And without being a cripple. Or do we have to specify "modern age" for that one, too?

Are you honestly suggesting that only Republicans politicians play the game of uhhhh - politics?

Paaaaallllleeeeaasssse. :rolleyes:

Hey GC - I think dems might be guilty of some politicking, too, and also worthy of their own tactics being turned on them.

I've seen this point made a few times. This column goes into detail on it. The point being, Clinton touts her leadership experience, and yet she seems to be doing a pretty poor job of managing her campaign. She's gone from the clear favorite to barely hanging on. Whereas Obama, with his supposed lack of leadership experience, has run a very strong nation wide campaign.

And yet, as his campaign has gone on, chinks have appeared in the shining armor. He doesn't seem as able to articulate his policy goals with nearly the expertise that Clinton demonstrates. The Canada gaffe made him seem like every other forked tongue politician on what his policy goals really are. And, perversely, the more Clinton gets peevish and nasty, the more she is perceived as "real" ... while Obama is starting to look pretty glib and fake.



One thing that's played out over and over and is not likely to change is that they each have almost precisley half of the Democratic contingent, with Clinton raking in the working class, and women, and older Dems ... and Obama appealing to the younger Dems, the upper class and the people of color.


Face it, folks ... it's a TIE. And that's not going to change. The obvious solution, which neither candidate will accept, is to draw straws for who's V.P. and then join as a single, absolutely unbeatable, mega-historic ticket that will clinch the White House and take two incredible strides in American History.



Damn their pride. They should make a pact that, whoever goes first will not run for re-election in four years, but will switch places on the ticket with them. One gets to be president now, and the other waits only 4 years instead of 8, with the potential to serve as pres for 8.


Simple. ;)

Why does everyone think that Clinton has the women's vote? What, we vote down gender lines JUST because there's a woman on the ticket? Women are approximately 50% of the population, so unless you're suggesting that Obama's voters are all male, I don't think Clinton can be said to "have" the women's vote and still be at parity with Obama.

Pretty dangerous going with two hard core liberals on the same ticket. I don't see it as a slam dunk at all.

Obama has won the majority of women in certain states. If I have time later I'll post links.

I don't know what scaeagles is smoking, but it's an undeniable demographic fact that if Clinton's voters and Obama's voters unite, their sheer numbers will overwhelm the entirety of Republican voters.


This is based on turn-outs in the primaries. Democrats have outnumbered Replublicans 2 to 1.

A) What "tie"? Obama has a clear lead in delegates that will be near impossible for Clinton to catch.

B) I find it humorous that the number two horse in the race is offering to split the ticket and take top spot. What hubris.

C) I agree it's not a slam dunk. ANY ticket that includes Ms. Clinton will be a non-starter in my book and I think a lot of others feel that way also. I voted Obama (or would have had I the chance) but I would NOT vote an Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama ticket.