August 20, 2007

The Clinton VP Sweepstakes

With Hillary Clinton having just about wrapped up the Democratic nomination for president, speculation has begun on her choice of running mate. For a while, Barack Obama seemed the perfect choice, but his performance of late has tarnished his image and reminded people of his inexperience. Instead, Robert Novak reports that Hillary's backers have looked away towards Dixieland:

Anticipating that Sen. Hillary Clinton will clinch the Democratic presidential nomination, some supporters are beginning to argue against her choosing her principal rival -- Sen. Barack Obama -- for vice president.

They maintain Obama provides no general election help for Clinton. As an African-American from Illinois, he represents an ethnic group and a state already solidly in the Democratic column.

This school of thought advocates a Southerner as Clinton's running mate. The last time Democrats won a national election without a Southerner on the ticket was 1944. Prominent Democrats from the South are in short supply today. The leading prospect: former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner.

Duane Patterson argued this same point a couple of weeks ago on CQ Radio. Obama comes from a state that will certainly support Hillary; it's her native state, although now she hails from New York. Democrats already have the African-American vote locked up, and will not likely win any more by placing him on the ticket. Democrats have convinced themselves that Katrina has strengthened their grip on that demographic, and they may be right.

On the other hand, there could be significant risk in leaving Obama off the ticket. For one thing, he's proven himself a good organizer, if not a terribly prepared candidate. His donor base outstrips Clinton's, and so does the energy level from his campaign. There is also the matter of expectations, especially with the African-American community. Black voters may expect that a second-place finish should give them a seat at the ultimate table. If the Democrats instead opt for a white Southerner to round out the ticket, they may decide -- with some justification -- that they will never get their due from the Democrats. They may opt for a third-party candidate, or even the Republicans, althought that depends on whom the GOP nominate.

Mark Warner might be a safe choice for Hillary. He could help swing Virginia back to the Democrats, although it would be a tough sell in the normally red state. He'd have to help overcome some significant negatives that Jim Webb and Warner didn't have in Virginia during their elections. Warner has been mostly a non-entity since leaving office, briefly flirting with a presidential run himself before quickly deciding against it.

Hillary could opt to go outside of the South by selecting Tom Vilsack. The former Iowa governor also dropped out of the primaries early and gave Hillary an early endorsement. The Upper Midwest is more in play now than ever, and Iowa went Republican by a thin margin the last time. Wisconsin could go Republican this time around, and Minnesota came closer than most figured in the last two elections. Rather than try the impossible in the South, Hillary may try to aim at the American heartland to cripple the Republican prospects in the Electoral College.

One Southern option gets no mention at all, and for good reason. John Edwards couldn't win re-election in his home state for the Senate, let alone carry North Carolina for a Democratic ticket, as he proved in 2004. Now that he's also proven clueless about Cuba and hypocritical about predatory lending practices, he's more damaged than ever. Hillary would have better results asking Ron Paul to be her nominee.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/tabhair.cgi/11704

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Clinton VP Sweepstakes:

» Hillary Will Not Choose Obama As Her Running Mate from Liberty Pundit
Robert Novak has a blurb today about Hillary Clinton’s possible running mate: Anticipating tha… ... [Read More]

» Novak: Hillary supporters think John Warner would be better VP pick than Obama from Sister Toldjah
Novak writes in todays Chicago Sun-Times: Anticipating that Sen. Hillary Clinton will clinch the Democratic presidential nomination, some supporters are beginning to argue against her choosing her principal rival — Sen. Barack Obama — for v... [Read More]

» Hillary's VP -- McCain? from Conservative Musings
Captain Ed mentions a couple of VP possibilities for Hillary outside of the normal Obama speculation. However, based on this, could John McCain be vying for the position? --Red [Read More]

» Obama's core constituency - not racial, not geographic, but generational. from Divided We Stand United We Fall
Robert Novak, Captain Ed, and James Joyner overlook the key element Barack Obama brings to a Democratic ticket. [Read More]

» Clinton/Ford ‘08? from Nate Nelson
When it comes to the likelihood of Clinton/Obama ‘08, I’m skeptical. I just don’t believe that Barack Obama will be Hillary Clinton’s running mate in 2008, and now it seems that Robert Novak (H/T: Captain’s Quarters) and S... [Read More]

Comments (42)

Posted by Tom Shipley | August 20, 2007 7:03 AM

With Hillary Clinton having just about wrapped up the Democratic nomination for president

Why don't we let the voters speak first. People complain when networks call states before final voting tallies are in. Now we have punditry -- mostly on the right -- calling the democratic nomination race before the firsts primary!

Fred Thompson hasn't even officially entered the Republican race yet.

I know people are impatient by nature, but let's let the process run its course. There's plenty of other things to talk about.

Like it or not, Obama and Edwards still have a chance.

Posted by Ted In Bed | August 20, 2007 7:26 AM

How about a Georgia boy, like Zell Miller (cough cough).

Actually, Former GA Governor Roy Barnes would be a good pick.

Posted by C. Perkins | August 20, 2007 7:30 AM

She should pick Phil Bredesen, governor of Tennessee. He has a strong reputation for competence, and quite possibly could flip TN.

Posted by herself | August 20, 2007 7:35 AM

Then, of course there is always his Southern Highness Al Gore. Clinton/Gore forever more.......

Posted by superdestroyer | August 20, 2007 7:45 AM

Who cares who the VP is going to be. The real quesiton is what will her administration look like. Will it be filled with retreads from the first Clinton Adminisration or will she appoint some new faces.

The only important question about the 2008 race is whether the Democratic Party gets its 60 seats this round or has to wait until 2010 election to gain a level of control and the Republicans never achieved.

I wonder when the political scientist will begin to disucss the one party state that the U.S. will shortly become.

Posted by obladioblada | August 20, 2007 8:29 AM

On the other hand, there could be significant risk in leaving Obama off the ticket.

Maybe, but having him on might be an even bigger risk. He's already shown himself to be a lightweight, do we need him a heart-beat away from the presidency? On the job training has its limits.

Posted by Jeff P. | August 20, 2007 8:32 AM

Hillary Clinton will almost certainly carry Illinois, as this is the bluest state west of the Appalachians; but it won't be because this is her "natiive state." She hasn't been around here for a long time. Maybe 500 voters around Park Ridge (a North Chicago suburb where her family lived) will take this into account -- but perhaps not all favorably.

Hillary's "Native State" is the Beltway.

Posted by howard lohmuller | August 20, 2007 8:37 AM

If Senator Obama loses his presidential bid and is passed over for V.P. by Mrs. Clinton, the presumptive nominee, a considerable percentage of disappointed Black voters may decide not to vote in the 08 elections.
Consider too how a V.P. nomination for Condy Rice might affect the elections. Also consider if V.P. Cheney does not complete his term, Secretary Rice would then be the highest ranking Republican and could be named as V.P.by President Bush. A betting person might conclude that this scenario is as likely as unlikely and that a watershed election, affecting the country for decades, is possible.
You can also bet that Democrats are probably thinking along these lines too. So watch for negative stories about Secretary Rice begin to pop up in the main stream media.

Posted by Helio | August 20, 2007 8:40 AM

As a Virginian for many decades, I humbly ask: Can you remind me who this "Mark Warner" guy is? Is it that guy whose neck is wider than his head? If Hillary wants to stand a chance in The Old Dominion, I suggest she choose Virgil Goode.

Posted by Cousin Dave | August 20, 2007 8:44 AM

Howard, two years ago I might have agreed with you. However, I think the Condi phenomonen has jumped the shark now. Over the past year and a half as SecState, she hasn't proven herself to be a good orator or debater, and State has been a bit directionless under her leadership.

An odd thought: If Hilary is looking to make gains in the South, she could do worse than to ask Heath Shuler to join the ticket.

Posted by kingronjo | August 20, 2007 8:48 AM

I do agree that Hillary does lend herself to some trouble if she does not pick Obama for VP among black voters. Afterall, there is precedent for the runnerup to get picked (Reagan '80, Kerry '04). And I can see the Rev's Al and Jesse stirring the pot over it. With the right VP pick and some clever campaigning why not see Rudy get 20% of the black vote if Obama is dissed? And that would be all she wrote for the smartest woman in the world.

But, if you are Hillary facing a tough road ahead, why not go all in? Talking of flipping states... I hate surmising in public, but I figure if the braintrust of Hillary takes the advice of a commenter on a blog, we Repub's are in good shape.

Anyway, all in I mean why not go straight female??? Two female Governors of states Hillary won't win that just might go to her are Sebelius of KS or Napolitano of AZ (think impossible? Ask Jim Ryun or JD Hayworth and both are Dem Governors). Both are moderately successful (emphasis on "moderately") and were re-elected. This takes Clinton 1's southern strategy and turns it into a female strategy.

How would Rudy counter this and perhaps increase the split? Condi-no, would probably alienate conservatives too much. Powell-no same thing plus both are from NY so Constitution says no. JC Watts? has he been out of the government too long? A shame, the most qualified Americans who happen to be black (Obama vs Condi--give me a break) are Republicans yet probably too moderate if Rudy wins.

However, if Fred or John wins and Condi or Colin are interested...

PS- why not make their heads explode and ask Janice Rogers Brown??

Posted by Josh D | August 20, 2007 9:09 AM

How "bad" a choice Obama would be depends a lot on the Republican VP candidate.

If the GOP VP nominee is someone young and inexperience like Obama (are there any rising stars in the GOP right now?) then Obama will be a good nominee for the Dems because he'll provide the charisma Clinton lacks.

However, if the GOP selects a McCain type (McCain himself is probably too old) then Obama will be like Edwards was in '04. Despite Edwards being much more charismatic and "likable" than Cheney, Cheney blatantly outclassed him in debates. The same could happen to Obama.

Posted by kingronjo | August 20, 2007 9:22 AM

rising stars in the GOP?

Tim Pawlenty, Gov of MN immediately comes to mind. Sarah Palin, Gov of AK is next but not for this election cycle. WHEN (think positive) we stop Her Highness Gov Palin can be a legitmate contender for POTUS in 2016 after Rudy. A VP Pawlenty- Gov Palin primary would be very very exciting.

Of course if the Gov of FL name was Jeb Smith, or Brown or BusCh, he would be the odds on favorite not just for the nomination but the Presidency also.

Posted by Jazz | August 20, 2007 9:40 AM

I have to agree with the first comment in this thread. Isn't August of 2007 just a bit early to be declaring the Democratic primary over? Personally, while she certainly has proven her ability to give a strong performance, and her odds look good, I still think the Democrats would be commiting suicide if she is the nominee.

There's a ways to go in this race, and it would only take a few missteps to let another contender close the gap. Certainly a discussion of who the Veep candidate might be for *any* candidate is valid, but I doubt anyone here at CQ would like to see Rudy G. declared as having "wrapped up" the GOP nomination this early.

Posted by hermie | August 20, 2007 9:51 AM

Obama's comments which defined his foreign policy inexperience have doomed him as her VP choice.

To take someone who proved his inexperience and potential for foriegn policy disasters, and then say he is good enough to be President just in case something happened to her, well that isn't a very good tactic.

She'll choose either Biden who is a member of the 'club', or she'll choose Harold Ford to placate the minority base.

Posted by NoDonkey | August 20, 2007 10:04 AM

Maybe she'd want to consider someone who has held something called a "job" in their life, since she hasn't had one.

Or maybe someone with an actual "resume", since she doesn't have one (unless being a hostess at tea parties, losing billing records and riding dear hubby's name to a Senate seat count as gainful employment).

But then, that would leave out pretty much everyone in the absolutely worthless Democrat Party. Toss out the trust fund millionaires, the insurance company bilking lawyers, the dingbat trophy wives, purchased mafia puppets and the quota fillin'/race baiting poverty pimps and what really remains?

Posted by Jim | August 20, 2007 10:04 AM

Yeah yeah, it's early yet, blah blah blah. Right.

Does anyone REALLY think either Obama or Edwards has a snowball's chance in h--ll of dislodging Hill for the nomination? She was the strongest contender coming in; sure Obama got a Hollywood inspired, MSM induced flashy bump. Until he started opening his mouth. Now he's lost it, and she is gaining ever more strength with each passing day. Of course you libs can't hand her the nomination on a silver platter quite yet - horrors, that would give the electorate all that much more time to compare her to whoever gets the Repub nomination - which for you Libs will be a "bad thing." So keep up the charade that the dem nomination race is some sort of real contest.

But the only question of any interest now is: Who's going to be her running mate.

Posted by Tom Shipley | August 20, 2007 10:13 AM

Does anyone REALLY think either Obama or Edwards has a snowball's chance in h--ll of dislodging Hill for the nomination?

Uh, yeah... for all the punditry and polls out there, the only votes that count are the ones case in the primaries.

There's a real danger in having polls and pundits "decide" an election.

It's bad enough that candidates like Kucinich and Hunter really never stood a chance to begin with. But having pundits declare two viable candidates done before the primaries even start is terrible.

Posted by filistro | August 20, 2007 10:48 AM

I've noticed a lot of the "inevitable Hillary" meme popping up at right-wing sites lately. At The Corner there's even regular praise for her debate performances, things like "polished and experienced", "likely to seem reasonable to middle America," etc.

This tends to bemuse me... especially when Karl Rove yesterday said she's "going to be the candidate" but is "fatally flawed." You could practically see him switching his tail and licking the cream off his whiskers.

What I'm thinking now is that the Republicans WANT to run against Hillary. This could only be because they fear one of the other Dems in the race.

Who could that be?

Edrward's oppo mountain just keeps growing. Obama really does look inexperienced. Biden is just... well, he's Biden.

So... who are they really araid of? Ver-r-r-r-r-y interesting.

On the other hand, maybe Republican fortunes are so dismal these days that they want Hillary not in order to head off some other candidate, but just to mobilize the base since Clinton-hatred is pretty much their only hope in this election cycle.

It's going to be a fun year, isn't it?

Posted by Captain Ed | August 20, 2007 10:53 AM

They should be afraid of Bill Richardson, but Richardson has run a pretty poor campaign thus far.

Posted by Scott Malensek | August 20, 2007 11:20 AM

Clinton/Kucinich.

She'd be able to pander to the right after getting the nomination, and still hold the left by grabbing a fullon moonbat PLUS, Ohio's a battleground state.

One way or the other, the VP candidate MUST be from either a battleground state or the 2 big player states left (Florida or Texas).

Posted by Scott Malensek | August 20, 2007 11:27 AM

Tom's right. Obama still has a chance. The FEC hasn't ruled on Hillary's senatorial campaign fraud penalties yet, and the 3 judge panel could at any time take action that would blow her current campaign out of the water.

Obama would be a better choice for Democrats given his lack of baggage on Iraq, lack of baggage from previous admins, and his substantially lower unfavorables. He's also a LOT better speaker and much more appealing across party lines, but I think the Clinton machine's got it wrapped up. Also, how the candidates try to spin the Petraeus report will shape their campaigns substantially. If they point to it as a sign of American success, then they're going against the party's far left/the war is lost crowd; the crowd that determines support and largely drives the nomination process. If they deny the report and try to pander to the left (see also Sen Edwards), then it'll be huge baggage to carry in a general election.

Posted by Glenmore | August 20, 2007 11:28 AM

If Hillary wins the Dem nod (as I expect), she may want to do like Bush (HW and W) and pick a 'life insurance' VP candidate, rather than a 'state swinger'. Given how intensely many hate her, I fear assassination attempts. Make the successor bad enough to those who would kill you and maybe they won't. Obama fits that bill.
Also, I can't see Hillary's ego accepting a 'strong' VP (Warner and Richardson would fit that model, at least relative to her), like Chaney was to Bush. Again, Obama fits.

Posted by Monkei | August 20, 2007 11:31 AM

For Ms Clinton to win she has to put a dent in a southern state or two or pick up a southwestern state or Rocky Mountain state.

The logical pick for her would be Bill Richardson who could bring along NM and possibly Arizona and Coloraro.

I think Ms Clinton also, unless Huckabee gets the nomination, will carry Arkansas. She only needs to pick up one state in the south to ruin the GOP's southern strategy. She is VERY strong with the women voters and polls well in Arkansas among them.

Electorially with Richardson as her running mate she looks very good unless Bloomberg gets into the race.

I think she is golden against Rudy who is about 2 months away from his wheels falling off his election cart.

Posted by filistro | August 20, 2007 11:49 AM

Glenmore's "life insurance" suggestion is intriguing. I tend to look at the opposite side of it, for this reason:

Republican insiders seem to want Hillary to be the candidate. I've toyed with several reasons for this... they fear some other Dem, she'll motivate the Rep base, etc. But when I really think about it, the most logical reason is they're holding onto some truly devastating oppo research (probably on Bill) that they plan to dump at the most strategic moment.

The best way to counteract that would be a VP who is so loaded with gravitas, experience and conservative rectitude that he makes Bill's pecadillos look merely trivial, not dangerous.

Would John McCain do that for her? Well, maybe. How about.... Joe Lieberman! He was the first and most vocal Dem to castigate Bill's misbehavior, right?

Posted by mike Buzalka | August 20, 2007 11:52 AM

While I agree that anointing Clinton for the nomination at this stage is getting a bit ahead of the actual voters, it doesn't hurt to specultate. After all, she is the most likely nominee. That said, I think Clinton would have to be insane to risk running with Obama. Not only is he a gaffe machine, but he would magnify her major liabilities in the general election. As a woman and a Democrat, she will already have a hill to climb to convince voters she is tough and will do what it takes to defend the homeland. Obama's inexperience and questionable pronouncements on this subject only widen the wound. He is also at least as liberal as she is, if not more so. That makes two juicy targets for the GOP nominee. Finally, it may be unfair, but one "first" may be about as much as the electorate may want to swallow at this point. The first woman (at the top of the ticket) and the first black—and both liberals. Exactly which red state will this flip? I think she would be a lot better off going with a dull but seasoned white guy as a stabilizing factor. Christopher Dodd? Maybe.

Posted by Glenmore | August 20, 2007 11:54 AM

If Hillary wins the Dem nod (as I expect), she may want to do like Bush (HW and W) and pick a 'life insurance' VP candidate, rather than a 'state swinger'. Given how intensely many hate her, I fear assassination attempts. Make the successor bad enough to those who would kill you and maybe they won't. Obama fits that bill.
Also, I can't see Hillary's ego accepting a 'strong' VP (Warner and Richardson would fit that model, at least relative to her), like Chaney was to Bush. Again, Obama fits.

Posted by Gman | August 20, 2007 12:48 PM

You saw it here first! John McCain will be Shillary's running mate.

Posted by NoDonkey | August 20, 2007 12:49 PM

"Would John McCain do that for her? Well, maybe. How about.... Joe Lieberman!"

I can't quite picture Sen. McCain or Sen. Liebermann massaging Hillary's bunions or fetching her slippers for her, so probably not.

As far as fearing assassination attempts, any VP of hers should be put on immediate suicide watch (as should the country).

But a battleship would have a hard time denting that battle axe, much less a bullet, so you shouldn't worry about President Rodham getting offed, especially since this sociopath will likely implode long before the election, sparing us all.

Posted by NoDonkey | August 20, 2007 1:00 PM

"I think she is golden against Rudy who is about 2 months away from his wheels falling off his election cart."

Shrewd observations Monkei, you also probably thought Rashard Casey would lead us to the National Championship. How'd that work out?

When does Hillary play against Toledo?

Posted by Cousin Dave | August 20, 2007 3:07 PM

There's no doubt that the Republicans would prefer to run against Hillary, but there's probably a simpler and less conspiratorial explanation: she's been the nominee apparent for the past two years, and most of the strategizing assumes she will be the opponent. If someone else wins the nomination, all of a sudden the RNC has a ton of replanning to do. Actually, the Democrats could throw a wrench in the works by nominating someone out of left field. That would throw the Republicans in a tizzy, trying to catch up with the changes, while it doesn't matter as much to the Democrats: Their campaign is going to be pretty much the same, regardless of who either party's nominee is.

Having said all that: Assuming Hillary wins the Dem nomination, Obama will not be the running mate for the simple reason that he had the temerity to run against Hillary, and the Clintons don't miss any opportunity to nurse a grudge. For the same reason, Harold Ford won't be the running mate because Al Gore would take anyone else from Tennessee being picked as a personal insult.

As for a Republican rising star: how about Michael Steele? He has worked miracles for the party in Maryland. He has experience as a governor. He's got charisma, and he has done a pretty good job of straddling the libertarian and social-conservative positions. And yes, he's black. His presence would benefit almost any likely GOP nominee: for Rudy or Romney, he gives them credibility with the Republican base; for Fred Thompson, he provides a mid-Atlantic/Northern counterpoint, and the possibility of flipping a medium-large state that usually goes reliably Democratic.

Posted by Monkei | August 20, 2007 4:21 PM

Shrewd observations Monkei, you also probably thought Rashard Casey would lead us to the National Championship. How'd that work out?

No, never thought we had the horses to pull Casey along, and I didn't think we had them with Wally Richardson either, or possibly the worst QB of all PSU teams, Zach Mills. I think though that after we destroy ND this year in a payback game and beat UM we are well on our way with Anthony Morelli at the helm. But then again the talens it there to win it next year with Devlin at the helm. I will be RVing and tailgating at the Illinois and Indiana games this year. I will be the drunk guy with a blue PSU hat and white jersey with navy 31 letters, you should easily be able to pick me out.

Shrewd yes, but never thought Casey was the man. Didn't he beat some cop up before the year started or something?

Posted by Monkei | August 20, 2007 4:27 PM

Shrewd observations Monkei, you also probably thought Rashard Casey would lead us to the National Championship. How'd that work out?

No, never thought we had the horses to pull Casey along, and I didn't think we had them with Wally Richardson either, or possibly the worst QB of all PSU teams, Zach Mills. I think though that after we destroy ND this year in a payback game and beat UM we are well on our way with Anthony Morelli at the helm. But then again the talens it there to win it next year with Devlin at the helm. I will be RVing and tailgating at the Illinois and Indiana games this year. I will be the drunk guy with a blue PSU hat and white jersey with navy 31 letters, you should easily be able to pick me out.

Shrewd yes, but never thought Casey was the man. Didn't he beat some cop up before the year started or something?

Posted by arch | August 20, 2007 4:30 PM

Hillary needs to work on her negatives between now and the DNC convention. She may get the MoveOn.org, DailyKos and Code Pink support if she stays to the left, but she'll be challenged in November.

She will turn right after the other Dem contenders walk the anti-war plank and support General Petraeus September Report. If the war goes well, she'll take credit. If it turns bad, she'll blame Bush.

Obama's stunning stupidity over the last two weeks have taken him out of the race. I agree the Richardson would be her best choice. All those Latinos - legal or not - will vote out West.

Posted by Lightwave | August 20, 2007 4:44 PM

While I respect your opinion on Hillary's VP choices, I'm wondering again why you're ending on just how much John Edwards is *not* a viable choice. Who cares?

We know he's not viable, and I'm personally getting sick of hearing about just how non-viable he is. He's been a non-factor since February. We know this. Stop beating the dead horse here, Ed.

Posted by Fight4TheRight | August 20, 2007 5:11 PM

I don't know...I think Mrs. Clinton may look at Bill Richardson as VP. He brings a couple of things to the dance:

1. He's a Governor so there is that "outside the beltway" appeal

2. He's been the most vocal and aggressive about surrendering and removing troops from Iraq - I believe in Sunday's debate he said he would take them out now, the others said it would take some time.

Thus, Richardson can be the poster boy for the "anti-war" crowd and also be propped up as a non-Washington politician.

I don't know if New Mexico is actually "Southern" enough to help her but it might help in some Western states like Arizona, Colorado and Montana.

Or, perhaps....in an all out effort to make SURE he isn't in for any surprises in the general election, Mrs. Clinton will pick Ralph Nader! hahaha

Posted by kingronjo | August 20, 2007 6:28 PM

All this talk about Richardson. Richardson has some serious baggage concerning women. There have been numerous instances (when a guy apologizes it's not allegations anymore) of him behaving inappropriately with them. In addition he has padded his resume on several issues (probably the last guy who needed to so its really stupid).

It would be hard for the feminist Hillary to pick a guy who is a lot like Bill in the "girl" dep't. That would take a lot of steam out of her sails saying how she's "come a long way, baby" when she picks a cad as her VP.

PS- this is not rumor mongering, it has been in the MSM and if I remember it, so does the RNC. And Laura Ingraham. And Ann Coulter. etc.

Posted by WSOwen02 | August 20, 2007 6:30 PM

We know he's not viable, and I'm personally getting sick of hearing about just how non-viable he is. He's been a non-factor since February. We know this. Stop beating the dead horse here, Ed.

Posted by: Lightwave at August 20, 2007 4:44 PM

It is just way too much fun to make fun of this idiot NOT to keep talking about him

Posted by Monkei | August 20, 2007 6:49 PM

king ... I think whatever "woman" Bill Richardson loses will be handsomely offset by Ms Clinton being a woman and gathering women support. Besides, are you really going to tell me that women will line up to vote for Rudy?

Posted by kingronjo | August 20, 2007 7:14 PM

wow monkei, you people on the left are so discriminatory as to make one realize it was the Dems who fought against the Civil War, gave impetus to the KKK and fought tooth and nail agains the Civil Rights movement, and not those evil conservatives. And I was all set to believe Karl Rove took his wayback machine to instigate this shameful history.

To say because Hillary is a woman a majority of women are going to vote for he no matter what shows that same prejudice. All women march lockstep, blinded by the fast that a WOMAN is a the top of the ticket. No issues, no priorities, it's a WOMAN!!!!! Forget everything else, shes the right gender.

So I guess the winner of the election will be a female black hispanic disabled veteran. I think that covers everything don't you, chimpy?

O, and yes, I think women will line up to vote for a person who shares their view on the issues. But then again I'm a person who believes in individuality, not group mind think.

Posted by Monkei | August 21, 2007 7:07 AM

king that is NOT what I said, I said the difference would be neglible, it twas you who made the comment women won't vote for Richardson ... I would think when a woman looks at Rudy's private life they will come to the same conclusion. That's all I said, nothing more, but don't let that stop you from going off on some wordsmithing diatribe.

Posted by NoDonkey | August 21, 2007 7:35 AM

Devlin next year Monkei? Don't be surprised to see Daryl Clark back there next year (or Wally Richardson Jr., as I see him).

Can't allow Devlin to have more than two years to start - that honor only goes to rare talents like Zack Mills.

I made the Casey analogy with regards to Hillary, although that's being a bit mean to Rashard - he'd actually accomplished something in his life, prior to taking over the #1 job.

And he only got into some sort of scuffle with an off-duty cop in NJ. That's pretty much a daily occurence out there. Probably wasn't paying his tribute. Small potatoes.

I may look at paying a fortune to attend the OHowIhateOhiostate game this year. The Buckeyes always wilt in the mountain air.

The Illini game might be good - they have some top talent and you can say you saw Juice Williams back when.

Post a comment