Tuesday, June 3, 2008

And it just got more interesting...  

7 comments

"I am open to it" - Hillary Clinton, regarding becoming Obama's vice presidential candidate.



Oh. Man. What an unstoppable team those two would make.

Full article.

What next?

You can also bookmark this post using your favorite bookmarking service:

Related Posts by Categories



7 comments: to “ And it just got more interesting...


  • June 3, 2008 at 9:20 PM  

    I don't know if you read my blog or not, but I think i've written something on this "dream team" of sorts. Short story: I'm absolutely opposed to it.

    Mainly because I remain unconvinced that Senator Clinton A) brings anything to the ticket, and B) has deep support in the general population.

    More importantly, I'm afraid that the drama and incompetence that surrounded the Clinton campaign could damage Obama's attempt to move forward with a unified message.


  • June 3, 2008 at 11:53 PM  

    Jamelle... you do realize many (most) people are convinced she "brings nothing to the ticket" and is "incompetent" for the pure fact that she's a woman???

    Same reason she is called "aggressive" in a situation a man would only be called "assertive".

    Get educated.


  • June 4, 2008 at 12:00 AM  

    Whoa, I really don't appreciate the insinuation that I'm some sort of sexist because I don't think adding Senator Clinton to the ticket is a good idea.

    For one, it has nothing to do with the fact that Senator Clinton is a woman. In this post at my blog, I basically out myself as a supporter of Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius for VP.

    And second, I called Senator Clinton's campaign "incompetent" because, well, it was pretty damn incompetent. What else do you call their decision to ignore the caucus states, or all of the post-Super Tuesday states for that matter?

    Before you insult and insinuate, you should actually read my comments and check out my blog.


  • June 4, 2008 at 12:02 AM  

    And, as an aside, it's pretty ridiculous to say that most people oppose an Obama/Clinton ticket because Clinton is a woman. There are perfectly legitimate reasons to not support Hillary Clinton. On my end, I can't legitimize her initial support of the Iraq War, or her saber-rattling towards Iran. She buys in to the existing foreign policy consensus too much for me to support her when there's a viable alternative available.


  • June 4, 2008 at 2:47 AM  

    Now, you're putting words in my mouth. I said many most people (and you can't ignore the fact that there are a lot of people who think she couldn't perform as president [incompetence] just because she's female), not you specifically. You may not fully support her or her ideals, but to say she brings nothing at all to the ticket is ridiculous, and if she were, in fact, incompetent, she would not have so many supporters. Also... to say someone is incompetent because they are incompetent isn't much of an argument.


  • June 4, 2008 at 2:49 AM  

    One more thing... I didn't say "most people oppose an Obama/Clinton ticket because Clinton is a woman". Notice, I was referring in my first post to people thinking Clinton is incompetent and "brings nothing to the ticket" because she's a woman. I said nothing about the possible Obama/Clinton partnership.

    If you want to ignore that a lot of the hostility towards her is based on her sex, then that's your unfortunately naive prerogative.


  • June 4, 2008 at 3:02 AM  

    Way to be disingenuous. You weren't referring to me specifically? Then why the snide "get educated" at the end of your first comment?

    You're also totally misrepresenting my comment about her campaign being incompetent. I'm making a distinction here. I don't think Hillary Clinton herself is incompetent, if she were, she wouldn't be a United States Senator. I do however think that her campaign was breathtakingly incompetent, and squandered the huge advantages she entered the race with. You can contest that characterization, but I would appreciate it - again - if you actually read what I wrote, and didn't just reflexively attack me for criticizing Clinton's campaign.

    As far as putting words in mouths is concerned, I'm not and never have ignored the sexism and misogyny Hillary Clinton has faced during this election. What I am doing though is contesting your claim that opposition to Hillary Clinton as VP (which is what your first comment was referring to) isn't by default a product of sexism, and there are legitimate reasons to oppose a Clinton VP.

    We can have that debate if you wish, but only if you stop trying to paint me as some sort of sexist (which you did, again, in your third comment).

    Long rant short. Before you attack me or my views, you would do well to read my blog. I have a year's worth of material for the picking, and you'll quickly find that I'm the furthest thing from a sexist.