Originally posted by wittywonkaIt makes sense, but at the moment they want to figure out who's number 1 - that is, who gets to be president if they're elected. They won't do deals with each other until well after the first few primaries are over.
Everyone keeps on blabbering about how the U.S. will vote either for a black or a women president...why don't Hillary and Obama run as a ticket? Wouldn't that gain more of a range from voting support?
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterSo from a right wing perspective, if its inevitable that either Obama or Clinton be President, it would still be preferable for a Black man to serve under a White woman?
Hillary will either slime Obama and force him to return to the Senate in disgrace or she will co-opt him to be the VP.
Originally posted by kmax87And from the FAR LEFT, you would turn that comment into a racist remark. I don't want niether one to pull it out, does that make me a racist and a chauvinist?
So from a right wing perspective, if its inevitable that either Obama or Clinton be President, it would still be preferable for a Black man to serve under a White woman?
Originally posted by kmax87It's not inevitable because neither Fred Thompson, nor Mitt Romney have asserted themselves yet. Moreover, if just one candidate has the stones to address the illegal immigration issue, that candidate could easily win the election regardless of whether he's a Republican or a Democrat. Back to your question: If it came down to Hillary or Obama, I would prefer the latter since he's not from the same demographic cohort as Bill Clinton, Hillary, Al Gore or George Bush II. We need new ideas and if we put Hillary in the White House, all we're going to get is the last gasp of the Baby Boom generation.
So from a right wing perspective, if its inevitable that either Obama or Clinton be President, it would still be preferable for a Black man to serve under a White woman?
