen at 9/11 booed her when she appeared at a rally in October 2001; but the fact she's still viable shows how deep white mistrust runs--possibly as deep as black mistrust. "here's my vote, Hil; all's forgotten." But no black votes. The Clinton's thought they were special, atypical. They aren't.
Personally I can't stand to listen to any of these phonies. The more I've read about all of them the more their rhetoric rings hollow. What are people smoking to think the lucky winner will "change" anything but his/her own residence and social networking?
Their butts are all run by interests bigger than them. The president of the United States has less power than a mayor. as an aside:
People have been making fun of Bobby Jindal's beliefs, but I swear, even as an agnostic, I think he may be one of the few pols I could actually stomach voting for, and not because he's desi, but because I actually think he's telling the truth about his thoughts and is secure in himself and genuinely able to relate to people of different creed, color, etc. I cannot imagine his exocism beliefs influencing legislature, though god knows, many politicians are sorely in need of exocism.
Now. A little Nostradamus channeling just for fun....
The office of "president" will eventually be admitted to be a mere figurehead, and a sort of committee government will be what actually governs--as it does now, for all intents and purposes, but it is not now elected and is not acknowledged and is composed heavily of corporate interests. It must be public and elected...something tells me this will happen in this country before the end of this century. The country will also divide into regions with different forms of governance. The feelings of division and alienation are that serious. Manhattan and other sacred money-making spaces will become sovereign. Money will unite us up to a point as long as enough people are making a lot of it. But when a unified U.S. ceases to be profitable, it will redistribute itself. Might not be a bad thing. At least we wouldn't have to go through any more of these freakin' election horse races waiting for the poor slobs to break their ankles and get put down, and the one who finishes first to get a blue ribbon ticket to live in the White House for at least 4 years in the service of his/her handlers.
Just in, in time for Mother's Day via TaylorMarsh.com. Thought it would be fun to share here, esp given the normal desi parental assumption that their dreams will be fulfilled via their children.
And Amardeep, I reluctantly disagree with you...blaming Hillary Clinton for pointing our Barry's faults is like shooting the messenger. And it's not like the Republians would've gone easy on him has she not run a campaign against him - not like they have no oppo research wing, right?
Plus, they can find ever more credible, liked-by-their-TA surrogates and spokespersons than a Democratic former First Lady, even if she is Hillary Clinton, to make the case effectively against "57 state" Barack and Michelle "I want to rip [Bill Clinton]'s eyes out" Obama.
I do think she should let this ship sink and make her bid for 2012 in time. If McCain can run in 2000 and win the nomination in 2008, she can surely run in 2012. There's more voters who supported her for Democratic nominee than ANY other Presidential nominee, Republican OR Democrat, in the HISTORY of the United States. Clearly, not too many of these voters blog on dailykos.com :-).
38 · Chevalier said
Plus, they can find ever more credible, liked-by-their-TA surrogates and spokespersons than a Democratic former First Lady, even if she is Hillary Clinton, to make the case effectively against "57 state" Barack and Michelle "I want to rip [Bill Clinton]'s eyes out" Obama.
I do think she should let this ship sink and make her bid for 2012 in time. If McCain can run in 2000 and win the nomination in 2008, she can surely run in 2012. There's more voters who supported her for Democratic nominee than ANY other Presidential nominee, Republican OR Democrat, in the HISTORY of the United States. Clearly, not too many of these voters blog on dailykos.com :-).
What? Of all things you can point against the Obamas, you pick two off-the cuff-statements that were clearly jokes?
Are you hoping for a Republican victory so the old gal can run again in four years? Oh and by the way, the Republicans have, to date, amassed 1600 pages of opposition research against Hilldawg which they are chomping at the bit to throw at her. Obama has shown tremendous restraint in not knee-capping her with this stuff just because the Republicans will inevitably do the same.
38 · Chevalier said
Chevalier:
I've notived a lot of the more strident pro-clinton/anti-obama supporters use "barry" instead of "barack." why is that?
40 · Manju said
"Priya, Priya, Priya"
sam is on sepia mutiny!!!
i go to school with him. i feel famous by association.
41 · Nayagan said
well, something tells whoever calls him barry is going to feel like ernie very soon.
Apologies for the long comment, but here i go...
I think it would be a grave mistake on obama's part (and not quite uniting for the democratic party) to enlist Hillary Clinton as Veep. It would be such a double standard for Obama to do that.
Obama's anti-war, and never wanted to invade Iraq to begin with. Clinton won't apologize for her pro-war vote, and recently made comments about wanting to OBLITERATE the COUNTRY of Iran if they attacked Israel (sounding quite bush-ish). Obama wants to talk to leaders of other countries that we might not agree with. Clinton doesn't.
Most importantly, Obama's got a huge 50 state strategy going on, it's quite impressive, he's showing that every state counts, and has hired community organizers in every state (locals) and has engaged record numbers of citizens in the electoral process and in grassroots organizing. He's already improved the popularity of Dems running for congress in traditionally red states, and cares about all the states. Clinton's repeatedly talked about important states and states that don't matter. She expensively hires outsiders (folks from other states) to "organize" in other states. She doesn't care about half the states in America. And she's offended many states' citizens in the process.
Obama's playing clean. Clinton's publicly said that he's not worthy of being president, and less so than McCain, and that all he has to say for himself is a speech in 2004. WOW. On that note, people here keep talking about Obama/Clinton meaning hope AND experience. WHAT??? Obama's got a total of TWELVE years as elected official by the time he would be president. Clinton will have a total of EIGHT years of elected official by that same time. So we've gotta quit the talking points about her having more experience than he has. Plus his accomplishments in that time (major ethics reform passed, anti-cluster bombs and mines, major other pieces of legislation passed in both illinois and nationally) really beat out any of her accomplishments in that time (renaming post offices (for REAL), voting AGAINST banning cluster bombs and mines, voting to call Iran's national guard a terrorist organization).
It is statistically impossible for Clinton to get the nomination now (for her to get more superdelegates or more of the popular vote or more states). So why is she in the race? Does she have a plan? She hasn't revealed one if she does. So she's dividing the party and taking up resources for no good reason other than... what? And she's run her campaign into debt over and over again.
There are VERY clear differences in obama's and clinton's approach to the issues. And she's pulled out all the stops and has used right-wing tactics right out of karl rove's playbook to attack Obama. It wouldn't make any sense for obama to reach out to clinton as his VP. I personally think Obama should go for Kathleen Sebelius for VP. Or ANYONE BUT CLINTON.
In other news -- Sonia (comment 22) -- RAWK. ditto that.
Pols (comment 34) talks about Clinton and the black vote:
Um, no. Up popped the Big O, and Clinton for a while had MORE popular support among blacks than the Big O did. She and Bill did it to themselves -- they repeatedly made the black vote seem unimportant in various remarks along the campaign trail. And the most recent comments about the need for the dem candidate to win the blue collar hard working vote are outwardly racist (and Clinton TOTALLY knows that). She's also been meeting with the undecided superdelegates to try to convince them that Obama won't be able to win the white vote and that they need to jump to her side because of that. Looking back, I really respect John Edwards for getting out of the race fast and telling people that he did NOT want to be the candidate that folks who didn't want to vote for a woman or a black man voted for (knowing that MOST of his supporters did NOT fit that bill, but hearing that some did). Clinton is doing just the opposite. She HAD huge swaths of the black vote and has since been losing them for good reason. To chalk up the black vote's support for Obama as "blacks will vote for blacks" is just absolutely WRONG. I'm a female and i won't vote for Clinton because she's a WOMAN. She's a war-monger, is divisive to the party for the reasons mentioned above, and in my opinion is hugely less of a feminist than obama is. Obama's got more women on his side, and it's not because they hate themselves. Likewise let's give black voters some credit and some brains here by respecting their vote and not attributing it to just voting for the person who looks like them. And by the way, Obama has HUGE portions of the blue collar white vote. That's a fact that Clinton's trying to create lies around. Again.
Wow. I just took a look at the Vote Both website. There are lies and damned lies on it. Sam Arora and his folks are totally misleading voters (this is not new among the Clinton folks -- she's STILL spreading lies about the election). On the VoteBoth website, the letter that they ask you to write to undeclared superdelegates includes the following talking point:
Fascinating. First of all, Obama is currently ahead in the popular vote (49.5%), the delegate count, and the superdelegate count. One of the VoteBoth founders, Adam Parkhomenko, recently admitted on a news interview that Obama will likely have at least 50.1% of the popular vote (and it will likely be even more than that). Second of all, since when did this qualification of whether or not a candidate receives half or more of the popular vote in a drawn out primary decide who should be on a ticket? (of note, Bill Clinton only received 52% of the popular vote in the 1992 dem primaries). Also, tons of polls in states like New York and New Jersey and California (states that Clinton won in the primaries) are as supportive of Obama in the general election (see Pollster for the actual results of recent polls in those states).
And third and most important, there's an interesting trend here. We have people like George Stephanopolous (former Bill Clinton staffer and very loyal to the Clinton family) starting discussions on national television about the need for a "dream ticket" of both Obama and Clinton. And this VoteBoth site is VERY misleading -- at the bottom of it there is a disclaimer:
However, both Adam Parkhomenko and Sam Arora were very recently staff on the Clinton campaign. Parkhomenko resigned from her campaign 3 weeks prior to starting this website (and had been the executive assistant to Clinton's former campaign manager for years, and had also encouraged Clinton to run for president and was one of the first supporters of her PAC). Arora was recently a spokesperson for Clinton.
So sure the site's not authorized by any candidate (and it's very possible that Clinton has NOTHING to do with the site), but it's definitely SHADY. And as the creator of Voteboth.org (a protest site to voteboth.com) states in the about section:
'nuff said.
Los Anjalis -- nice to hear from you after a long time!
You make some good points, but you don't address what I think might be an important issue here, which is the idea that Clinton will "do what it takes" to win. Obama does need someone who will play the "attack dog" role against the Republicans, and she has proven herself to be someone who can do that. I'm not sure Kathleen Sebelius, or one of the gray-haired elders in the Democratic party that have been mentioned (Biden, Dodd, etc.) for the VP slot are up to the task.
Another issue might be what I call the "appeal" voters. Here, one sould put aside actual records and strengths and weaknesses for a moment, and think "demographically" -- as in, the millions of voters who don't respond to detailed knowledge about a candidate, but who rather vote at a more visceral level. One candidate or another just "appeals" to them, and for the most part you aren't going to change their opinion unless something extraordinary happens. Despite running aggressive campaigns in both Ohio and PA (and outspending Hillary, especially in the latter state), Obama was unable to quite break through to a sizeable chunk of the Democratic base.
It's a mistake to see these voters as racist. Some of them may be, but for a good many of them the idea of an experienced person who talks the way Hillary talks just appeals to them more (she *is* really good on the stump and in debates).
In short, Hillary may have said and done many things in this campaign that are ethically problematic, but many of those sins haven't really registered with most voters as much as they have with Obama supporters & party activists. The bottom line is, she can help Obama win, which is probably why he should consider picking her. (Though conditions are favorable for a Dem. win this fall, it is by no means going to be a cakewalk. He will need all the help he can get.)
Is an Obama/Edwards ticket out of the question? John Edwards certainly seems to be a fan of Obama...
amardeep, the assumption that hillary helps obama win is highly contestable. hillary is going to go out as a graceless loser, and that's not a good energy to put in front of swing voters. beyond that, look to the "fav/unfav" i.e. the favorable versus unfavorable opinion rating of each poltician, which is one metric that actually has some usefulness. her unfavs have always been high and if anything are getting higher. obama needs to pick someone with lower unfavorables, at a minimum, and the assumption that such a person can't also fight hard and take it to the opposition is false. i think the vice presidential nominee will be someone like mark warner of virginia, who is widely liked, can fight hard, and delivers a big swing state.
Obama cannot choose Clinton for the same reason McCain can't choose Jindal. In both cases the choice of said VPs undermines the core argument in favor of the P. Change for Obama and experience for McCain.
47 · coach diesel said
that would make a lot of sense. edwards has a strong base and would help obama out with hard working americans, white americans; complementing obama's base of lazy americans, black americans.
the problem is that edwards is considered particularly machiavellian in democratic circles. kerry, who is as responsible as anyone for obama's rise, hates him now. he thinks he undermined him during the 2004 general and announced his run for '08 when after promising kerry he'd give him right to first refusal.
i don't think obama want to piss off kerry, and may view edwards suspiciously himself; but otherwise he'd make a good pick...purely politically speaking.
Yes, vote both. A McCain-Clinton ticket would be a very satisfactory end to Rush's operation chaos.
I thought this topic was about Sam Arora and not who is gonna be who running mate.
52 · Suki Dillon said
Suki: you're clueless.
45 · Los Anjalis said
I appreciate the criticism, and thank you for pointing out the numbers so we can adjust our Write-a-Delegate page. We are up front that two of us used to work for Sen. Clinton, but VoteBoth.com is not pro-HRC or BHO. It is about putting these two candidates together on a ticket to go into the general election united and strong. BHO and HRC have turned out record numbers of Democratic voters and raised over $450 million. We believe that Barack and Hillary united put Democrats in the strongest possible position we can be to take on the Republican machine.
The campaigns have been at war for 16 long months, and public polling indicates notable candidate-polarization right now, so I guess it's not suprising that some on both sides poo-poo the idea out of hand. But I hope that, after the primary election dust settles, cooler heads can prevail and discuss seriously what ticket puts the Democratic Party on the strongest footing to finish the race ahead.
Thanks for taking the time to debate the issue, and I hope the discussion keeps going. It's good for our Party.
Right on los anjalis lady. If "blacks will vote for blacks" was a default, then the black vote would have been more effectively mobilized a long time ago. (ex. remember Colin Powell's name popping up briefly ten years ago?). And I didn't know Edwards issued a statement that said...
Good for him. Now that's grace.
From Amardeep:
Sigh. Where to begin? Firstly, Obama does not need Hillary to play "attack dog" or whatever against the Republicans. I sincerely hope this does not ever become a strategy. Put another way, if (tragically) Hillary does get running mate, I hope this is not the reason.
Obama's own method for winning over the Republican senate has been far more graceful, egalitarian and sensible than anything Hillary has done. Please read this. Hilzoy's excellent post on Obama's senate voting record. Here's an excerpt:
I doubt this is true. To me it seems that more HRC supporters are behind this idea than Obama supporters. Many Obama supporters absolutely HATE the diea--and for good reason, too. It isn't as great of a ticket that people are making it out to be. HRC will bring a lot of negatives with her as well. And I don't think small positives will override the negative impact of her on the ticket.
From Sam
One thing that is undeniable is that the longer Clinton chooses to drag her campaign out, the dimmer the prospect becomes of her being invited to be the V.P. (A silver lining, in my opinion). "Vote Both", as far as I can see, has no stance on this glaring reality. It's amusing to me that emassing votes is the strategy used by "Vote Both" since Clinton clearly has no regard for the concept of...you know...votes (sound familiar?).
Also my two cents on "candidate-polarization": I am highly dubious of the implication that the whirlwind of ill-will that Clinton has garnered by continuing in the race is matched by Obama. While I am sure there are staunch Clinton-supporters out there, I am equally certain those folks who liked both of them (and would have liked to see a joint ticket) are quickly loosing their appetite for Clinton.
Apologize for the mad commenting on this one, but I had to share this excellent article on Clinton and black voters.
Sam reminds me of Ben Stiller in that photo.
60 · Zen said
I was beginning to think I was the only one who thought that.
Amardeep, I think it is insane to suggest Clinton as VP. Not only has her style of politics been anathema for Obama-supporters, I can't see her "attack dog" style being a pro for the campaign (and indeed, I would think it a liability). There exists an, in my opinion, ill-founded assumption that working class white folks in the "rust belt" just will not vote Obama. I don't think that's true; it's certainly the case that some may choose to vote McCain, but just as New York and CA are going to vote for whoever the Dem is (regardless of whether Clinton is on the ticket), there are similar voters in OH/PA, etc. I would seriously worry that Obama would lose independent and cross-over candidates if Clinton, who is much more polarizing, were on the ticket. Clinton adds NO value to the ticket if they're together. I think this suggestion comes from the perception that HRC might opt gracefully for an alternative to Presidential nominee instead of bleeding the Democratic Party dry. Maybe I am really cynical, but I can't see her doing anything that benefits anyone but herself (including exiting).
ANNA -- you've been missed!
For many, the Clintons represent establishment Democrat politics. Is that really news/new to you? Thank you, ST, for making me spill my coffee chortling. :)
I'm just back from West Virginia campaigning for Hillary - so no, I won't make any pretenses to un-biasedness.
But just to clear up a few things:
* Most of the people I met - and I met a LOT of Hillary supporters in public places, don't necessarily match the demographic of old hicks, racists, etc. Most of our volunteers were fairly young, and both men and women.
* A lot of them do take issue with being clubbed into an 'appeal voter' demographic - that's just 'low-information voter' in kinder words. They're more well-informed than the average Obama voter I meet at home, in fact more so because they've actively avoided heavy, heavy pro-Obama media biases and actually sifted through to the data and policies. Many of them could intelligently argue the pros and cons of, say, universal healthcare.
* One of them pointed me to the latest news - that McCain is, indeed, hitting out at Obama using this campaign - but not in the way you'd think: From the McCain campaign this morning: '”Fatal Attraction” comparisons are kind of TABOO but that isn’t stopping the Obama campaign. Check out the story here. ABC’s Jake Tapper’s analysis is right on here: “I'd posit at the very least that it's not keeping with Obama's lofty campaign rhetoric to compare Clinton's tenacity to psychosis”. '
* Most of them started out pro-Obama, or ambiguous, like I did. Through the last few months, they shifted away from him, as they saw how he ran his campaign (direct quote: Barack Obama talks about how he will bring people together, in direct contradition to the campaign he's been running - I've never felt so unwanted as a Democrat in my life, or more looked-down-upon. I thought this was the party that looked at every human being as equal). And they saw nearby Obama supporters who seemed to have forgotten the rules of public discourse and how human civilization has cultivated the art of polite disagreement.
* I saw the belligerence of Obama supporters, yet again. Funnily enough, two months ago in Texas, we had to stand up to both, Obama supporters as well as Republicans who hated the Clintons. Now in WV, the Obama supporters were even more bellicose in their victory (like their leader?). I actually had a few Republicans say they admire the woman for her guts in the face of adversity. One man, out walking his dog, actually said "she stands for everything I believe in, y'know, her strength and human spirit and self-determination. I always thought Democrats were liars and thieves - for the first time in 55 years, if it is Hillary Clinton vs. McCain, I'll have to think seriously about the Democrat". (Of course, he seemed like he meant every word of it, and promised to donate, even asked for a Hillary sticker - but since he put the sticker immediately on his dog, I don't know what to think :-))
* Me, personally: I'm one of those people who would rather "bathe in urine" than vote for Barry Obama. Sam, I'd be VERY reluctant to support an Obama/Clinton ticket, or even a Clinton/Obama one. I do believe Obama's popularity is in line with typical American high-school camps - the nerds vs. the kewl guys, and this country needs to embrace wonkishness and move beyond superficiality if we're ever going to get ahead.
* In many ways, Barack Obama is not very different from what George Bush was in 2000 - and he may very well win, like Bush did vs. Gore: the same combination of easy charm, 'Bring change in Washington' platform, low content but high faultin' rhetoric of 'middle-of-the-road' policies, etc etc. the rhetoric in direct contradiction to the past history of the candidate - George Bush talked about cleaning up the White House, and Barry has never done anything to prove he can bring people together or fight the good fight or 'change' anything - people, processes, or policies.
* As a self-respecting human being, I cannot support a misogynistic, Jay-Z quoting candidate and his campaign.
Tina Fey, et al. appeared to have turned on Hillary?
http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/play.shtml?mea=250052
62 · Chevalier said
* One of them pointed me to the latest news - that McCain is, indeed, hitting out at Obama using this campaign - but not in the way you'd think: From the McCain campaign this morning: '”Fatal Attraction” comparisons are kind of TABOO but that isn’t stopping the Obama campaign. Check out the story here. ABC’s Jake Tapper’s analysis is right on here: “I'd posit at the very least that it's not keeping with Obama's lofty campaign rhetoric to compare Clinton's tenacity to psychosis”. '
So disingenuous. It was a Congressman supporting Obama who said this, and the Congressman promptly apologized for it. It did not come from the campaign. And the McCain campaign admiring Clinton's "tenacity"? Oh, please. No self-interest there.
Ugh. And I still cannot quote properly to save my life. Is there an FAQ that deals with this?
Chevalier said:
Dear Chevalier:
Please read this diary right here before you go any further about obama's "cool kids" and "low content but high falutin'" and "never done anything to prove he can bring people together or fight the good fight" BS you're spouting. Then come back and tell me if you REALLY think Obama hasn't really accomplished something, or if Hillary Clinton has accomplished much more than renaming post offices or has really tried to take a risk on legislation.
And by the way, again: Obama will have had 12 years of legislative experience and broad bipartisan support of his legislative moves, Clinton will only have had 8 and meh accomplishments legislatively. If you want to get down and dirty about who is trying to act like the cool kid or bully, you've gotta have your facts straight about what they've actually accomplished.
I appreciate that you're a self respecting human being, but where in the world do you get that Obama is a misogynist? he's in fact got the support of hordes of feminist leaders in America and growing numbers of young women and I have no idea what you're referencing in calling him a misogynist.
Oh, and I do believe that many of those WV who will be voting for Hillary on Tuesday are the quintessential "low information voter." This article for the Financial Times sheds some light on that. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2a50425a-1f86-11dd-9216-000077b07658,s01=1.html
When you people have who are convinced that Obama is a Muslim and his wife is an atheist despite all the evidence to the contrary, I think you are dealing with an inalterably closed mind.
Thus, I do not know useful a "unity" ticket will be. If there are voters who won't vote for Obama based on total misinformation passed off as gospel truth, there is nothing that Clinton on the ticket can do to change that.
I'm an independent but leaning towards the Democrats, specifically Obama (I would vote for Clinton if she becomes the Democratic nominee).
Brown people like Sam Arora and Neera Tandon make me want to go out and vote for Obama or McCain. Hillary should NOT have these type of brown folks on her staff ;p
Obama/any woman 08'
We're supposed to be good with words yet no one has sounded the Palindrome Alert?
Chevalier,
I would love it if you made sense.
*Nobody assumes that all of Hillary supporters were racists or old or whatever you seemed to be implying. So the fact that lots of young people support Clinton is not at all surprising.
*"Barack Obama talks about how he will bring people together". How dare he. How does his campaign contradict this? I can list 10 things easily off the top of my head that Clinton does to contradict this.
*When was Obama ever bellicose after his win? Was it when he said that Clinton would make a fine v.p. or even president?
*And oh... republicans support clinton? and call her ripping apart the democratic party a "tenacity"? That's shocking. (extreme sarcasm).
*You would rather "bathe in urine" than vote for Obama? (that doesn't sound like a terribly "ambigous" place.) I would never make that same statement about Clinton. I could never vote for a candidate who is pro-war, pro-life (among other things), at the end of the day. And the fact that you are equate Clinton w/ McCain more than w/ Obama tells me a LOT about the Clinton campaign. Comparing somebody like Bush whose father was a two-term president, who spent his whole life coasting on his family's legacy, and who "won" an election that was a shame to our democratic process to someone like Obama who is... none of the above. And "easy charm" what?
*"Obama has not done anything to bring people together".. again.. I have to just say, "what the hell are you talking about?"...
*"In many ways he is not much different than Bush?".. what??..Did you reach this conclusion when Obama voted Against the war in Iraq, and Hillary voted for it?
66 · los anjalis said
there's a big obama-is-a-misogynist out there in feminist dogwhstle land. It includes:
1. some sexist rap song that alledgedy played at one of his campaign rallys. unclear wheter it actually happenned.
2. he pulled out a chair for her at the debate
3. he said he didn't know which clinton he's runnig against
4. he said " "I understand that Senator Clinton, periodically when she’s feeling down, launches attacks..." (that's the best one.)
5. said she's not only throwing the kitchen sink but also dishes, spoons, etc, or something to that affect (psycho woman)
6. he said the race wouldn’t be over until she dropped out (too arrogant)
@ Suffragette Manju
At the height of the bittergate controversy, Obama, at a rally, made a reference to brushing off attacks, like "brushing the dirt off your shoulders," which is the name of a Jay-Z song. Jay-Z is a mysogynistic rapper and since Obama was supposedly quoting one of his songs, he is obviously a misogynist himself, or something like that.
Well, countless examples of his softness on misogyny, and his active pushing of sexist memes about Hillary. Which is why I would be reluctant to support a Clinton/Obama ticket. Taking just ONE 'women's rights' issue, abortion rights, this is just the beginning of what I have:
* He's pro-parental choice - that's one of the first slippery steps to curtailing abortion rights (better explained here: http://bitchphd.blogspot.com/2008/04/obama-supports-parental-consent-laws.html)
* He voted to stop a filibuster on Alito (a filibuster which Hillary supported)
* He's said weirdly conciliatory things like "I believe that women should have some control over their bodies and themselves" and that the decision regarding abortion "generally is one that a woman should make."
* At a Planned Parenthood conference, Obama emphasized the need for pro-choice groups to align themselves with religious and community groups that are also working on reducing unintended pregnancy (except that, those religious groups preach pregnancy-reduction via abstinence, and are strongly opposed to birth control)
* He voted to strip millions of dollars from a child welfare office on Chicago's West Side (June 2002). His defence: he pushed the wrong button by mistake. During his eight years in state office, Obama hit the wrong button at least six times.
* And he's often gone on record stating that pro-choicers "do not acknowledge the wrenching moral issues involved in [abortion...]"
* He was okay with Roberts at the supreme court, saying he admired Roberts’ intellect and if he were President, he wouldn’t want his nominees overturned on ideological grounds (I mean, of course, you should appoint your supreme court judges based on maybe their taste in music?). His own chief of staff had to point out to him that if he voted for Roberts, he’d be held accountable for every conservative vote Roberts made, which would be bad for his career. of course, as with Wright, when it came to potential aspersions on his character he voted against Roberts’ confirmation.(more on his website: http://obama.senate.gov/press/050922-remarks_of_sena/), "Pete's very good at looking around the corners of decisions and playing out the implications of them," Obama said an interview when asked about that discussion. "He's been around long enough that he can recognize problems and pitfalls a lot quicker than others can."
* Some of his quotes on this issue (from http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/04/how-presidents-faith-can-affect-us-all.html):
"And what I have consistently talked about is to take a comprehensive approach where we focus on abstinence, where we are teaching the sacredness of sexuality to our children.";
"My view is, is that we should use whatever the best approaches are, the scientifically sound approaches are, to reduce this devastating disease [HIV/AIDS] all across the world. And part of that, I think, should be a strong education component and I think abstinence education is important.";
"I do think that -- and I've said this when I was in Kenya -- that there is a behavioral element to AIDS that has to be addressed. And if there is -- if there's promiscuity and we are pretending that that's not an issue in spreading AIDS, then we're missing part of the answer."
well this seems to be receiving some publicity, particularly the affiliations of those running voteboth:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/36639.html
and there's an anti-voteboth site up at: http://voteboth.org/
Well first, Clinton's not going to lead the ticket so best-case hypothetical for you it's Obama/Clinton. And second, even if its Obama and someone else, the alternative is McCain, and if you're concerned about reproductive rights the thought of several conservative judges being appointed in the near future (JP's getting old..) should make your choice clear.
And, I'm sure attorney and executive Michelle would find the characterization of her liberal husband, and father of two daughters, as sexist rather amusing..
Jay-Z? seriously? Hahaha, hilarious! let's just say I've seen many a feminist get down to jay-z at the club or elsewhere.
Congrats on WV though, 37th most populous state and chock-full of hard-working americans (I would say white, but apparently that's redundant!) unlike us lazy colored bastards elsewhere..
73 Chevalier's list is rather strange. 90% of which implies that you are extremely concerned about women's reproductive rights. Which is odd then if you'd "rather bathe in urine" than vote for Obama, knowing that McCain is pro-life. All extremely shady.
I didn't know about the AIDS quote, that will be googled promptly.
Wow. Some Clinton supporters seemed to have really defined mysogyny down. Earlier on the campaign trail, Obama said he did not want his daughters "punished" with a pregnancy, meaning he doesn't want obstacles placed before their their access to abortion. But he is somehow soft on choice? Yeah.
Well, not to get into a Clinton vs. Obama again - we've derailed this thread for too long, and I apologize for my part in this derailment.
But jackal, being a father of two daughters is no cure for misogyny. Millions and billions of examples - trust I don't need to bring those up.
Suffragette Manju - no, it's not only that his campaign played a Jay-Z song ("99 problems and a bitch aint one"?? Seriosuly? please tell me someone in the campaign knows English). while he strolled triumphantly into his victory party in Iowa. Obama himself QUOTED a Jay-Z song, made lewd gestures while referencing Clinton, and pretended to wipe the dirt off his shoulders and the poop off his shoe. It was a dogwhistle, loud and clear, in the great tradition of George W. Bush.
And finally, all of this is just my reasoning for why I won't vote for Obama. Come what may. Especially because we as 'progressives' need to build outrage against such behaviour, not condone it because some of us think the guy's "kewl", or Harvard-educated, or calls himself the agent of "hope and change" or whatever. WTF????!!!!!
If I want another sexist in the White House, I'd just pick McCain 'cause I know he'll never win a second term, and the pain will be extreme but quickly done with. Better to have a Republican in the WH than a pseudo-progressive who'll block a real progressive's ticket.
I've stuck with Democrats mostly not because I like donkeys more than elephants, but because their values have resonated with mine. Now if Obama's on the ticket, that's not the case. So I'll just take my boobs and stay home. And I hope to encourage a lot of others to do the same.
He wiped off the dirt that was being thrown at him at the debate. Dirt that she was not only allowing and encouraging, but also adding to it. And before saying, they were justifiable questions. Notice how he didn't push back until he finally had to. He didn't mention the Weather Underground connection to the Clintons till she went gleefully expanded after he had given his answer.
And that's nothing compared to everything he could've thrown right back at her. Like there isn't dirt on the Clintons? Almost every accusation they threw at him--from flagpins to Farakhan to the Nation of Islam to Jeremiah Wright(not to mention the earlier "plagiarism" accusation --he could've just brought out Clinton connections to the very same accusations. But nope, he didn't do that until he was pretty much forced to because she decided to take advantage of his decision not to play tit for tat in mud-slinging.
And again, the brushing the dirt off the shoulders is not SPECIFICALLY a Jay-Z thing. It was understood by older bloggers and news commentators as him brushing it off, till the Jay-Z connection was brought up by the comments following the initial report.
It is an expression that is widely understood now.
And Listening to Jay-Z is not sexist? I don't argue the problems in Hip-Hop. But what?
So... what does that make Hillary Clinton? After all, Timbaland hosted a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton. (Aside from whole hypocrisy when compared to the sheer political ploy of the Sister Souljah incident with Bill Clinton.)
Not to mention Hugh Hefner and his donations to Hillary Clinton.
So please, stop equating a reference to sexism. Because if we're going to go that route, then well pretty much everyone is guilty.
Comment 79: That second line in the first paragraph should be: "and before you say the were justifiable questions." not saying
I agree with "De-luker" -- if we're going to play the guilt by associations game, we might as well play it with Clinton too.
If: Obama "brushes dirt off shoulders" ==> Obama endorsing Jay-Z ==> Obama is a sexist
Then by that logic: Bill Clinton committed serial adultery, sexual harrassment ==> Hillary remained married to Bill, forgave him ==> Hillary sexist too.
Not that I'm endorsing that kind of thinking. In fact, I think it's pretty silly.
Chevalier, you really need to tone it down. There is no credible evidence that Obama is a sexist whatsoever, and your attempt to tar him with that label shows that you're a little loosed from reality. Judge Obama by his policies and record, not by these silly insinuations.
to equate Clinton with "progressive", and Obama with "sexist" requires a suspension of belief in reality and logic that is the core characteristic of the current Clinton campaign.
I have never seen a flimsier laundry list. (he used the word, "some"! gasp!). What is next? Is he way too good-looking and is therefore "GQ and elitist".
When Listening to Jay-z or not even that...making some reference to his lyrics (where the ref. itself has nothing to do w/ sexism or gender or anything) is considered "mysogyny", that's the day all of us feminists can go home and sleep soundly. The example you have cited as "dog-whistle" is a fine example of subverting legitamite women's issues into a menacing political correctness issue. It's the 2008-political/election version of emmett till. Very thankfully, this is first place I have seen this nonsense peddled as legitamite poltical criticism so that's good.
78 · Chevalier said
But jackal, being a father of two daughters is no cure for misogyny. Millions and billions of examples - trust I don't need to bring those up. Suffragette Manju - no, it's not only that his campaign played a Jay-Z song ("99 problems and a bitch aint one"?? Seriosuly? please tell me someone in the campaign knows English). while he strolled triumphantly into his victory party in Iowa. Obama himself QUOTED a Jay-Z song, made lewd gestures while referencing Clinton, and pretended to wipe the dirt off his shoulders and the poop off his shoe. It was a dogwhistle, loud and clear, in the great tradition of George W. Bush.
And finally, all of this is just my reasoning for why I won't vote for Obama. Come what may. Especially because we as 'progressives' need to build outrage against such behaviour, not condone it because some of us think the guy's "kewl", or Harvard-educated, or calls himself the agent of "hope and change" or whatever. WTF????!!!!!
If I want another sexist in the White House, I'd just pick McCain 'cause I know he'll never win a second term, and the pain will be extreme but quickly done with. Better to have a Republican in the WH than a pseudo-progressive who'll block a real progressive's ticket. I've stuck with Democrats mostly not because I like donkeys more than elephants, but because their values have resonated with mine. Now if Obama's on the ticket, that's not the case. So I'll just take my boobs and stay home. And I hope to encourage a lot of others to do the same.
I, as a progressive, take more issue with Ms. Clinton wanting to "obliterate" Iran and voting in favor of a needless war of choice, and not really regretting it to this day. Perhaps Obama is better of choosing a running mate who shares the values of multilateralism and diplomacy rather than someone who has exhibited poor judgment.
since
james carvillechevalier is a little shy to name the "millions and billions" of examples of grandmaster obama's mysogyny, let me help him out some more:7. ”The claws come out” comment
8. Powers calls her "a monster" (unhinged, fatal attraction woman meme)
9. He gave her the finger (i think that's what he chevalier meant by "lewd gesture")
A couple clarifications and I'm off:
* A lot of the surprised reactions from y'all are not because these facts don't exist, or exist in my head only. These facts exist, and have been often catalogued, and extensively talked about. You may not have heard them before, and so react with "There is no credible evidence that Obama is a sexist whatsoever,". This state of affairs is because any meaningful online "dialogue" in this primary had stopped about three-four months ago, when the dial was turned permanently up in mainstream media and blogs to Obama. The self-correcting blogosphere became a shadow of what MSM had become, for a few years immediately post 9/11. Dissent, disagreement has not been tolerated, any counter viewpoints have usually been ridiculed, usually with far less graciousness than I've seen so far on this blog, really. Desis are still polite in their anger, huh?
Hillary supporters then went "on strike" from mainstream online America, went completely underground, and created their own blogs and platforms and webrings where they could speak without ridicule, blog without constant trolling, share analysis, thoughts and facts and yes, 'feelings' on the primaries as they played out, in a 'safe' environment. This is what any refugees do, any survivors do, when they're publicly pit against a majority screaming for their blood and gore, often ridiculing them - they band together. A lot of these blogs are not 'hidden' in any way - you just need to want to find them. Most people don't, because it's easier to find people that only agree with you. That's what happened to passionate supporters on BOTH sides. Unfortunatley, that also means that we've re-created the right/left divide in the 'progressive' media as well, and each half lives in its own sweet alternate reality.
* Manju - I didn't mean there were millions of examples of Obama's unapologetic, carefree misogyny. I meant that there were a million examples of fathers of two (or more) daughters being misogynistic. EXTREME example (not connected to present discussion) - Josef Fritzl
* Amardeep - you do have my eternal respect for the stuff that you write, because you usually tend to see all sides of the picture (apparently, except in presidential primaries). But anyone who says "the Clintons represent the opposite of 'change'" has only bought into David Axelrod's kool-aid, IMHO.
* On the Iran comment - I personally also found it WAY too extreme in articulation, but the content was in fact exactly what every POTUS has always stood by. That is what deterrence means - "if you strike, we will strike back harder". In fact, Barack Obama's comment on Pakistan was worse, because he wasn't talking about bombing Pakistan if they attacked anyone, but merely if they didn't allow American military into the country to pull out suspected terrorists. We now have years of proof that American 'suspicions' amount to zilch reality, that they often have incorrect information & intelligence (e.g. the Chinese embassy bombed in Africa a couple years ago 'by mistake'). If that doesn't work, substitute "India" for "Pakistan" or whatever city/village/t