The 2008 Democratic ticket will be Obama/Edwards

ledvedderman · November 2007

I don't think you'll see a Obama/Edwards ticket. I think Obama is gaining momentum at the right time, and it looks like Hillary peaked way too early. I don't see any benefit of picking up Edwards on the ticket. He couldn't win his own home state for Kerry in 2004. I really like Edwards but I don't see him going for the VP, he's been down that road before and wants to be the head of the ticket.

I would love a Obama/Mark Warner ticket. That's a winning combo there, but that won't happen.

Drifting, as much as I'd like to think that Paul had a chance on the Republican side there isn't any. His supporters are really passionate which is why you see the signs, but amongst the base of the Republican side of things he's a no name. Sadly, people vote on names and not issues.

Thecure · November 2007

my2hands wrote:

:eek:

why the face?

ledvedderman · November 2007

Thecure wrote:

why the face?

Do you mean 2000 "Maverick" John McCain or 2004-08 "Sell Your Soul to Bush" McCain?

Thecure · November 2007

ledvedderman wrote:

Do you mean 2000 "Maverick" John McCain or 2004-08 "Sell Your Soul to Bush" McCain?

the Maverick of 2000 version. i don't know what happen to him.

ledvedderman · November 2007

Thecure wrote:

the Maverick of 2000 version. i don't know what happen to him.

Why would you care if he is nowhere to be found if he is nothing like he was in 2000 when you liked him.

DPrival78 · November 2007

if anyone other than ron paul is our next president, we're in deep trouble. all the other candidates - democrat and republican, with the possible exceptions of kucinich and gravel, are all shills for the big-business/globalist types.

although, if by some strange reason ron paul was to actually outsmart the vote-riggers somehow and win the presidency, i'd imagine he'd be taken out the second he moves to abolish the federal reserve. history tells us that presidents who cross the international bankers seem to attract assassins: jackson, lincoln, garfield, kennedy.. how dare the president of the u.s. keep private banks from controlling our money supply!

redmosquito10 · November 2007

I honestly hope that there's a ticket with Obama as the presidential candidate. As I'm usually of the opinion that the vast majority of politicians are basically the same, it's kind of rare for me to actually endorse a candidate. But, after reading both of Obama's books and researching his policies/beliefs, I really believe if he was elected he could make some concrete positive changes in a political system that is outdated and corrupt. As far as his vice presidential cadidate- Al Gore (I know it won't happen, but Gore is supposedly going to announce his support of Obama, and the new version of Gore is a much better running mate than anyone else I can think of)

ledvedderman · November 2007

DPrival78 wrote:

if anyone other than ron paul is our next president, we're in deep trouble. all the other candidates - democrat and republican, with the possible exceptions of kucinich and gravel, are all shills for the big-business/globalist types.

Okay, you don't like any mainstream candidates, that's very indie of you. I don't think though that if ANY of the mainstreamers win that "we're in deep trouble".

I agree w/ a lot of what Ron Paul says, but how anyone on the left can support him w/ his gun control policy is a mind fuck to me.

ledvedderman · November 2007

redmosquito10 wrote:

Gore is supposedly going to announce his support of Obama

First I've heard of that. That would be an amazing endorsement for the Obama camp.

DriftingByTheStorm · November 2007

ledvedderman wrote:

I agree w/ a lot of what Ron Paul says, but how anyone on the left can support him w/ his gun control policy is a mind fuck to me.

What is 'the left's obsession with gun control.

Are there realy people out there so misguided as to think "the right of THE PEOPLE to bear arms" is a "collective" right and not a INDIVIDUAL right?

And don't give me this crap about a militia.

Just because you throw out the bath water doesnt mean you throw out the baby too.

We are supposed to have
a. no standing armies in times of peace
b. STATE militias, not a federal army

therefore, given that NEITHER of those holds true no more (regardless of the fact that the constitution insists that they should), we ABOSLUTELY need INDIVIDUAL gun ownership rights ...

In the absense of STATE run militias ... armies run by, in the best interest of, and held accountable ONLY to the state and its people (but run under resriction of the constitution) .. in the ABSENSE of such protection of peoples rights, individual gun ownership becomes even MORE important.

In case some folks missed the message of our founding fathers, it was DO NOT TRUST YOUR GOVERNMENT.
Trust only in your individual rights and duties, and lay claim to them by WHATEVER means necessary.
Be that dumping tea in a harbor, or offing some redcoat as he rides through your town ... but be not afraid of confrontation and armed revolt ... and NEVER surrender your INALIENABLE rights!

CERTAINLY not to the fucking federal government.

So again,
who are these people on the left that believe such things?
The products of a federaly regulated educational authority?

DPrival78 · November 2007

ledvedderman wrote:

Okay, you don't like any mainstream candidates, that's very indie of you. I don't think though that if ANY of the mainstreamers win that "we're in deep trouble".

well, when it comes down to it, the tv is going to tell us who to choose from. we know how it works - campaign financiers with the big money will only support candidates who will be good to big business, and likewise with the mainstream media outlets. and since most people in this country do what the tv tells them, we'll be looking at either clinton, obama, or guiliani to lead us through the next war on iran, while we set up permanent shop in iraq, and continue to lose our liberties at home.

ledvedderman wrote:

I agree w/ a lot of what Ron Paul says, but how anyone on the left can support him w/ his gun control policy is a mind fuck to me.

you're going to allow one issue like gun control stop you from supporting paul, and in turn, support one of the more popular globalist war mongers? how does that make sense? do you really think personal gun ownership is that big a problem?? more so than our foriegn policy? or our ecomonic policies? or our education system? and with the way things are going in this country, i can sympathize with gun owners wanting to protect themselves rather than relying on the gov't or the increasingly taser-happy police to do it.

i don't think that shunning a candidate just because one of his policies doesn't fall in line with your party's beliefs is very productive. the whole left-right paradigm is over done in my opinion, and is only a tool used to both divide us and to give us the false illusion of choice when it comes to elections.

ledvedderman · November 2007

DPrival78 wrote:

you're going to allow one issue like gun control stop you from supporting paul, and in turn, support one of the more popular globalist war mongers?

Just because someone is a mainstream candidate doesn't make them a "globalist war monger". I'm not voting for Paul because I believe in what Barack Obama is doing. I've worked with him and know he is as genuine as they come in the political world. What you see is what you get with him. People read too much into a mainstream candidate and assume like you do.

DPrival78 · November 2007

ledvedderman wrote:

Just because someone is a mainstream candidate doesn't make them a "globalist war monger". I'm not voting for Paul because I believe in what Barack Obama is doing. I've worked with him and know he is as genuine as they come in the political world. What you see is what you get with him. People read too much into a mainstream candidate and assume like you do.

obama certainly comes off as a globalist war monger type, maybe with a slightly gentler facade. but it's all there: he's in favor of, to paraphrase, pursuing our enemies and promoting our values worldwide ; creating a "pax americana" (which is neo-conese for bomb! bomb! bomb!); speaking of which, he's in favor of pre-emptive military action in iran and pakistan; he's kissed the behind of AIPAC, so we know he'll support israel no matter what; etc..

that's what i see with obama. but i'd like to see something different in '08, not more of the same with some pretty new face on it.

beachdweller · November 2007

my2hands wrote:

and they will be sworn in on 1-20-09 as the President and Vice-President of the U.S.A.

Write it down.

Gauranteed.

my2hands has made his official prediction :cool:

this is one exciting time in America... at least on the Democrat's side... a black man... a woman... a latino... a Senator from Delaware ... outspoken peace candidates that are ahead of their time...

Of course the Republicans are coming to the party with the same old white men they usually come with... perhaps they dont realize that the majority of the country is either a woman or a minority... oh well, too bad for them and their 18th century agenda...

waddya folks think? either side?... and dont just say who you support... because the guy i am voting for has no chance it appears (Dennis Kucinich)

I saying there is no chance of this happening, first Edwards won't run as VP again, second I don't think Obama and John see eye to eye, I'm thinking a midwest or southern running mate is guarrenteed, but it won't be Edwards. I don't think Obama is seen as midwest either, so his choice will be interesting if he get's the nomination.

Hillary isn't even close to being finished. Curious to see if Dem's really want change (Obama) or that comfortable old friend (Hillary).

I also don't believe that Hillary is what the Republican's want to run against, they'll attack her, and it will backfire. Not sure how they will run against Obama, maybe the lack of experience, nieve, etc...

onelongsong · November 2007

beachdweller wrote:

I saying there is no chance of this happening, first Edwards won't run as VP again, second I don't think Obama and John see eye to eye, I'm thinking a midwest or southern running mate is guarrenteed, but it won't be Edwards. I don't think Obama is seen as midwest either, so his choice will be interesting if he get's the nomination.

Hillary isn't even close to being finished. Curious to see if Dem's really want change (Obama) or that comfortable old friend (Hillary).

I also don't believe that Hillary is what the Republican's want to run against, they'll attack her, and it will backfire. Not sure how they will run against Obama, maybe the lack of experience, nieve, etc...

there's a large percentage of dems that won't vote for a woman and won't vote for a black man. when it comes to the general election; they'll vote to keep either out.

Yoyoyo · November 2007

MrSmith wrote:

The problem is if Paul starts doing well the republican machine will go into action and crush him like they did with McCain in 2000.

The Republican machine better be careful, as it will be taken over by true conservatives if things don't straighten up.

Yoyoyo · November 2007

I don't know if hardcore Democrats can see it or not, but Ron Paul is smashing the credibility of mainstream politics altogether. It won't matter if Hilliary or Obama make it into office, the people will see more of the same shit that has been happening for 100 years. 2008 may go to a Democrat, but Ron Paul's successes thus far means that the mainstream political class is losing its grip.

Songburst · November 2007

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

What is 'the left's obsession with gun control.

Are there realy people out there so misguided as to think "the right of THE PEOPLE to bear arms" is a "collective" right and not a INDIVIDUAL right?

And don't give me this crap about a militia.

Just because you throw out the bath water doesnt mean you throw out the baby too.

We are supposed to have
a. no standing armies in times of peace
b. STATE militias, not a federal army

therefore, given that NEITHER of those holds true no more (regardless of the fact that the constitution insists that they should), we ABOSLUTELY need INDIVIDUAL gun ownership rights ...

In the absense of STATE run militias ... armies run by, in the best interest of, and held accountable ONLY to the state and its people (but run under resriction of the constitution) .. in the ABSENSE of such protection of peoples rights, individual gun ownership becomes even MORE important.

In case some folks missed the message of our founding fathers, it was DO NOT TRUST YOUR GOVERNMENT.
Trust only in your individual rights and duties, and lay claim to them by WHATEVER means necessary.
Be that dumping tea in a harbor, or offing some redcoat as he rides through your town ... but be not afraid of confrontation and armed revolt ... and NEVER surrender your INALIENABLE rights!

CERTAINLY not to the fucking federal government.

So again,
who are these people on the left that believe such things?
The products of a federaly regulated educational authority?

That's fucked up. When I started reading this post, my computer started playing the theme to Deliverance and it spit chewing tobacco at me.

Yoyoyo · November 2007

Songburst wrote:

That's fucked up. When I started reading this post, my computer started playing the theme to Deliverance and it spit chewing tobacco at me.

Its ok to be scared man, "they" want you to live in fear and you are not alone. Just don't hang too hard onto the hope that Obama or Clinton are any different...

kenny olav · November 2007

It's gonna be Clinton/Richardson or Clinton/Biden, depending on how well Richardson and Biden do in the race.

The 2008 Democratic ticket will be Obama/Edwards

Comments

Categories