Okay, as of now, this is my dream ticket.
Barack Obama and Paul Hackett
Between the two of them there’s nobody this side of Pat Robertson who wouldn’t vote for these guys. And, imagine, a VP you’d feel safe hunting with.
Nobody except more than half of Ohio, you mean. I love Obama too, went to his speech, etc. HE’S BLACK. HE WILL NOT WIN. WE’RE NOT THERE YET.
I’d say the best way to do this is to get him on a ticket as VP. You’ve got to instill a false sense of security in the rednecks, massage the idea into their heads.
H.
What about an Edwards-Obama ticket, with Obama as VP?
I was kinda kidding but where’s the love for the AR-15 slinging Democrat who single-handedly corralled 3 lawbreakers on his own? What redneck worth his salt wouldn’t slap Hackett on the back and line up behind him?
More seriously, though, of course you’d need at least one person with more experience on an Obama ticket. Having someone even less experienced than Obama running as VP wouldn’t really help a whole lot.
I dunno, there’s something about Edwards I never liked. I think it’s his all-too-polished earnest act. Obama seems to be the genuine article but Edwards appears far too airbrushed to me.
Hackett would alienate more Dems than he would turn on Repubs. Go read the comments at Huffingtonpost.com on the AR-15 story, the Dems hate him now.
What about that guy out in the plains that won the big upset in November? he’s pro-gun and seems like he’s got a good head on his shoulders.
Obama, on the other hand, is a kneejerk gun controller, which is a great way to seal the deal on never being elected.
H.
Oh, I think he’s savvy enough to moderate his stance on that issue in order to make traction in other areas where he can find more consensus. Having a pro-gun Southerner or Westerner on the ticket with him would moot most of that issue. Democrats haven’t made noise about gun control in ages. I think they realize that, whatever the merits (and I tend to believe there are many in fact), this is a loser of an issue if they’re looking to expand their base.
Edit: I went back and read the comments. Seems they’re not Huffpo comments but local folks and some make reference to the Indian Hill area as if they’re quite familiar with it. I read responses that went both ways actually. Some say Hackett overreacted and some say he did the right thing.
I wouldn’t mind the Edwards Obama ticket suggested earlier
too bad Warner quit, experience aside, he could appeal to the gun crowd.
Shit, I’d vote for that.
The thing about Obama is that he makes an Edwards look a bit superficial and, as someone mentioned, “airbrushed.”
Paul Hackett wasn’t running for the Senate - “half of Ohio voted against him” isn’t true. He was running in the 57th most conservative district in the country according to the Cook political report - the top 15% most conservative districts. He only lost by two points.
Mind you, Schmidt was a throughly wretched GOP opposing candidate, but still.
Is there anything not to like about Obama except the anti-gun stance? Obama for president, heck yea…
I have to wonder how much his gun-control position really hurts him. I mean how many people are there who would vote for a Democrat who are held back solely by his position on gun control?
There’s a ton of them - somewhat libertarian old guys out in rural areas who don’t like rich people very much, but vote guns before anything else.
Guns were supposed to be our last protection against government. It’s understandable.
One day we’ll wake up, and the party of the people (Democrats) will have stripped away the people of even the guns…and then what?
If it wasn’t for that, the Dems would be a lot better in my eyes ;).
You know, Obama’s “anti-gunz!!!” stance isn’t exactly nutty. From http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm:
Principles that Obama supports on gun issues:
Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.
Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.
Require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms.
And he voted against the bill to prohibit lawsuits against gun manufacturers, which sounds more to me like not being for sale than being anti-gun. Why is any of this unreasonable?
Only the third one makes sense though. #1 and #2 both restrict people’s natural rights per the Declaration of Independence to overthrow the government if they need to.
Are you being facetious? I can’t tell.
Actually, that is pretty nutty. Banning semi-automatic weapons would leave people with bolt-action rifles, shotguns, and revolvers. That’s it. Pistols? Gone. Clip rifles? Gone. Handguns? Gone.