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