Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

I suspect that the greatest long-term historical consequence of Dems...

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-07-06 11:13 PM
Original message
I suspect that the greatest long-term historical consequence of Dems...
... taking over the House next month will be that America has a woman 2nd in the line of succession for the Presidency.

Everything else that might happen (crosses fingers), while important strikes me as "getting back to zero". A woman that close to being President is a bonafide *advance*.

Thoughts?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DURHAM D Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-07-06 11:20 PM
Response to Original message
1. I was thinking about this last night. Dems take over the
House and we get Pelosi. Dems take over the Senate and offer the top job to Hillary. In return she promises not to run for Pres.

Obama runs for Pres and his running mate is Elizabeth Edwards (far better politician and speaker)than her husband.

A girl can dream...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-07-06 11:24 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Dreams fuel the hope of a better world....
... in contrast to those we oppose. Keep right on! :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-07-06 11:29 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. Obama is NOT running for president.
First, he hasn't sold ME.

Second, too green. Right now, he's all promise and nothing delivered.

Third, where's his war record? I'm not a Clark fan, but I will be listening to anybody who can tell me how to treat our troops well and bring them home alive and in one piece.

I don't mind his ambitions. Let me see a little achievement and a bit of silver in his hair, and then we'll talk.

Oh, and he's black. I'm not absolutely sure that matters, but it might.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-07-06 11:32 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. (Enter those who oppose us stage left)
Just can't let a girl's dream go by unmolested, eh?

How much lunch money have you collected from 3rd graders today, by the way?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-07-06 11:25 PM
Response to Original message
3. Pelosi doesn't automatically become Speaker.
They hold a mini-election for it. I say this not to quibble, but because I've seen a lot of people here just assuming that Pelosi is automatically the speaker if we win the election, when that's not the case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-07-06 11:27 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Yah, it's a quibble... And I never said there was no process involved...
Here's the only way your remark can NOT be a mere quibble: if you think there's a substantial chance that she won't get the nod from the caucus.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. Accuracy is a quibble, now?
There was an inaccurate impression being generated.

In any event, Murtha also seems interested in the job, so yes, there's a substantial chance that she isn't going to take it in a walk.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. My words generated no inaccurate impression...
... you just seem to want to think that anyone who doesn't detail EVERYTHING involved with the process is thereby *confused* about the process. It's an excellent example of what's called "an uncharitable reading".

I wasn't inaccurate - your suggestion that I was is a pathetic attempt to defend your being pedantic.

"so yes... she isn't going to take it in a walk"? LOL! The "so yes" part says that you're responding to what I originally said about whether or not Pelosi would get the nod in the end. You're actually lying in that - because the last part "in a walk" = "overwhelmingly" is NOT what I said, suggested , or implied. It was added by you because my actual claim was too hard for you disagree with rationally. The only wowrk you had to do was convince me (or any other reader) that your easier claim was the SAME as my original - hence the "so yes".

Well it didn't work. It's clearly a simple goalpost-moving lie.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Jul 30th 2014, 09:22 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC