It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is Hillary Clinton going to be President?

page: 10
5
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2007 @ 03:24 PM
link   


posted by Justin Oldham

On the basis of what you've just said, what will your expectations be from a Hillary Clinton administration? Will her party become more unified, or will we see more of the same juvenile behavior that the Republicans have become so "good" at? [Edited by Don W]



Part 1. I think all our readers will concede that if the election was held tomorrow, Hillary would get the most votes, and by a plurality, she’d be our next president. (A Lincoln won a 4 way race in 1860 with 39% of the popular vote. Not your overwhelming mandate. But enough to save the Union.)

But whoever is our next president, he or she will have from November 4, ‘08 - assuming we can count the votes - until January 20, 2009, to work behind the scenes with what few will remain of our Coalition Forces, and the neighboring countries around Iraq, to reach a “status quo post.” An end we can all live with, even if we call it temporary (an armistice) as we did on November 11, 1918 and again on July 27, 1953. Our president will be under heavy pressure from the American public to exit Iraq without delay. That’s his or her cover at home. If this thing - the Iraq War - is still dragging on in ‘09, even the Insurgents and Militias will have grown so weary they too will be happy to take a respite.

I for one, trust the very intelligent, very strong Iraqi people to resolve their internal differences in a way satisfactory to them. I don’t expect any bloodbaths. That is a horror story raised over here by the B43 stay-the-course types. It will be a Vietnam over again. We were threatened then with a bloodbath which did not occur.

There has already been enough blood shed in Iraq. The UK has acknowledged 657,000 Iraqi have been killed since March 18, 2003. Nearly double the number killed by Saddam in 22 years. Hmm?

The underlying issue is whether the next Iraqi government will honor the sweetheart contracts with ExxonMobil, TexacoChevron and Halliburton imposed on Iraq by the US designated Plenipotentiary L. Paul Bremer, III. Remember those critics who said this Second Punitive Expedition to Iraq was all about oil?

Q. Now that Halliburton is incorporated in the United Arab Emirate of abu Dhabi, will the US Congress be able to subpoena its internal documents to determine how much kick-backs VP Cheney gets paid for the thefts committed by Halliburton in Iraq?

Part 2. If the Democrats take their cues out of Dennis Hastert’s and Bill Frist’s play book, then I promise you, J/O, I’ll vote the straight GOP slate in 2010. As you may already know, I have only voted for a Republican 2 times in my life, both times for John Sherman Cooper, when he was running for senate - and elected - from Ky. Otherwise, I’m a party man and I stick by my party that stands for the things I stand for. Always.

[edit on 3/27/2007 by donwhite]




posted on Mar, 27 2007 @ 11:39 PM
link   
My suspicion is that Hillary Clinton in particular will see a status quo solution as regards Iraq. She's already telegraphed that when she said we'd have no choice but to leave some troops in Iraq. That military presence will also be necessary to keep leverage on the Iraq government to make sure they honor their contracts.

As a political scientist, I see no alternatives. The Iraqi civil war has to run its course. The people of that country have to become sick and tired of killing each other before they'll sit down to resolve their differences. I think that the top leadership in D.C. knows this, but they won't say it.

One last thing. So far as I know, the U.S. Congress will have no subpoena power over Haliburton once their leaders, bank accounts, and financial records are no longer on American soil.



posted on Mar, 28 2007 @ 02:08 PM
link   


posted by Justin Oldham

My suspicion is that Hillary Clinton in particular will ***seek/?/*** a status quo solution . . She's already telegraphed we'd have no choice but to leave some troops in Iraq. That presence will be necessary to keep leverage on the Iraq government to make sure they honor their contracts. [Edited by Don W]



1) After “The Decider” Bush43 ill advisedly destroyed the delicate balance that existed in the Middle East prior to March 18, 2003, we will need a presence there to keep Bush43's dire warning from becoming a self fulfilling prophecy. It will take years to undo the failed Neo Con gambit gone so tragically awry and of which B43 is the kingpin.

2) We must guard that Iraq will not replace Afghan as a “mecca” to seriously disenchanted Islamists. Radicals, we call'em. We must guard that Iran does not decide to take revenge for the 1980s war Saddam started. (With American approval, I’ve been told). We don’t need another planning, training and launching pad for terror in the world. Afghan and W-DC are enough!

3) If I were an Iraqi in power, my first order of business would be to “reform” all contracts made “under duress” by my predecessors. If that project moved too slowly or not far enough, then I’d renounce all prior deals! Europe, China, Japan and India will buy all the oil Iraq can produce, whether or not the us approves. Further, I would sue the United States of America for destroying my country in violation of international law and the UN Charter, for $10 trillion.



I see no alternative . . the Iraqi civil war will run its course. The people of that country have to become sick and tired of killing each other before they'll sit down to resolve their differences. I think that the top leadership in W-DC knows this, but they won't say it. One last thing. So far as I know, the US Congress will have no subpoena power over Haliburton once their leaders, bank accounts, and financial records are no longer on American soil. [Edited by Don W]



That desire - say need - by Halliburton for protection from close scrutiny is understandable. Their "man in Washington" Neo Con stalwart VP Cheney was gutted on November 4, and the Oberfuhrer was booted the next day. Halliburton’s top dogs could be another Enron! US must not only work for energy independence, but we must work for corporate responsibility and accountability as a necessary prerequisite to do business with the US Gov't. The taxpsyers are entitled to no less. Surely we can do that if there are 218 House and 50 Senate members who are not in the “pocket” of the Pentagon’s favored contractors? Or am I being totally unrealistic?

And don’t overlook the Income Tax Grand Slam for the R&Fs.

Mr Frist and Mr Hastert and Mr Bush created the special tax rate of 5% for income earned outside the US but brought back here. Couple that with the earlier 15% cap on dividend income and you can see why the GOP is no longer talking about a Flat Tax. They got it! For the&R&R&Fs, of course.

Q. If you don’t get half your income from the 2 sources named above, is it unkind of me to call the GOP supporters herded and delusional sycophants?

[edit on 3/28/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Mar, 29 2007 @ 08:36 AM
link   
I had to think about what Don said before I reached for my keyboard. There's just so much to say. So much that I could say. I don't disagree with any of the points he made, so let me switch gears.

Those of you who have been reading the stuff in my CM forum will already know that I think we're seeing the end of anti-Federalist resistence in this country. It's my contention that the Republicans know this, too. The move by Haliburton suggests that many of the right-wing FFA's are moving their wealth.

In some cases, the First Families of America can trace their lineage back to the Mayflower landings (Jamestown, circa 1680). As socially liberal as many of these pocket empires might be, they are always very conservative with their money. As with all other forms of human effort, follow the money and you'll see what's in your future.

Democrats and Republicans alike have been driving the increases in Federal power that have made so many of us nervous. There isn't a more "real" conspiracy than this. The social and political elites want the same thing. They each want more power. They might want it for different reason, but power is power. It's the ultimate vanilla. No matter what they plan on doing with it, "somebody" has to be in charge and they wnat it to be them...and not you.

My chief disagreement with the Democrat agenda is that they've always been more open about this drive to greater Federal authority than their conservative counterparts have been. Their ability to practice "real politik" (to borrow a Cold War term) has given them an edge from the start that I don't think my conservative counterparts have ever really understood. Modern Republicans have been so busy being partisan that they've forgotten how to practice pure politics.

Don and I have proven that its possible to disagree and still have a coherent dialogue. It's just the sort of thing that all good citizens need to learn how to do. We've lost touch with our ability to do this as a society. Some of it we can blame on the politicians who play us off against each other. The rest is our own fault. In this respect, we're getting nothing more than what we deserve.

As Hillary comes to power, I'll keep pointing out the things she does that back up my assertions. When Dems or Republicans do the things I've predicted that will harm us in the long run, I'll point those out too.



posted on Mar, 29 2007 @ 10:50 AM
link   


posted by Justin Oldham

You who read my CM forum already know I think we're seeing the end of anti-Federalist resistence in this country. The move by Halliburton suggests that many of the right-wing FFA's - First Families of America - are moving their wealth [off-shore].

My chief disagreement with the Democrat agenda is that they've always been more open about this drive to greater Federal authority than their conservative counterparts have been. Their ability to practice "real politick" (to borrow a Cold War term) has given them an edge from the start that I don't think my conservative counterparts have ever really understood.

Democrats and Republicans alike have been driving the increases in Federal power that have made so many of us nervous. No matter what they plan on doing with it, "somebody" has to be in charge and they what it to be them . . and not you.

As Hillary comes to power, I'll keep pointing out the things she does that back up my assertions. When Dems or Republicans do the things I've predicted that will harm us in the long run, I'll point those out too.

Don and I prove its possible to disagree and still have a coherent dialogue. It's just the sort of thing that all good citizens need to learn how to do. We've lost touch with our ability to do this as a society. Some of it we can blame on the politicians who play us off against each other. The rest is our own fault. In this respect, we're getting nothing more than what we deserve. [Edited by Don W]



America underwent a sea change in 1933. We hand another sea change in 1981. I agree, J/O, we are looking at a new sea change in 2009. It is hard to impossible to predict how America will look in 2012. Another poster on another thread has stressed how the military strategy that worked for the US in the Cold War is passe, outdated, but we are so slow in shifting gear to deal with 30-40 insurrections around the world at one time. If some think we can afford 30 super carriers, then they can’t count dollars and cents.

OTOH, I think we need a million nan (and woman) Peace Corps to get the kind of security we dream about but continue to crate nightmare scenarios as if we can be secure that old gun barrel way. 1 man, 1 guard. We cannot afford that. We have to stop thinking dumb and fighting dumb, and think smart and fight smart. Like 30 or 40 USS Hope Hospital ships serving the poor around the world, in a meaningful way. Like setting a goal for the US to cut back on green house gases, in a significant way. Like adding a $30 a barrel of crude oil GREEN tax. To encourage thriftiness and discourage waste. We can yet save the planet if we try. With that revenue dedicated to paying down the National Debt.

[edit on 3/29/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Mar, 29 2007 @ 01:38 PM
link   
On Wednesday, Republican Arizona Sen. John McCain made a stop in Northeast Florida, where he spoke with residents at the Fleet Landing retirement community in Atlantic Beach. A lot of retired Navy gathered to see McCain. He recalled his ties to the area. He said his family used to live in Orange Park when he was stationed at Cecil Field. [Early 1960s?] He said he would like to see a 12th carrier in the fleet. Later this week, Barack Obama will be in the River City Friday to attend a private fund-raiser at the Avondale, home of some local Democratic supporters.

I mentioned in another post that the Dems have not carried Jacksoinvlle in 24 years. Their best showing was 42% in 1996. There would not be 500 voters to show up in Atlantic Beach. A retirement center for admirals and commodores. I think by some devious hook or crook the US Gov't pays a large part of the golf course and country club. It is "made available" for high level guests. And etc. Pork you might call that in unsophisticated circiles. Fraud in others.

Q. If a guy is getting $10,000 a month rtirement, for life, and nearly free health care, should we pay his greens fees? Y __ N __ . Or is it a verificatoin of the rule, them that has, gits?

[edit on 3/29/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Apr, 3 2007 @ 09:27 AM
link   
I suppose are all waiting to see what the Obama campaign fund raising numbers are. If anyone sees an update on that, please post the link here.



posted on Apr, 3 2007 @ 10:07 AM
link   


posted by Justin Oldham

I suppose are all waiting to see what the Obama campaign fund raising numbers are. If anyone sees an update on that, please post the link here.



On this Tuesday AM newscast over my local CBS channel, but not CBS news, said Obama is claiming about $24 m. That seems unlikely to me. Not impossible by any means, but unlikely. It seems to me he would have wanted that number out to off-set any down-stroke he'd suffer if his numbers were arbitrarily or capriciously withheld.

It just doesn't ring true that he would either A) outdo both Romney and Giuliani and B) if that high number was real, that he would boast of that accomplishment and not hide it.

I dunno.

[edit on 4/3/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Apr, 3 2007 @ 10:28 AM
link   
The worst case scenario for Obama could be that he's actually done worse than he admits. I agree that if he had done so well, he'd be shouting it from the roof tops. The fact that he's so silent doesn't bode well. It's also possilbe that he's holding back because some other political scandal is about to break that could hard him and he's saving what good news he has as an offset. All I can say is that this is 'real' political theater.



posted on Apr, 7 2007 @ 06:21 AM
link   
Speaking of Barack Obama, I think he just caught a lucky break.

Edwards campaign scandal.



posted on Apr, 7 2007 @ 10:52 AM
link   


posted by Justin Oldham
Speaking of Barack Obama, I think he just caught a lucky break. Edwards campaign scandal.


Whatever George Washington and John Adams did in campaigning I do not know. Nor do I care much. What I do know is that American’s are shooting themselves in the foot with a lot of (uninspired) help from the Rehnquist Supreme Court. And I offer, it will get no better with the Roberts Court. This unspoken issue is after all, at the root of the struggle over SC appointments.

I cannot believe that the First Amendment overrides all Three Hundred Million citizens of the United States of America stopping them from establishing a sensible, reasonable, open and honest system of elections. Not only is that illogical, it is to me plainly stupid. I cannot accept that Americans are constitutionally obliged to turn over the governance of this country to 50,000-100,000 people I call the R&Fs, the ruling elite.

Like drunken Romans of olden times, running blindly to the games at the Coliseum, how much longer will we entertain ourselves with this spectacular scandalous denigrating dissembling race for the presidency now extended nearly 2 full years, I cannot tell? We watch with glee when we see how much money this or that candidate has collected. I suppose Vegas has a line on that, too. And it is as if we are too dumb to know - in our Goldwater heart of hearts - that every dollar given, well, every dollar say, over $1,000, will be returned to the giver 10 fold, 100 fold or even 1000s fold. And every ‘pay-back’ dollar is from the taxes of the same Americans who think they can do no better. That is pathetic.

It is already conceded this 2008 presidential race will cost over $1 b. But if we could tally the no bid contracts, earmarks, and unmerited appointments it will cost the US taxpayers 10s of billions of misspent dollars every year until 2016. For the R&Fs this is the greatest lottery in the world! You put in enough money, and you are a sure winner! In 2016, we the people will repeat this march of the ignorant. The March of the Penguins was a lot smarter; they knew where they were going and why.

Well, you can probably tell how I feel and where I stand, so I’ll end it here.

[edit on 4/7/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Apr, 7 2007 @ 02:57 PM
link   
Here at the Oldham ranch, the Edwards campaign scandal is being called a "sting." I've spent much more time than I intended this weekend responding to e-mail. I've had to refer people to my blog, just to get some peace and quiet.

It's true that he hasn't done anything illegal so far as the letter of the law is concerned, but there's no doubting that he's acted with very poor motive. Behavior like this can tell us a lot about his character, which I now find lacking.

That seems to be a chronic problem all the way around. None of the Presidential candidates have what I'd like to think of as a worthy character. I'm not asking for perfection, but I would like to see some degree of morality and fewer lies.

Playing the cancer card was wrong, and I'd like to think that Edwards will pay for that. I never thought he was a contender for the '08 race, so I don't have to worry about him as a future President. It IS possible that he knows he won't win, so he's decided to rake in a few extra million while he can. A little something to retire on.

Having said all this, I do still have many concernes about Hillary. My read of her isthat she wouldn't make a mis-step like this, but that she is capable of far more sinister deeds. Don and I do disagree on a great many things, but we can still talk. That simple civility is part of what has made this country work in the past. Each time we allow people like John Edwards or Hillary Clinton have their way with us...we end up just a little worse off for the experience.

Yes, before you reach for that keyboard, I'm ready to make similar criticisms of the Republicans.



posted on Apr, 7 2007 @ 04:56 PM
link   


posted by Justin Oldham

The Edwards campaign scandal is being called a "sting." I've spent much time this weekend responding to e-mail. I refer people to my blog, just to get some peace and quiet. It's true that he hasn't done anything illegal so far as the letter of the law is concerned, but there's no doubting that he's acted with very poor motives. Playing the cancer card was wrong, and I'd like to think that Edwards will pay for that. Behavior like this can tell us a lot about his character, which I now find lacking. [Edited by Don W]



Ill mannered, poor etiquette, boorish, and not found in Emily Post, yes to all of those, but proof of him lacking in character? I’m not so sure. If he says he did not know the sympathy e-mails would be added to his data base to be “used” for fund raising, I can accept that. Everyone knew he was running for office and Mrs. Edwards was helping him. To me it is a lot about a little. I see it as a 527 attack. He would be well advised not to claim ignorance but instead to take “responsibility,” apologize and DELETE the sympathy e-mails from his data base.



That seems to be a chronic problem all the way around. I would like to see some degree of morality and fewer lies. I never thought [Edwards] was a contender for '08, so I don't have to worry about him as a future President. It IS possible that he knows he won't win, so he's decided to rake in a few extra million while he can. A little something to retire on.


You’re being too harsh on him, J/O. He is after all the owner of the largest house - square foot wise- in NC, so the story goes. I assume they are excluding the 1890s Vanderbilt Biltmore Estate near Asheville. 400 rooms but now an historic site.



I still do have many concerns about Hillary. My read of her is that she wouldn't make a mis-step like this, but that she is capable of far more sinister deeds. Don and I do disagree on a great many things, but we can still talk. That simple civility is part of what has made this country work in the past. Each time we allow people like John Edwards or Hillary Clinton have their way with us . . we end up just a little worse off for the experience.



She’s a woman toughing it out in what was once exclusively a man’s world. It's been just 23 years since Geraldine Ferraro ran for VP in 1984. On the Dems ticket, ladies. Every married man faces the same problem. We 50s and up types grew up in a male dominated society, but many woman insist on equal or superior roles in the marriage. Prior generations frequently accommodated to that phenomenon by declining the wife’s offer to fight. What usually came out of that potentially destructive issue was a stand-off to which each party gradually worked out the minimum limits of what they needed and how much they could give to the other partner and preserve face. When it could not be resolved amicably then a divorce was just down the track. This is the origin of “no fault” divorce, by the way.

Aside: It also means none of us believe the words or promises made in the ritualistic marriage ceremony. Although we repeat the words, it’s just a quaint form from the past to go through and empty words to say. Like a magic formula. End.

I’ve already mentioned in another post that Hillary survived the (orchestrated?) shouts by some for her to apologize for her 2001 pro-War vote with no visible damage. She had more guts than I did. I have a personality trait that needs approval. She either does not, or has leaned to live with it. I do not see the money hunt as immoral. [Well, that’s a lie but I have to say that to make a point.] It is a brutal, demeaning necessity all 300 million of us put on them. It’s our national Survivors Game Show with a $3 trillion pot of gold at the end. We will all get to vote for the last one standing on November 4, 2008.

[edit on 4/7/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Apr, 21 2007 @ 11:08 PM
link   
It's time for me to bring you all a new observation. Something that may need to be talked about for a while. I have been following bill Richardson, and his campaign seems to gearing up. I noticed a few small moves here and there which can prove to be significant in the future. Talk is cheap, but there's a rumble in certain Dem circles that he might be setting his sights on the Vice Prsidency.

Knowing that Obama is now playing an all-or-nothing strategy, could we see Bill Richardson as Mrs. Clinton's running mate instead of Barack Obama? I have previously said that he is a contender, so long as Obama doesn't want to be VP. You'll find that in this and other threads.

What says you?



posted on Apr, 22 2007 @ 11:32 AM
link   


posted by Justin Oldham

It's time to bring you a new observation. Something that needs to be talked about. I have been following Gov Bill Richardson and his campaign seems to gearing up. I noticed a few small moves here and there which can prove to be significant in the future. Talk is cheap, but there's a rumble in certain Dem circles that he might be setting his sights on the Vice Presidency. [Edited by Don W]



I’ve liked Bill Richardson since I first heard of him. Three questions. 1) what do you make of the Bush43 administration ’s approval of his trip to North Korea to retrieve 1953 GI remains? 2) Was that not an anti-Hillary move? 3) Do you think he is running for VP?



Knowing that Obama is now playing an all-or-nothing strategy, could we see Bill Richardson as Mrs. Clinton's running mate instead of Barack Obama? I have previously said that he is a contender, so long as Obama doesn't want to be VP. You'll find that in this and other threads. What says you?



You know I have said from Day One that 2008 is not Obama’s time. A Colin Powell, maybe. Barack, not yet. Too young, too inexperienced on the national scene. Why replace an unprepared B43 with an even less well prepared one?

My earlier “take” was the Dems would see the 2008 election again coming down to Ohio or Florida. Hillary can “handle” Ohio, and Sen. Bill Nelson or former Governor Mark Warner could keep the South “in play.” Now, my prediction is called into question. The Dems choice of Denver for the Convention shows the Dems are looking to the West to hold the balance in the Electoral College. That points to Bill Richardson as the VP nominee.

Now, J/O, what say you?

[edit on 4/22/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Apr, 22 2007 @ 05:44 PM
link   
I think that Karl Rove had a hand in green-lighting the Richardson trip to North Korea. By 'legitimizing' an underdog, he can stir the Demcrat's pot...just a little, which will put pressure on Obama. If I was looking for a wedge to drive in to the DNC machinery, that would be it.

Whether its true or not, it would make sense for Richardson to push for the VP 'address' on the Democrat ticket. He can flow low and slow until the end of the summer, and then he can go full throttle in a bid to get the job. Obama's decision to run for the top seat meansthat no matter what happens, he will always be vulnerable to the VP challengers.

From my point of view, he had a lock on the Vice Presidency. Pushing for the Presidential nod, he really does play for everything...or nothing. Why? Because he opens himself up to more competitors. The VP contenders will take a poke at him...just to be sure...he doesn't move in on theri job at the last second.

If you happen to be a dark master of politics in the Republican camp, you might throw a little meat to the hungry and underfunded who might take a bite out of Hillary or Obama...just 'cause. For the moment, Obama is a long term threat...as long as...he has the potential to seek office again the future. If you're a Republican strategist, that's what you look at.



posted on Apr, 22 2007 @ 09:35 PM
link   


posted by Justin Oldham

I think Karl Rove had a hand in green-lighting the Richardson trip to North Korea. By 'legitimizing' an underdog, he can stir the Democrat's pot . . which puts pressure on Obama. If I was looking for a wedge to drive in to the DNC machinery, that would be it. [Edited by Don W]



I agree, J/O, but 2 remarks. 1) the GOP may regret pushing Richardson to the fore, and 2) all the more if western states prove to be decisive.

I know you are trying to keep an open mind, J/O, but Isaiah’s prophecy is not going to come to pass in this decade. Isaiah 11:6 . . and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together;

I don’t care how well Obama does in polls, nor how much money he raises, the Dems are not going to lose this singular opportunity to gain the presidency in 2008. If Obama plays his game right, he will have a great opportunity in 2016. But he is in the wrong party if he is serious about 2008.



Whether its true or not, it would make sense for Richardson to push for the VP 'address' on the Democrat ticket. From my POV, Obama had a lock on the Vice Presidency. By pushing for the Presidential nod, he really does play for everything . . or nothing. Why? Because the VP contenders will take a poke at him . . just to be sure . . he doesn't move in on their job at the last second. For the moment, Obama is a long term threat . . as long as . . he has the potential to seek office again the future.



Absolutely. Which again, makes me curious when will Obama back down. Right now its fun, its novel, its good for race relations, but it can turn sour almost anytime and if let run on too long, can be a bigger problem later than if Obama is “asked out” earlier. Obama cannot finesse his way into the nomination. I feel 100% confident the Senior Black Leadership will back away from him when it comes time to get serious.

[edit on 4/22/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Apr, 22 2007 @ 11:48 PM
link   
It does make a certain amount of political sense to assume that Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton will sabotage Obama. They'd like to see him fail because they didn't anoint him. It's true that Barack may become a modern day Icarus, but that does remain to be seen. My official guess is that he and Hillary will have their first heart-to-heart dialogue in late summer. If she hasn't had a pow-wow with my by the end of August, she might not try to cut a deal with him at all.

Why? One reason. I'm looking at the action levels of the Hispanic community,and that of the Black community. If Hillary wanted to be the race of on...race...she might very well go with Richardson because the Hispanics are more likely to vote and they got a better donation record. Not necessarily more money, but a higher consistency of giving.

There is also the fact that the Dems can woo Hispanic voters by toughting a lenient path to citizenship policy that the Republicans can not. Of the two groups, Dems can offer more to the Hispanics at this time. Hence, Richardson makes a lot of sense.



posted on Apr, 23 2007 @ 08:29 PM
link   


posted by Justin Oldham

It makes [down and dirty] political sense to assume that Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton will sabotage Obama. They'd like to see him fail because they didn't anoint him. It's true Barack may become a modern day Icarus, but that remain to be seen. [Edited by Don W]



Actually I had in mind Charles Rangel and Helen Holmes Norton. And others like Harry Belafonte. Maybe Bill Cosby. And for sure, Oprah! Main stream African Americans. The Rev’s Jackson and Sharpton have their own constituencies.



My guess is he and Hillary will have their first heart-to-heart in late summer. If she hasn't had a pow-wow with him by the end of August, she might not try to cut a deal with him at all.



Yes. That [hush-hush bi-lateral conference] depends on 2 things. 1, how well he is doing, poll-wise and money-wise, and 2, how he see’s his own future interests being best served.



Why? I'm looking at the action levels of the Hispanic community and the Black community. Hillary might go with Richardson because Hispanics are more likely to vote and [have] a better donation record. Not necessarily more money, but a higher consistency of giving.



Hispanics number 14% and blacks 13% of the US population Hispanics in Florida vote GOP a lot. Blacks, God Bless’em, vote Dem like Ivory Snow, 99.44%. No identifiable group supports the Dems longer stronger or better than America’s blacks. But, as you remind, politics is not about sentimentalism, it’s about realism. Which states will be the KEY states in ‘08? Dems guessed right in 2000, Florida, and again in 2004, Ohio. Can they guess right in ‘08? Whichever states hold the 270th vote in the Electoral College gets the Dems attention.



There is also the fact that the Dems can woo Hispanic voters by pushing a lenient path to citizenship policy that the Republicans can not. Of the two groups, Dems can offer more to the Hispanics at this time. Hence, Richardson makes a lot of sense.



Yes, and with Richardson’s English (white) surname, the Dems can downplay that ethnicity in those states where there is resentment against undocumented workers. Best of both worlds?



posted on Apr, 24 2007 @ 03:48 AM
link   
If I were a Democrat planner, I might be willing to gamble on African American loyalty in 2008 so that I could steer moremoney to the Hispanic lobby...just this once. the GOP effort this time around will be so disjointed that it would be possible for any industrious State-level campaigners to woo and win many of those right-wing thinkers. As a conservative, I'm not going to be gladto see this happen, but I am a realist.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join