By Tony Wicher, August 23 at 9:43 am

cyrena,

I think it’s your memory. What about Ted Kennedy’s challenge to Carter in 1980? Of course he didn’t get the nomination and only helped Reagan win - a disaster.

~~~~

Thanks Tony, for the memory jog. I figured if anybody remembered such an event, it would be you. Hell, that was 28 years ago. I can’t remember half of what happened 5 minutes ago. (my memory must be very selective, eh? At least that’s what some of my critics like to accuse me of. )

Anyway, thanks again. You’re worth your weight in gold. (and cheaper than Aricept I’m sure).

By cyrena, August 23 at 7:56 am #

By TheRealFish, August 23 at 4:09 am

• “You want Obama to always be looking for political car-bombs on every corner throughout his first term, have him pick Hillary-Billary (the political tag-team). She will run against him in ought-12 anyway, so why give her that extra advantage of being able to sabotage him for four years?”

Hi RealFish,

Good to hear from you. You mentioned something here about Hillary running against Obama again in 4 years, and this has been mentioned on a number of occasions, during this exceedingly long campaign period. And, each time it comes up, I always mean to pose this question, (because apparently I’m confused) and then I get side tracked.

So, while it’s on still on my mind…I’m curious to know why so many people assume that Hillary, (or any other Democrat for that matter) would even be able to run against Obama, (or any other incumbent Democrat) in the next go-round, unless he decided not to run for another term. I’ve tried to search my memory for such a time in either party, when that has occurred, but I can’t think of any, and that may just be my memory.
—————————————————————————-
cyrena,

I think it’s your memory. What about Ted Kennedy’s challenge to Carter in 1980? Of course he didn’t get the nomination and only helped Reagan win - a disaster.

re: Tony Wicher

A noble action. I sure hope the Senator gets to read your thoughtful suggestion.
Thank you.

Hurray, Obama picked Biden, my first choice! I just sent him a contribution and the following message:

Joe,

I have long admired your savvy in foreign affairs. I would like to see your administration institute a policy of realistic negotiations aimed at peace and the strengthening of international law. “Terrorists” are international criminals and can only be dealt with by an effective international police force. Please have the United States join the World Court and agree to abide by its decisions. In a peaceful world we can cut our military budget and use the money for domestic priorities.

Thanks for all you do.

By TheRealFish, August 23 at 4:09 am

•  “You want Obama to always be looking for political car-bombs on every corner throughout his first term, have him pick Hillary-Billary (the political tag-team). She will run against him in ought-12 anyway, so why give her that extra advantage of being able to sabotage him for four years?”

Hi RealFish,

Good to hear from you. You mentioned something here about Hillary running against Obama again in 4 years, and this has been mentioned on a number of occasions, during this exceedingly long campaign period. And, each time it comes up, I always mean to pose this question, (because apparently I’m confused) and then I get side tracked.

So, while it’s on still on my mind…I’m curious to know why so many people assume that Hillary, (or any other Democrat for that matter) would even be able to run against Obama, (or any other incumbent Democrat) in the next go-round, unless he decided not to run for another term. I’ve tried to search my memory for such a time in either party, when that has occurred, but I can’t think of any, and that may just be my memory.

Still, in US politics, it seems pretty standard to keep the incumbent in office, and so the incumbent (to my knowledge) is never challenged by a member of his/her own party. Now if anybody can think of a time when that has occurred, I’d be interested to know it, just for the sake of knowing what the circumstances might have been. But my guess is that the Party would not support such an endeavor, and so it would be necessary for Hillary to run against him on a different party platform, if in fact that’s what she decides to do. Now I certainly wouldn’t put it past her to do that, because otherwise, she’d have to wait until 2016, which is what I’d been keeping in mind all along, as I observed her desperation in winning this contest by any means necessary. The old girl will be what 73 or 74 by then? Now I’m not suggesting that would be too old, *if* she was ever presidential material to begin with. But, with no more ‘experience’ (at this point at least) than Barack Obama, the best she’d have to offer 8 years from now, would be an additional 8 years in the Senate. And that’s based on whether or not she can even hold that seat.

Anyway, I’m just curious about the whether or not anybody can think of another time when a first term incumbent has been challenged by a member from his own party.

Purple Girl,

You hit the bulls-eye again here:

•  “…If you think the Neo Cons did a Job on the Republican party…You need to SEE what the DLC has been doing to the Democratic party..All funded with the help of the Corps who sponsor them….. Beware my fellow Democrats there are Wolves in sheeps clothing in OUR party too!”

Truer words have rarely been spoken, and I would add Hillary Rodham to the list. Im fact, as the Wal-Mart Girl, (and before that, a Goldwater Girl) she probably started the list. Bill was right there too, as he put his signature on the NAFTA deal, already in the final stages when he took it over from pops bush.

I have always been puzzled why Obama backers wanted Chuck Hagel for his running mate. Perhaps they never looked at where he stood on the other issues besides the war?
http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Chuck_Hagel.htm

Posted a Biden profile on another thread from Al Jazeera, anyone interested should check it out. The real question for Senator Obama is: will this help him win the election? It has been stated recently that at least 10% of Hilary Clinton women supporters are going to vote for McCain. This seems incomprehensible when you consider that the Arizona Senator is an anathema on womens’ rights. What kind of irrational spite could trigger this? Don’t ask me, that’s above my pay grade.
Still, Senator Obama is going to need a large turnout to achieve electoral success. Both Therealfish and Purple Girl make salient points about the Clinton crime family, or for that matter, the whole rotten Democratic Leadership Council, who have diligently worked harder than anyone else to destroy the bedrock principles that at one time, the Democratic party actually believed in.
It might be a wise idea to dust off a copy of the Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli, to fathom what kind of diabolical treachery the Clintons have up their sleeves.

Let’s consider:

Wolfsen is now a special commentator on Fox Noise.

The Clinton primaries strategy playbook (as leaked through memos) showed the conscious attempt to paint a grandson of a WWII war hero as alien and un-American.

Bill Clinton’s strongest support to-date: “Uh, anybody who is a US citizen and 45 is qualified to be president… .”

And, lest we forget, there were two whole months of “I’m qualified, John McCain is qualified” and Obama can utter speech without drooling… pretty much.

This doesn’t help Dem party unity, but that is simply too, too much baggage—especially since she actually has no more economic or foreign policy experience than Obama OR McCain (and what *are* McCain’s bona fides in those arenas, really? Being in the military by itself doesn’t do it, does it Senator Kerry? No. The founders were quite emphatic about having a CIVILIAN lead the military anyway—that’s why they made the CIVILIAN “commander in chief” the one in the top slot; tends to discourage reckless military action, such as we had with military-lite Bush Jr. and as McCain promises against Iran and Russia after he re-institutes the draft).

You want to kill the remnants of American life as we knew it, McCain is your man, and it doesn’t matter who stands by his side.

You want Obama to always be looking for political car-bombs on every corner throughout his first term, have him pick Hillary-Billary (the political tag-team). She will run against him in ought-12 anyway, so why give her that extra advantage of being able to sabotage him for four years?

Anyone who supported Hillary needs to do a fact check on the group she & Hubby Joined in ... 1984-THE DLC
These folks have got to stop looking at what is between (or not between) her legs and pay attention to what and Who she is affiliated with.The DLC is the Blue arm of Corp Influence in our Gov’t..AKA NEO CONS in Blue
Oh they’ll blow smoke u0p your asses about social issues- but then vote to support Corp interests. NAFTA, Repeal Affirmaitive action,Iraq Invasion, BEAt Drums to Pre emptively strike Iran, Take on Russia (for no reason- Georgian Pres is a Puppet).
Over the years I have had to Re check what party some ‘Dems’ names are listed under…I have been rather baffled by their rhetoic..They are DLC’ers.those who have come up with the Oxymoron term “Reagan Democrats”- No such beast ever lived.But, much like theeir counterparts donned in Red, Twisting reality is one of their tactics.
Democrats Hated Reagan- Union buster, AIDS,Poverty,Gang violence ignorer, Deinstitutionalization leading to Homelessness, explosion, Iran Contra back room dealer,Corp Embezzlers protector, first life sized Puppet for the Corps.
hasn’t any of these ‘Hillraisers’ figured out she is one of the most avid supporter of the Corp agenda? Did they not see & hear her ‘Red Slips’.
‘endorsed’ Mac
“Obliterate Iran”
Patronizing ‘Hope’
Pitting the Equal Rights movements Gender against Race
Using Racism with aid of Geradine (DLC’er) & Bill
Refusal to - acknowledge Iran a major mistake
        Concede- even Now
        play by the DNC rules in MI & FL
       
If you think the Neo Cons did a Job on the Republican party…You need to SEE what the DLC has been doing to the Democratic party..All funded with the help of the Corps who sponsor them.
Other DLC’er who I am glad did not get the VP spot- who once you skim off their meager claims to being ‘Dems’ you find Corp interests being served
Bayh
Sebilius
Gore
J.Edwards
Beware my fellow Democrats there are Wolves in sheeps clothing in OUR party too!

re: Tony Wicher

Thank you for your kind and thoughtful response to my frustrated post. It seems to me that not participating in a corrupt and corrupting system is an act of satyagraha. To say that by not voting for these candidates your voice will not be heard, is to ignore the obvious: your voice is already ignored. The majority of the U.S. population want the Iraq occupation ended, and if I recall correctly, this was the main reason for the democratic gains in the mid term election. But what has been done? The funding for this enterprise continues unabated.
When told that over 70% of the country was opposed to the Iraq war, Vice President Cheney replied: “so?”
So much for even the idea of democracy.

Ok, here’s a slightly more well known source for the info on the Joe Biden selection for Obama’s VP

I would have preferred Hagel myself, but Joe’ll do as well as any of the rest of them I suppose.

http://www.cbsnews.com/

According to a Newsmax piece, (I don’t hold them particularly reliable, but no reason to lie on this) The ‘pick’ is Joe Biden.

Re Beerdoctor

Your post reminds me of the wit and wisdom of the late great George Carlin:

“Two reasons I don’t vote. First of all, it’s meaningless. This country was bought and sold and paid for a long time ago. The shit they shuffle around every four years doesn’t mean a fuckin’ thing.

And secondly I don’t vote, because I believe that if you vote, you have no right to complain. People like to twist that around, I know. They say, “well, if you don’t vote, you have no right to complain,” but where’s the logic in that? If you vote and you elect dishonest, incompetent people, and they get into office and screw everything up, well you are responsible for what they have done. You caused the problem. You voted them in. You have no right to complain.

I, on the other hand, who did not vote, who, in fact, did not even leave the house on election day, am in no way responsible for what these people have done and have every right to complain as loud as I want about the mess you created that I had nothing to do with.

So I know later on this year you’re going to have one of those swell Presidential elections that you like so much. You’ll enjoy yourselves, it’ll be a lot of fun. I’m sure as soon as the election is over your country will improve immediately. As for me, I’ll be at home on that day doing essentially the same thing as you, the only difference is when I get finished masturbating, I’m going to have a little something to show for it, folks.”

George might have the last laugh. Join him and stay home, and have fun for the next four years complaining about the mess that we idiots caused by voting for Obama or McCain.

After watching the Obama surrogates in action this last week, I couldn’t care less about whether they win this election or not. For some strange reason, the only arrow in their quiver now is to humiliate their ancient opponent. Instead of explaining why their beloved candidate is such am equivocating bastard, they choose instead to jump upon the fact that their opponent does not know the extent of the real estate holdings that he and his wealthy wife possess. The Obama camp is equally rotten to the McCain campaign. An everlasting pox on their idiotic campaigns. Whoever wins does not make one damn difference to the powerless who will feel the total brunt of their reckless policies. Those who support these creeps, you certainly will get what you wish for.

Senator Clinton probably has a file a mile thick in the Obama campaign research dept.  There’s no need to “vet” her as a running mate, her potential advantages and disadvantages are well known.

Picking Sen. Clinton would have some benefits for party unity, perhaps assuaging the remaining PUMA faction, and fortifying support for Obama among former Clinton supporters.

But it’s a two-edged sword.  Sen. Clinton is a polarizing personality and she seems to mobilize Republican opposition like no one else. 

It would also be awkward to have her campaign for Obama on specific policies, because she’d have to either shift her positions she held during the primary, perhaps earning accusations of “flip-flopping”, or else keeping her prior positions and appearing to undermine Obama’s message.

Plus if Sen. Obama were obliged to absorb her debt from the primary campaign, then one could call her, “the $24 million running mate.”

Great photo of Hillary as usual. She looks as if the police just rolled up to her front door. But I’m sure that’s not the impression you wanted to give. Fair and balanced on the Hillary topic. As ever. Kiss my perky little buttocks.

Funny, reading that just makes me think it WILL BE Hillary

Hillary Clinton has been thoroughly vetted, by everyone imaginable, for the past sixteen months.

wow, Truthdig just posted, nearly verbatim, a story that was on Drudge for hours!  Great digging!