Obama Should Thank Jeri Ryan

[PlacentiaSoccerMom]

http://www.tmz.com/2008/02/15/jeri-ryan ... edcontents

[Bob78164]

As I recall, 2004 was a <U>very</U> bad year for Republicans in Illinois. I don't recall Ryan ever being favored in the race -- certainly by the time it came to my attention (before the divorce revelations that forced Ryan out of the race), Obama was expected to win, and win handily. --Bob

[TheCalvinator24]

Ryan was still favored when he dropped out by my recollection.

[peacock2121]

It always amazes me that people do not recall that is how he got into the senate.

[minimetoo26]

Sometimes these things work out for the best, though. In Virginia, John Warner didn't win his party's nomination, but the nominee was killed in a plane crash, and Warner barely beat the Democratic challenger for the Senate seat.

Warner has been in the Senate ever since, and even my bleeding-heart self has voted for the man...

[silverscreenselect]

There's more to the story.

In the primary, Obama's chief opponent was a wealthy, self-funded businessman Blair Hull who was ahead in the polls until allegations of spouse abuse appeared in the local newspapers. Hull's ex-wife had obtained a restraining order in their divorce six years earlier, but the divorce records were sealed. Under pressure, Hull released the records which contained allegations made by her at the time that he had kicked her. Hull was never arrested, and during the 2004 campaign his ex-wife never commented other than to say he'd make a good senator.

http://tinyurl.com/2uolnn

Obama was given the keynote speaker slot at the 2004 convention because Democratic leaders thought it would boost his visibility and generate some popular buzz that would be needed against Ryan.

The leaking of the stories about Hull and Ryan has been a matter of considerable speculation in Illinois politics the last four years. Obama has a lot of well connected friends who don't mind playing dirty.

What goes around comes around and those Democrats who are closing their eyes and jumping on his bandwagon will find that out to their dismay when the Republicans really light into him.

[wintergreen48]

The leaking of the stories about Hull and Ryan has been a matter of considerable speculation in Illinois politics the last four years. Obama has a lot of well connected friends who don't mind playing dirty.

What goes around comes around and those Democrats who are closing their eyes and jumping on his bandwagon will find that out to their dismay when the Republicans really light into him.

It is interesting how that negative karma thing works, and how it often works exactly as you say. One major feature of the 1988 campaign was the Willie Horton ads that helped sink Dukakis, but that attack was actually first launched against Dukakis in the primaries, by Al Gore; the Republicans saw a 'good' thing and used it to great advantage in the general election (Gore's attack had been more cerebral-- there were articles in Reader's Digest and news stories in other media about how Dukakis was soft on crime, but the Republican attack was more visceral, as they used Horton's booking photos which depicted an extraordinarily scary looking guy, which sent a very clear message 'How in the world could Dukakis (or the people he appointed) have possibly NOT seen how dangerous this guy was???'

Hmmm.... one lousy paragraph... this is kind of short for me, so I think I need to add some prolixity so as not to disappoint Cary the Label Guy...

It is very tough for an incumbent VP to win a Presidential election. Martin van Buren (VP for the 'other' Andrew Jackson) did it in 1836 (and lost when he ran for re-election against a Southerner who had the 'common touch') and Bush I did it in 1988 (and lost when he ran for re-election against a Southerner who had the 'common touch'): no one else managed to do it in the 152 years between those two elections, although Nixon came close against Kennedy in 1960 and Humphrey came close against Nixon in 1968, and since 1988 Gore came extraordinarily close in 2000. I think that the problem for an incumbent VP is that he doesn't get any credit for anything good that was done during the administration in which he served (after all, the Vice Presidency isn't worth a bucket of warm piss, and everyone knows that the VP has no real power), but he gets the blame for anything bad that happened during the administration in which he served (guilt by association). If the Democrats had run a real candidate in 1988, Bush I would probably have been just a footnote in history.

Another tidbit: there have been 8 Presidential elections since 1976, and every Republican national ticket during that period included either Bob Dole or George Bush; 2008 will be the first time that neither of those names is on the ballot (although the Democrats are campaigning pretty hard against George Bush). I 'spect that McCain will try to get Huckabee (or, less likely, Romney) on his ticket, to try to placate some of his critics on the Republican side, but it would be interesting if he were to get Jeb Bush or Liddy Dole, in order to keep the dynastic streak running.

And something else that is kind of interesting is that everyone knows that Jimmy Carter is a loser, but in the 9 Presidential elections since Johnson's 1964 landslide, only one Democrat has ever managed to win 50% of the popular vote, and that was Jimmy Carter. And during the four Presidential elections from 1972 through 1984, only one Democratic candidate managed to win more than one of the fifty states, and that too was Jimmy Carter, who did it twice. He is a loser, but perhaps not so much as a loser as he is portrayed.

I hope Cary is satisfied with this. I have some more I can add if necessary.

[Jeemie]

http://www.tmz.com/2008/02/15/jeri-ryan ... edcontents

Resistance is futile!

You will be assimilated!

[TheConfessor]

I don't get it. What's that photoshopped Obama photo supposed to be? And what does it mean?

Alan Keyes deserves some of the credit for Obama's political career.

[peacock2121]

That is what Jeri Ryan looked like on that Star Trek show. Half her face was metal or something.

[ulysses5019]

That is what Jeri Ryan looked like on that Star Trek show. Half her face was metal or something.

It's the ultimate fashion accessory....

[wbtravis007]

wintergreen wrote:

Hmmm.... one lousy paragraph... this is kind of short for me, so I think I need to add some prolixity so as not to disappoint Cary the Label Guy...

It is very tough for an incumbent VP to win a Presidential election. Martin van Buren (VP for the 'other' Andrew Jackson) did it in 1836 (and lost when he ran for re-election against a Southerner who had the 'common touch') and Bush I did it in 1988 (and lost when he ran for re-election against a Southerner who had the 'common touch'): no one else managed to do it in the 152 years between those two elections, although Nixon came close against Kennedy in 1960 and Humphrey came close against Nixon in 1968, and since 1988 Gore came extraordinarily close in 2000. I think that the problem for an incumbent VP is that he doesn't get any credit for anything good that was done during the administration in which he served (after all, the Vice Presidency isn't worth a bucket of warm piss, and everyone knows that the VP has no real power), but he gets the blame for anything bad that happened during the administration in which he served (guilt by association). If the Democrats had run a real candidate in 1988, Bush I would probably have been just a footnote in history.

This is a good example of the peril of drawing conclusions from really small samples. Sure, 152 years sounds like a long time -- and you can make it sound even longer by saying there's been only one exception (Bush) in the last 172 years. Still, though, we're looking at a sample of just four people: Nixon, Humphrey, Bush and Gore.

It seems to me that most if not all of the people who have agreed to be a candidate for VP in modern political times have done so in order to enhance their chances of becoming President. To suggest that this little sample demonstrates that one's chances are diminished by the vice presidency is pretty silly, I think.

Since 1900, we've had seven Presidents who served as VP's. Only five who had served as VP's during that period failed in their efforts to be elected President as their party's nominee: Humphrey, Ford, Dole, Mondale and Gore. Moreover, in all of the years since Van Buren, I can think of only one instance when a VP tried and failed to secure his party's nomination for President: Dan Quayle.

I think that's a pretty good track record. I'd bet that in every case where a former VP has run for President -- (whether he ended up winning or not) -- his chances were enhanced by his service as VP, and that he came closer than he would have if he hadn't been a VP.

[Jeemie]

I don't get it. What's that photoshopped Obama photo supposed to be? And what does it mean?

Alan Keyes deserves some of the credit for Obama's political career.

You must have never watched Star Trek or know anything about the Borg.

[wintergreen48]

wintergreen wrote:

Hmmm.... one lousy paragraph... this is kind of short for me, so I think I need to add some prolixity so as not to disappoint Cary the Label Guy...

It is very tough for an incumbent VP to win a Presidential election. Martin van Buren (VP for the 'other' Andrew Jackson) did it in 1836 (and lost when he ran for re-election against a Southerner who had the 'common touch') and Bush I did it in 1988 (and lost when he ran for re-election against a Southerner who had the 'common touch'): no one else managed to do it in the 152 years between those two elections, although Nixon came close against Kennedy in 1960 and Humphrey came close against Nixon in 1968, and since 1988 Gore came extraordinarily close in 2000. I think that the problem for an incumbent VP is that he doesn't get any credit for anything good that was done during the administration in which he served (after all, the Vice Presidency isn't worth a bucket of warm piss, and everyone knows that the VP has no real power), but he gets the blame for anything bad that happened during the administration in which he served (guilt by association). If the Democrats had run a real candidate in 1988, Bush I would probably have been just a footnote in history.

This is a good example of the peril of drawing conclusions from really small samples. Sure, 152 years sounds like a long time -- and you can make it sound even longer by saying there's been only one exception (Bush) in the last 172 years. Still, though, we're looking at a sample of just four people: Nixon, Humphrey, Bush and Gore.

It seems to me that most if not all of the people who have agreed to be a candidate for VP in modern political times have done so in order to enhance their chances of becoming President. To suggest that this little sample demonstrates that one's chances are diminished by the vice presidency is pretty silly, I think.

Since 1900, we've had seven Presidents who served as VP's. Only five who had served as VP's during that period failed in their efforts to be elected President as their party's nominee: Humphrey, Ford, Dole, Mondale and Gore. Moreover, in all of the years since Van Buren, I can think of only one instance when a VP tried and failed to secure his party's nomination for President: Dan Quayle.

I think that's a pretty good track record. I'd bet that in every case where a former VP has run for President -- (whether he ended up winning or not) -- his chances were enhanced by his service as VP, and that he came closer than he would have if he hadn't been a VP.

(AHEM) I didn't say that being VP does not enhance someone's Presidential opportunities, what I said is that it is tough for an incumbent VP to win election, and I think that the record shows that to be the case. You mention the fairly large number of VPs who actually did win the Presidency, well, let's take a close look at that: there have been 46 VPs to date, three before the enactment of the 12th Amendment (which changed the way Presidents and Vice Presidents take office) and 43 since then: two of the three pre-12th Amendment VPs made it (and the Amendment was put into effect largely because of the efforts made by the third one to get the job), while 12 of the post-12th Amendment VPs have become President. But how did those twelve get to be President? 8 of them (Tyler, Fillmore, Johnson I, Arthur, Roosevelt I, Coolidge, Truman, Johnson II) got there because the President died in office, and another got there because the President resigned, so what you have is a situation where 75% of the ones who have made it did so because of an 'accident of history.' Of the other three, two (van Buren and Bush I) won election as incumbent Vice Presidents, while the third (Nixon) won election against an incumbent Vice President (and Nixon himself of course LOST when he ran as an incumbent Vice President). Not a great success record, there.

At one time, the road to the White House was actually much surer if you went via the State Department than via the Vice Presidency: 6 of the first 17 Secretaries of State later became President (two of the 6 were also VPs). That seems to have dried up in recent years, though: the last of them was James Buchanan, nearly 160 years ago. Maybe Condi's due for something...

[PlacentiaSoccerMom]

I don't get it. What's that photoshopped Obama photo supposed to be? And what does it mean?

[TheConfessor]

I don't get it. What's that photoshopped Obama photo supposed to be? And what does it mean?

Alan Keyes deserves some of the credit for Obama's political career.

You must have never watched Star Trek or know anything about the Borg.

That is correct. I have never watched a full Star Trek episode or movie in my life. This is the only Borg I know anything about:

[wbtravis007]

wintergreen said:

AHEM) I didn't say that being VP does not enhance someone's Presidential opportunities, what I said is that it is tough for an incumbent VP to win election, and I think that the record shows that to be the case.

I know what you said and stand by my view that to draw such a conclusion from a sample of four (Nixon, Humphrey, Bush and Gore) is silly.

Someone once said -- (okay, okay, that person has said it a lot more than once) -- something like: you can tell someone's biases by their mistakes. (I know, I know. That person is often wrong, but still.)

I think sometimes people are so interested in trying to demonstrate that they know some fact or another that they'll frame it in a context of a conclusion that bears no resemblance to reality. I'd rather just hear the fact stated as an oddity than hear it stated in the context of some oddball theory.

Besides, it all comes down to wookus size anyway.

I'll add this as an edit: I'm really tired of people saying that Senators aren't often elected, and that there's an inherent disadvantage to having a legislative background because of the voting record that comes with it, blah blah blah. Talk about bogus!

Let's see. Since '48 we've had a former Senator, then two terms of a General. Then, two former Senators running aginst each other. Same in '64. Same in '68. Same in '72. We know that our next Presient will be a former Senator. Gore and Kerry could've easily won. Dole didn't lose because he was a Senator, and neither did Mondale. And Ford didn't lose because he'd been a House leader.

[Rexer25]

I think sometimes people are so interested in trying to demonstrate that they know some fact or another that they'll frame it in a context of a conclusion that bears no resemblance to reality. I'd rather just hear the fact stated as an oddity than hear it stated in the context of some oddball theory.

It seems that you're the one with the oddball theory, wbt. While the holders of the office of vice-president may gain valuable experience in the executive branch, most of the voters in this country do not seem to agree with you. And they show that disagreement by voting for other people for president. If you can show me more than 2 examples where a sitting vice-president has been elected as president, then I'll give your theory more consideration. In the meantime, you can go on ignoring facts, and jumping to conclusions.

[wbtravis007]

I think sometimes people are so interested in trying to demonstrate that they know some fact or another that they'll frame it in a context of a conclusion that bears no resemblance to reality. I'd rather just hear the fact stated as an oddity than hear it stated in the context of some oddball theory.

It seems that you're the one with the oddball theory, wbt. While the holders of the office of vice-president may gain valuable experience in the executive branch, most of the voters in this country do not seem to agree with you. And they show that disagreement by voting for other people for president. If you can show me more than 2 examples where a sitting vice-president has been elected as president, then I'll give your theory more consideration. In the meantime, you can go on ignoring facts, and jumping to conclusions.

You're missing my point.

Anyway, here are some that meet your criteria (but not wintergreen's):

Adams, Jefferson, Van Buren, TR, Coolidge, Truman, Johnson, Bush. Not many have lost. Just Nixon, Humphrey and Gore (I think).

Second edit: Okay, I re-read your post, and realize that your criteria are the same as Wintergreen's. Sorry. So, strike all between Van Buren and Bush.

[Rexer25]

I think sometimes people are so interested in trying to demonstrate that they know some fact or another that they'll frame it in a context of a conclusion that bears no resemblance to reality. I'd rather just hear the fact stated as an oddity than hear it stated in the context of some oddball theory.

It seems that you're the one with the oddball theory, wbt. While the holders of the office of vice-president may gain valuable experience in the executive branch, most of the voters in this country do not seem to agree with you. And they show that disagreement by voting for other people for president. If you can show me more than 2 examples where a sitting vice-president has been elected as president, then I'll give your theory more consideration. In the meantime, you can go on ignoring facts, and jumping to conclusions.

You're missing my point.

Fine. I'm missing your point. Can you explain it to me without showing your contempt?

[wbtravis007]

It seems that you're the one with the oddball theory, wbt. While the holders of the office of vice-president may gain valuable experience in the executive branch, most of the voters in this country do not seem to agree with you. And they show that disagreement by voting for other people for president. If you can show me more than 2 examples where a sitting vice-president has been elected as president, then I'll give your theory more consideration. In the meantime, you can go on ignoring facts, and jumping to conclusions.

You're missing my point.

Fine. I'm missing your point. Can you explain it to me without showing your contempt?

I don't know. I'll try.

wintergreen noted that there had been 152 years between Van Buren's election and Bush's, and thought that that was significant. He concluded something from that:

I think that the problem for an incumbent VP is that he doesn't get any credit for anything good that was done during the administration in which he served (after all, the Vice Presidency isn't worth a bucket of warm piss, and everyone knows that the VP has no real power), but he gets the blame for anything bad that happened during the administration in which he served (guilt by association).

I was trying to point out that he had defined his control group so narrowly -- (the group was: Nixon, Humphrey and Bush) -- that it was kind of a stretch to draw that conclusion.

My take is that all three benefited by being a sitting VP. Two came closer to being President than they otherwise would have, and one won.

I was just saying that there wasn't sufficient evidence to suggest that running as a sitting VP was a disavantage, and that, despite all the hoop-la about the 152-year-gap and what not, we were still talking about a sample of three people.

My guess is that many people would assume that the 152-year gap has more meaning than it really does.

I view it as just an interesting fact, an oddity. Nothing more.

[Jeemie]

I personally like the wookus hypothesis myself.

Although I will not ask how Skippy has come by his data to support the hypothesis!

[Buffacuse]

I don't know about Obama, but I would like to thank Jeri Ryan for just about anything.

[Flybrick]

I don't know about Obama, but I would like to thank Jeri Ryan for just about anything.

2