39 Comments

• 1. Casper  |  June 3rd, 2008 at 6:08 pm

  Hillary taking Cheney’s spot. I wonder if she will assume Cheney’s powers. If so, be afraid, be very afraid.

• 2. neocon  |  June 3rd, 2008 at 6:09 pm

  Obama would not only get Hillary, but Bill too.

  How exciting!

• 3. Casper  |  June 3rd, 2008 at 6:17 pm

  It would ensure that both Bill and Hillary would be campaigning against McCain. The democrats could play good cop, bad cop, really bad cop.

• 4. Eric T  |  June 3rd, 2008 at 6:20 pm

  I think Hillary will split off and go third party, and call the party something like the “Leftist Pinko Nanny Staters.”

• 5. Casper  |  June 3rd, 2008 at 6:27 pm

  There is no chance of Hillary going third party. She would ensure Obama’s defeat and destroy any chance for her to get any position of power in the next administration. Actually, I think there is a much better chance that Ron Paul would run, thereby throwing the election to Obama.

• 6. William Teach  |  June 3rd, 2008 at 6:41 pm

  Hillary will not take it, and Obama will not offer. I wouldn’t be surprised if there is some sort of press conference where they are together, and he says that he said he offered, but, she wants to continue representing the People of NY, yada yada yada, but it is done simply to get the Hillaryites behind the Missiah.

  That said, who in the h*ll can he pick? Obviously, when picking a VP, it has to be someone who will help with some sort of voter block, but, you don’t want to pick someone who is obviously a much better candidate then the presumptive nominee. The list of choices for VP candidates that are much more experience then him is rather slim.

  I’ve heard Jim Webb’s name thrown around, but, he is a much better candidate then Obama, and has done more before being elected to the senate then Obama.

• 7. Timothy Horrigan  |  June 3rd, 2008 at 7:21 pm

  The Vice Presidency was created because the Founders knew that there were occasions when the President needed to break the law. On those occasions, the Vice President can step forward because he or she is not bound by any laws. Hillary, like Cheney, is adept at manevering outside the law.

  The question is, who should be McCain’s VP? Romney is a tempting choice because of his warmth and likeability and the fact he is not a politician. And of course he can deliver his home states of Michigan, Utah, California and New Hampshire. But he is not that used to operating outside the law. George W. Bush seems like the ideal choice: he shares Cheney’s ability to work outside the law with Romney’s likeability. And yes, he is Constitutionally eligible to be Vice President… and he is even eligible to act as President if something happens to McCain.

  The Democrats would be better advised to take Bill Clinton over Hillary. He is just as devious as Hillary and he is way more likeable than her. Also, he is a white male.

• 8. Retired Spook  |  June 3rd, 2008 at 7:25 pm

  What an historic team they would make — a lawyer who’s married to a bitch who’s also a lawyer and a bitch who’s also a lawyer who’s married to a lawyer. Now there’s an all-American team that your average Joe Six-Pack can really get behind.

• 9. Robin Naismith Green  |  June 3rd, 2008 at 7:34 pm

  Take another hit from that crack pipe Margolis and if you hold it in long enough this time you might think it’s 1983 anmd Ronald Reagan is president! You are soooo funny!

• 10. jerry  |  June 3rd, 2008 at 8:04 pm

  Awhile back I was totally against Obama/Clinton but am worried about Obama’s problems with “Reagan Democrats”. I don’t think he will pick her, he may take Ted Strickland or someone like that, but if he does pick her I wouldn’t be too surpirsed. On a side note, Matt, how about your boy Ogonowski failing to get the required certified signatures to be on the republican primary ballot in Mass. I thoug he was going to be the GOPer who would dethrone Kerry. What a dope.

• 11. hermie  |  June 3rd, 2008 at 8:14 pm

  The Obama team and the MSM have sepnd considerable time slamming both Clintons. It’d PO Obamas supporters if he all of a sudden said she was worthy of being VP, when he spent months on the campaign trail telling the country why she wasn’t.

• 12. Casper  |  June 3rd, 2008 at 8:20 pm

  “a lawyer who’s married to a bitch who’s also a lawyer and a bitch who’s also a lawyer who’s married to a lawyer.”

  Are you sure that’s how you want to describe a former and a future first lady?

• 13. William Teach  |  June 3rd, 2008 at 8:23 pm

  Say, Robin, that was an amazingly instructive and poignant comment. I feel truly blessed by your intellect!

• 14. Gaijin  |  June 3rd, 2008 at 8:29 pm

  I think William’s theroy could be right. Tom Kaine of Virginia could be a possibility, as is Phil Bredeson of Tennessee. He is a well liked Democrat govenor in a red state. Jim Webb would be good: decorated Vietnam vet, against the war in Iraq and Secretary of the Navy under Republican demi-god Reagan…kinda undercuts McCain’s military experience.

  The VP doesn’t traditionally bring a lot to the table, but Cheney has shifted the role of the VP to say the least. McCain’s VP pick is of more importance being that he could actually end up being president since McCain is almost 72.

  Matt,

  You are quite the comedian today. What was it you and Mark were saying in 2006? Something about a Republican victory was it? As Robin Green said, keep hitting that crack pipe of broken dreams. Also, the cartoon today…fantastic!!!

  Peace, Gaijin

• 15. Dennis  |  June 3rd, 2008 at 8:33 pm

  It won’t be Hillary. The most intriguing idea I’ve heard yet for an Obama running mate was posed in an op-ed piece by David Ignatius in the Washington Post, suggesting a bipartisan unity ticket. And I really like the combination he suggests:

  “[Chuck] Hagel would be an especially interesting choice for Obama. As a decorated Vietnam veteran, he would add some national security heft to the ticket. And he was also an early and courageous GOP critic of the Iraq war, which would reinforce one of the most powerful themes of Obama’s campaign. At the same time, although Hagel agrees with Obama on the need for withdrawal from Iraq, his military credentials would reassure U.S. allies that it would not be a pell-mell retreat.

  “A final advantage is that Hagel and Obama seem to like each other. Hagel is said to view Obama as a politician with a special gift who might actually be able to bring the country together. Whether Democrats could accept Hagel’s pro-life views and other aspects of his Republican identity is a complicated question, but here again, bipartisanship is about bridging hard issues…”

  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/16/AR2008051603435.html

• 16. Retired Spook  |  June 3rd, 2008 at 8:59 pm

  Are you sure that’s how you want to describe a former and a future first lady?

  What about the description do you find inaccurate, Casper?

• 17. Matt Margolis  |  June 3rd, 2008 at 9:07 pm

  Retired Spook,

  the only thing inaccurate about that description was Casper’s implication that Michelle Obama will be the future First Lady.

• 18. Casper  |  June 3rd, 2008 at 9:09 pm

  I guess I would describe Mrs. Obama and Mrs. Clinton as strong willed, intelligent women.

  I’m thinking if I described Laura or Barbara Bush as Bit##es, I would get deleted.

• 19. BARRASSO  |  June 3rd, 2008 at 9:18 pm

  “a lawyer who’s married to a bitch who’s also a lawyer and a bitch who’s also a lawyer who’s married to a lawyer.”

  Class and dignity all around this blog, don’t forget to refer to Obama as a mulatto as well. You guys earn my respect every day with your deep understanding of politics and the high minded debate you bring to the table.

  Stay Classy!

• 20. Mark Noonan  |  June 3rd, 2008 at 10:02 pm

  BARRASSO,

  Retired Spook is just putting it in Joe Six Pack terminology…trust me on this, likability is a huge factor, and there ain’t nothin’ in Obama, Michelle or Hillary which is likable…Bill is, but everyone also knows he’s a creep…

• 21. Casper  |  June 3rd, 2008 at 10:39 pm

  Mark,
  I don’t know which is worse, you being ok with someone calling two prominent American women “bitches”, or you implying that Joe Six Pack can only understand what you mean when you use profanity. If you really want to understand why people call you names, this is why.

• 22. Mark Noonan  |  June 3rd, 2008 at 10:43 pm

  Casper,

  Someone out there in the Obama side of things put out the “Bros before Hos” T-shirt, Casper…America is a profane nation, as far as that goes, and you have only to thank the left for this coarsening of public discourse…it was boring, stodgy, conservative Christians who said we ought not to even say “damn” on TV…and it was liberals who said we had to go all the way to the “F word”, lest we not be free…

• 23. GOP4ME  |  June 3rd, 2008 at 10:57 pm

  I think it is laughable that the leftists on this blog are all up in arms about calling Hill and Michelle bitches (which they are) but the left wing morons are perfectly fine with the bile that passes for preachin’ at Trinity Unity.

  demoncRATS = Hypocrites.

  Oh, and my captcha was “whipped men”. Not that is too funny.

• 24. Casper  |  June 3rd, 2008 at 11:00 pm

  Mark,
  I haven’t heard that argument (he called me names first, so it was ok for me to call him one) since last week, and then it was from a sixth grader. Way to go down to their level.
  You spend a lot of time talking about how conservatives are better than the left, yet you are willing to lower yourself to their level. Sorry, that doesn’t make you any better than them.
  You missed my main point though. You seem be ok with someone calling two prominent American women “bitches”. Would you have the same tolerance for someone saying the same thing about Cindy McCain or Laura Bush?

• 25. Some Assembly Required  |  June 3rd, 2008 at 11:01 pm

  Mark, I believe you are suffering from what is known as a ‘Lack of Responsibility Complex’. You must have been spoiled as a child, or take your cues from Paris Hilton (but my publicist told me I could drive).

  Simply put this election will be run on two underlying ideas….

  Fear vs Hope

  I’ll let you decided which candidate is for which idea. Heres a hint, your perpetuating the idea on a daily basis.

• 26. Jeremiah  |  June 3rd, 2008 at 11:19 pm

  Fear vs Hope–Some Assembly Required.

  Yes, we fear the dangerous policies of Barack Hussein Obama for he is spreading ‘false hope.

• 27. Mark Noonan  |  June 3rd, 2008 at 11:20 pm

  Casper,

  Just a bit late in the day for a person of the left to get upset over bad language…you’ll note, however, that I very rarely use a vulgarity; I’m willing to take things to a higher level, any time you are.

  How shall we apply ourselves to the entertainment industry?

• 28. Jeremiah  |  June 3rd, 2008 at 11:21 pm

  The only “hope” Barack Hussein Obama is looking for is in a big…fat…..pay….check. Nothing more…nothing less. He cares less about the American people. He will be in lockstep with the ACLU and the liberal sheepletons.

• 29. Mark Noonan  |  June 3rd, 2008 at 11:23 pm

  SAR,

  Hope? I’ve got all the hope I need - the hope that is in me for the life of the world to come. Obama can’t offer me hope; he has none to give.

  As for fear - I try to fear God and dread nought. I’m not fearful, in the sense of being afraid, of what Obama would do, or what America’s enemies may do, I’d just rather avoid both disasters, because I - being a student of history - can see what is coming if Obama becomes President. But I won’t fear - I’ll endure, and hope for that better day which will come.

• 30. Casper  |  June 3rd, 2008 at 11:38 pm

  Mark,
  I’m not upset with the language. Believe me, I’ve heard and used worse. Although, I don’t think will find many examples if any at all of me using bad language on this blog over the last four years.

  I guess though you aren’t going to answer my question over whether or not you have the same tolerance for someone saying the same thing about Cindy McCain or Laura Bush?

• 31. Mark Noonan  |  June 3rd, 2008 at 11:47 pm

  Casper,

  Point taken - but its not that Mrs. Bush is called that word…leftwingers have attempted to accuse her of far worse things than being cranky once every 28 days. Spook’s words were mild compared to some things said about Mrs. Bush…

• 32. Retired Spook  |  June 4th, 2008 at 7:27 am

  You missed my main point though. You seem be ok with someone calling two prominent American women “bitches”. Would you have the same tolerance for someone saying the same thing about Cindy McCain or Laura Bush?

  Casper, “bitch” is an earned description where I come from. I’ve heard a number of Democrats refer to Mrs. Clinton and Mrs. Obama as “bitches”. In many circles, Mrs. Clinton is commonly referred to as just “the Bitch”. My wife has a good friend who has a bumper sticker that says “51% sweetheart, 49% bitch — don’t push your luck.” It’s not really that derogatory a term.

  Now I have heard (although not for quite a while) Barbara Bush referred to as a “bitch on wheels”, not so so much in a derogatory way as just alluding to the fact that she doesn’t take any crap off anyone. I’ve heard the same for Cindy McCain, although she doesn’t seem to come off that way in the few interviews I’ve seen. OTOH, I have never heard Laura Bush called any derogatory names. Most people I know just think of her as a sweetheart.

  I’m not gonna apologize for my original comment. Anyone who was offended by it has a reeeeeeaaally thin skin.

• 33. Some Assembly Required  |  June 4th, 2008 at 8:36 am

  Mark, thats all fine and dandy. You can fear God and maintain your view that Obama will be a disaster for this country all you want. That is your right and I respect it.

  We live in a very nervous and scared society since Bush gained office almost 8 years ago. This is not entirely Bush’s fault, the news media has been pushing fear down our throats since before Bush came to office.

  The idea of Hope is that it is no longer acceptable to scare the populous into action. Instead lets use reason and rationale to face our problems and enemies. How can you spread democracy around the world while your failing the citizens in your own country. If you don’t believe this I suggest you talk to one of the millions of middle class homeless. I’m not saying McCain wouldn’t do a better job then Bush, I think he will. But the republican campaign as it stands right now will play to peoples fears. Obama’s will play to peoples Hopes. Which do you think will motivate people more after almost a decade of fear?

  Jerry, I’ll take false hope over fear any day. At least it gives you a clearer vision of things and does not instill anger and hatred. Fear clouds your judgment, the GOP has played to this for years. It won’t work this this election against this candidate. Time for a new strategy which means dropping all that hate, are you up for the challenge?

• 34. Casper  |  June 4th, 2008 at 9:55 am

  Spook,
  “Casper, “bitch” is an earned description where I come from. I’ve heard a number of Democrats refer to Mrs. Clinton and Mrs. Obama as “bitches”. In many circles, Mrs. Clinton is commonly referred to as just “the Bitch”. My wife has a good friend who has a bumper sticker that says “51% sweetheart, 49% bitch — don’t push your luck.” It’s not really that derogatory a term.”

  Does that mean you meant it as a compliment?

  Just kidding.
  Amazing though how a woman in our society is called a bitch if she isn’t afraid to show her intelligence or speaks out about issues she cares about, but is considered a sweetheart if she spends most of her time in the background not saying anything.
  What is also amazing is how people on both sides of politics get upset over someone on their side being called a name, yet feel it’s ok to do the same to someone they oppose. I guess it just proves once again that there really isn’t much difference between the two sides.
  As for being offended by the comment, I wasn’t. I’ve heard much worse. I just wanted to see how far people would go in defending their use of the word.

• 35. french student  |  June 4th, 2008 at 10:14 am

  28. Jeremiah | June 3rd, 2008 at 11:21 pm

  The only “hope” Barack Hussein Obama is looking for is in a big…fat…..pay….check. Nothing more…nothing less. He cares less about the American people. He will be in lockstep with the ACLU and the liberal sheepletons.

  Actually Jeremiah, campaigns contributions show that Obama is the one who would come to the white house with the least strings attached, since he is the one with the most individual private donors.

  As I pointed out on an earlier post, his average contribution ranges in the 100$. That is hardly something you can use to leverage the POTUS.

• 36. rjschwarz  |  June 4th, 2008 at 10:25 am

  One view of the VP is a person who acts as a lightening rod to keep negative attention away from the President. Quayle and Cheney both served this purpose at least partially. Hillary would be excellent in this regard.

• 37. Birdzilla  |  June 4th, 2008 at 11:52 am

  COBRA COMMANDER or DESTRO who will obama will select as his running mate?

• 38. R Johnson  |  June 4th, 2008 at 12:07 pm

  I don’t think Obama is stupid enough to put Hillary one heartbeat (his) away from the presidency. That nazi will do Anything to get there. Anything.

• 39. DM  |  June 4th, 2008 at 12:51 pm

  Spook… Too funny.

  Hillary is at a difficult transition point to say the least. At least one thing she has to consider is the growing surge of women who are thoroughly disgusted and have a great deal of distrust for Obama. For many women the fight has moved beyond Hillary and into a personal whelm. Even those women who’ve been heavily liberal in their actions and support have been vilified as racist and dumb.

  For Hillary to quit or join with Obama could be seen as abandonment of her most ardent supporters and have severer repercussions. Froma Harrop writes; “While passions can change, the women I hear from do not see the rampant sexism, particularly toward older women, as isolated gaffes but as a systemic dismissal of them – an enormous voting bloc that has been reliably Democrat.”

  I’m not sure I would qualify that women as a bloc vote by in large Democrat, but for sure those who do are having an extremely hard time with Obama. A misstep here could dearly cost Hillary in the future.