If Edwards Drops Out He could be Obama's VP?

[Joe1990]

Neither Obama or Edwards is likely to beat Hillary. But if Edwards agrees to drop out before the primaries and Obama agrees to choose him as his VP they would definately defeat hillary. I would rather Have Edwards be the President, but realistically his best bet might be Obama's Vp. He was running for VP once before so he may be into it. They may have to comprimise, if they dont neither of them will win. Just look at the polls. Hillary is gonna take em both down unless they team up and do something like that.

[lily]

No, I think if Edwards drops out, he'll be pretty much done. He's had his two runs and I think if he doesn't get top prize he'll be at home with this family.

If Obama gets the nomination, he would be wise to pick someone with some experience and background. I'd put my money on Biden, Dodd or maybe Feinstein or Boxer.

Richardson would be the best choice for both Obama or Hillary. They'd get the Hispanic vote and have the experience of Richardson, plus the diplomat he would bring. After Cheney we do need a diplomat.

[Cobra]

An Edwards Obama ticket is one bound to fail. Both are young, and pretty boy edwards can bring nothing to an Obama ticket.

[ECW]

I love this kind of discussion. To me, it makes no difference because while we are discussing running mates on this side of the aisle, the other side of the aisle is discussing the latest screw-up or scandal that one or the other of them just got into because they couldn't close their mouths or they have a poor choice in friends.

My preferences:

Hillary-Richardson
Obama-Feinstein
Edwards-Bayh
Gore-Ben Nelson

[DANG]

The Rolling Stone (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/15825410/the_real_liberal_john_edwards_is_third_in_the_poll s_but_dont_count_him_out)

http://i.realone.com/assets/rn/img/2/8/0/7/15857082-15857085-slarge.jpg

<snip>
In head-to-head polling against the likes of Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney, Clinton and Obama have managed to post only modest leads. Edwards, by contrast, not only bests every Republican candidate in the race, he trounces them -- by an average of twelve points.Hillary and Obama are unAmerican. I dont know If I will vote for either if they get the nod.

Clinton is a right-wing tool (NAFTA for instance) and Obama put bush in office by not voting for a recount in Ohio 2004, in his first vote as a Senator.

[NortheastCynic]

It's strange, in theory, Edwards dropping out should help Hillary, as both of them are quasi-socialists [those of you who have been here for a while know I NEVER use that invective unless I mean it], with Edwards, in my view as the more leftward of the two. But in reality, Edwards dropping out would help Obama...Go figure.

-NC

[AlonzoMourning23]

The reason edwards trounces hillary and obama probably has a lot to do with the fact that he's neither black nor a woman. Honestly I can't think of any other reason. If it was just hillary yes, but Obama seems every bit as likeable as edwards and I can't see any other reason at this point.

[DANG]

This is no time for champions of the sexual and racial demographic.

We need the political opposite of bush/cheney to right the wrongs of the last 7 years.

Clinton and Obama dont fit that minimum criteria.

Edwards aint "dropping out".

He's the man I would be PROUD to call "My President".... finally.[hr]Zo said:
"Honestly I can't think of any other reason."

I can think of several.

For starters Hillary will be just another corporate shill.
Obama is willing to look the other way when there is blatant disenfranchisement.

[NortheastCynic]

Zo, it is because Barrack speaks in generalities whereas Edwards tells people exactly how much stuff he's going to "give" to them.

"Free" Pre-Kindergarden Education
"Free" Healthcare
"Free" College Tuition
etc.

-NC

[DANG]

Yup yup, generalities and platitudes. Lots of platitudes.

[DANG]

Which candidate can you picture saying;

"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
- Thomas Jefferson

[lily]

Truthfully.....I could see anyone of them saying it......but meaning it is a totally different thing.

[DANG]

Good point.

However I believe it when Edwards says it.

Check his track record.

He has made a career on going after corporate criminals.[hr]Edwards is the Anti-Poverty Candidate (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hvIkk1bvMYjFN1KULdaKcHAyFrugD8TKU3680)

He will roll back bush/cheney tax cuts for the elite.

Americas poor and middle class are damned to pay for bushs trillion-plus dollar war blunders.

[DANG]

As Edwards said:
"Dont replace Corporate Republicans with Corporate Democrats"

Hillary is beholden to those who invested in her campaign. Big Pharmacy, for one.

As for Obama... I just cant shake November 2004 from my mind.

The following article makes an exhaustive case against Senator Obamas very first vote as a Senator:
source (http://www.jjraymond.com/political/2005/obama012005.html)

Barak Obama and Ohio, shall he stand with Conyers?

Today Barak Obama, hailed as a rising star of the Democratic party, shall be sworn in as a United States Senator. However, Senator Obama shall have scant time to bask in the warm glow of his achievement for his first trial in office comes two days later, Thursday the 6th. This is when a joint session of Congress shall count the votes of the electoral college from the 2004 presidential election pursuant to United States Code, Title 3, Section 15. Say what? OK, maybe you have never heard of Title 3, Section 15 of the United States Code but certainly you have seen or heard of Mike Moore's polemic Fahrenheit 9-11. One of the more moving scenes in this flick was from January 2001 when 19 members of the Congressional Black Caucus filed objections to the electoral votes submitted from the State of Florida. This was done during the 2001 electoral college vote of which we shall have a replay on January 6, 2005. The 2001 version was anticlimactic. The law requires any challenge to electors to be in writing signed by both a member of the US House and Senate. 19 house members objected, no senators joined. In an appropriate twist of fait, Al Gore (in his capacity as presiding officer of the Senate) was the one who overruled the objections of the members of congress to the 2000 election and, thus, declared his opponent, George W. Bush, the winner.

It is important to note that there were no black senators in 2001. As of today, there shall be one. This election's Florida is Ohio. Congressman John Conyers (D-Michigan) has already publicly stated that he shall rise to challenge the electoral votes from Ohio on Thursday during the joint session of Congress. It is unknown how many members of congress shall rise with him. One thing is for certain though, all eyes shall be on the junior senator from Illinois this Thursday. Does he stand with John Conyers in objection or does he sit silently by?

Grounds for objection to Ohio electors
No one is really sure what the legal standards are for challenging electors in the January joint session of congress where the electoral college votes are counted. Reason: a proper challenge has never been filed. Congressman Conyers has already done the legal research on this issue:
Historically, there appears to be three general grounds for objecting to the counting of electoral votes. The language of 3 U.S.C. §15 suggests that objection may be made on the grounds that (1) a vote was not "regularly given" by the challenged elector(s); and/or (2) the elector(s) was not "lawfully certified" under state law; or (3) two slates of electors have been presented to Congress from the same State.
(quoting from letter of Congressman Conyers to Senator Boxer (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6210240/)). Congressman Conyers has honed in on the 2nd ground for objection: "the elector(s) was not 'lawfully certified' under state law". That's a significant hurdle to get over. For the record, the Ohio official who certified Bush the winner, Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, was also co-chair of the Ohio Bush-Cheney 2004 campaign. Yes, Bush's Ohio campaign chairman is in charge of counting the votes. Can you say Katherine Harris? FN1 As an aside, we need to end this practice in America. Is it such a difficult concept that vote counters should be non-partisan, neutral?

What evidence is there that the vote in Ohio was not lawful under state law?
The standard almost universally applied when the world community wishes to monitor elections in the 3rd World to determine whether or not fraud has occurred is exit polling data. In this case, the exit polling data from both Ohio and Florida indicates a statistically anomalous event. A professor at the University of Pennsylvania (with a Phd from MIT) calculated the probability that Kerry received 48.5% of the vote in Ohio (which is the percentage certified by Ken Blackwell) in light of the exit polling data that predicted Kerry's share at 51.2% to be less than 1 in 1000 (.08% to be exact). See Report of Dr. Freeman at page 7 (http://truthout.org/unexplainedexitpoll.pdf). As Dr. Freeman points out, no one has come forward with data adequately explaining how or why the usually reliable exit polling data was so wrong. The statistical analysis merely shows that the variation between the exit polls and the reported tallies is so disparate that it cannot be due to random chance. It does not lead to a conclusion of fraud or improper vote counting. Another potential explanation is that the poll was conducted improperly.

So do we have direct evidence of impropriety as opposed to a statistical inference? The following comes from Keith Olbermann of CNBC:
Interestingly, none of the complaining emailers took issue with the remarkable results out of Cuyahoga County, Ohio. In 29 precincts there, the County’s Website shows, we had the most unexpected results in years: more votes than voters.

I’ll repeat that: more votes than voters. 93,000 more votes than voters. Oops.

Talk about successful get-out-the-vote campaigns! What a triumph for democracy in Fairview Park, twelve miles west of downtown Cleveland. Only 13,342 registered voters there, but they cast 18,472 votes. Vote early! Vote often!
Olbermann link, See November 9 entry.

What this information tells us is that evidence exists tending to show that the 2004 presidential election was inaccurate (and substantially so). Although these facts alone should have been enough to spark a media uproar, barely a peep has been heard from the networks, major city papers, and cable bigs (i.e., CNN and Fox) on the subject. I think the main reason for this is that John Kerry has been secluded in Massachusetts licking his wounds and, for whatever reason, has chosen not to call for an investigation into the irregularities. Getting back to the original question, the evidence of an inaccurate vote is fine and dandy; however, in order to have grounds for an objection, evidence must be uncovered tending to show that Ohio election laws have been broken. Where there is smoke fire usually is not far behind, however, to overturn or even hold up a presidential election, I suggest actual fire is necessary. Do we have any direct evidence of the election laws of Ohio having been broken?

Amazingly, the answer is "yes". Section 3515 of the Ohio Revised Code reads as follows:
§ 3515.04. Procedure for recount; stopping recount.
At the time and place fixed for making a recount, the board of elections, in the presence of all witnesses who may be in attendance, shall open the .....

<snip>

What does Obama do?
OK, Kerry is MIA on this issue, he's got precious little time for consideration, what should Obama do regarding the Conyers challenge looming Thursday? As this shall be his first act in the senate and one that shall be closely watched, I am sure the Senator wants to move with discretion. What is the downside to joining Conyers? Well, of course, the Republican hounds shall bay at the moon. That's a given. They'll take any opportunity to jump on Fox News and howl. "I'm appalled at this upstart for attempting to delay the coronation of Emperor George II, what gall!" No real harm there. What is important is that Senator Obama be a man of reason, one not given to pure partisan actions lacking substance, a man with respect for the law and the Constitution. Based upon the foregoing, there does appear to be evidence that the election laws of Ohio have been violated regarding the recount. There is also evidence that the presidential vote total is incorrect. Is it not important that all votes be lawfully counted? Is that not a principle worth standing up for? I know its his first shot out of the box but I urge the Senator to stand tall this Thursday, shoulder-to-shoulder with Congressman Conyers. However, one bit of tactical advice: keep you decision close to the vest before Thursday (real close), call a press conference 20 minutes before the joint session is scheduled to start, then drop the news professionally, without undue emotion, laying out the legal grounds and supporting facts which you believe require that the electors from Ohio be rejected at this time. Then calmly call for a lawful, properly witnessed recount of the Ohio presidential ballots in accordance with that state's election laws.

In so doing senator, you shall immediately launch yourself as the national opposition leader to George W. Bush. Your spear will be planted in the ground. Game on.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FN1 Katherine Harris was the 2000 Florida Bush-Cheney campaign co-chair who also happened to be Florida Secretary of State and, thus, certified Bush the winner in that state in the 2000 election.

JJR
1-04-2005 Obama voted for bush. He actually cast his ballot for the loser of Ohios election process. Kerry had 51.2% of the vote (see exit poll results above in BLUE) Blackwell certified only 48.5% (see RED above)

(edit to add links)

[AlonzoMourning23]

Just wondering, where does it say obama voted for bush? I did a word search for Bush but don't really have the time to read it word for word at the moment.

[DANG]

Just wondering, where does it say obama voted for bush? I did a word search for Bush but don't really have the time to read it word for word at the moment.
On January 6, 2005 (http://votesmart.org/speech_detail.php?sc_id=167294&keyword=&phrase=&contain=):
"I am absolutely convinced that the President of the United States, George Bush, won this election. I also believe he got more votes in Ohio." ~Barack Obama

In spite of all the FRAUD and disenfranchisement that we were aware of in the Ohio 2004 election, Obama voted to go ahead with the counting of electoral votes on 1/6/2005. Kenneth Blacwell had certified a fraudulent count. That alone put bush in office for a 2nd term.

John Kerry won Ohio.

[AlonzoMourning23]

That's not the same as voting for Bush. Obama, along with Kerry and most others, had every reason to believe that. With that logic Kerry also voted for Bush.

[DANG]

Yes, Kerry too voted for bush, by default... He had every right to ask for a recount in several states. He was a coward.

We did have a champion in the form of Barbara Boxer (My Senator, thank you very much!!)

Senator Obama is a coward!
The House needed a Senator. Obama was too busy cheering for bush that day!
He got beat up by a girl!
See video on link (http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mikeinthenews/index.php?id=887)Representative Bob Ney, Ohio: Mr. President, the certificate of the electoral vote of the well-known and great State of Ohio seems to be regular in form and authentic , and it appears therefrom that George W. Bush of the State of Texas received 20 votes for President and DICK CHENEY from the from the State of Wyoming received 20 votes for Vice President.

Dick Cheney: For what purpose does the gentlewoman from Ohio rise?

Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Ohio: Mr. Vice President, I seek to object to the electoral votes of the State of Ohio on the ground that they were not, under all of the known circumstances, regularly given and have a signed objection, and I do have a Senator.

Cheney: Has the Senator signed the objection?

Jones: The Senator has signed the objection.

Cheney: An objection presented in writing and signed by both a Representative and a Senator complies with the law, chapter 1 of title 3, United States Code.

The Clerk will report the objection.

Clerk: We, a Member of the House of Representatives and a United States Senator, object to the counting of the electoral votes of the State of Ohio on the ground that they were not, under all of the known circumstances, regularly given. Signed Stephanie Tubbs Jones, State of Ohio, Barbara Boxer, State of California.

Cheney: The two Houses will withdraw from joint session. Each House will deliberate separately on the pending objection and report its decision back to the joint session.

The Senate will now retire to its Chamber.

[AlonzoMourning23]

Wow, so you're claiming not only Obama but even Kerry voted for Bush? That's a little bizarre to say the least.

[DANG]

There was a TON of FRAUD.
Sloppy and undeniable.

In Boston, John Edwards said, "We will fight for every vote."
"We're counting all the votes,'' said Mike McCurry, Mr. Kerry's chief spokesman....


But at 2:30 this morning, Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, Mr. Kerry's running mate, made a brief and dramatic appearance in front of a huge crowd of supporters at Copley Square in Boston to announce that he and Mr. Kerry would not concede.

"It's been a long time - but we've waited four years for this victory,'' he said to thousands of people who earlier had been expecting Mr. Kerry to be delivering a victory speech on that very spot. "We can wait one more night."

In what sounded like a hint of concerted legal action ahead, Mr. Edwards added tersely: "John Kerry and I made a promise to the American people that in this election, every vote would count and every vote would be counted. Tonight, we are keeping our word."Kerry conceded just a couple hours later.

In spite of known electile dysfunctions, like:
Columbus Free Press (http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2004/1032)

Kerry votes switched to Bush and ballots pre-punched for Bush
by Dr. Werner Lange
December 24, 2004

Pre-punched ballots; touch-screen vote switching; more absentee votes than absentee voters; unfair provisional voter deletions; change of voting sites on Election Day; voter suppression; voter intimidation; double voting; malfunctioning machines; recalibrated machines; evidently rigged machines; and even 25 million negative votes registered in some races in Mahoning County!
On election night CNN was busted for switching the exit poll results from Kerry to bush
CNN changed their exit polls to favor Bush early in the morning

http://img116.exs.cx/img116/1870/cnn_exitpoll1.gif

57 respondants later (1 hour 20 min later)

http://img116.exs.cx/img116/6413/cnn_exitpoll2.gif

These are screenshots I saved long ago, so sorry, no link.


The Election FRAUD of 2004 was fully covered on this forum (http://www.volconvo.com/forums/politics-government/3290-fraud.html)

[Truth_and_Power]

YES obama feinstein!!!

[DANG]

yuck!