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: 11
5
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 24 2007 @ 08:40 AM
link   


posted by xpert11

Generally when a person plans to be elected to office the person has to do a significant amount of planning . . American politics is a whole lot of fund raising. [CFR - Campaign Finance Reform] Having read the responses concerning Ron I think that he is making a token bid. I can’t work out why Ron would make a token bid . . currently he is highlighting why traditional conservatives are unhappy with the Republican party.

Ron could be risking his chance of gaining the nomination in the future. Why wasn't the planing and movement to get Ron into the White House started back in 2003-04? The likes of Hilary and Obama have clearly planed and put in place the machinery needed for them to have a realistic chance at wining the nomination. I'm not even sure if any of the Republican contenders have done that . . Ron isn’t alone in that regard. It seems like Rudy and others decided to run on the spur of the moment. [Edited by Don W]



A token bid. I think the 110th House is 232 Dem, 1 Independent (VT) and 202 GOP. Dr. Ron Paul sounds like a maverick who is outside the bounds of GOP philosophy. What by the way, is the major city in his 14th Texas district? Also, perhaps J/O will favor us with the number of House seats on each side of the aisle that were won or lost by 5,000 votes or fewer in 2006. Any of those seats held by Republicans would be at high risk for the GOP in ‘08. (And if the 110th House disappoints the public, also such equally close seats would be at risk to the Dems.)

Ron Paul - and any sitting House member or Senator - gains clout in his party inner circle if he or she can show popular support outside his or her district or state. This may be as mundane as giving him or her more or larger earmarks. So I suspect Paul is mainly hoping to enhance his voice in the Republican Caucus. And get some extra “consideration” by the majority party as well.

Spur of the moment? Now you’re talking Huckabee and Thompson. The former is already treading in deep do-do for taking a State Police airplane on campaign trips. The Arkansas State Police must be one fine organization? The latter is too long in the tooth to do much outside Wisconsin where half the people alive there were born after his gubernatorial tenure.

I’d question whether Giuliani and Romney were johnny come lately into the presidential contest. Every pol - especially the mayor of the capital of the world - and a GOP governor in a Dem’s hornet nest - must surely see himself sitting in the White House! Let’s face it, almost anytime you want you could name 100 people around the US of A who were “capable” of gaining the presidency. Schwarzenegger would be high on that list but for the chance of his birth site. Us old-timers still recall when cream rose to the top of a quart of milk. Before homogenization. Yes, we used to pour off the cream for use in coffee and cooking. Despite cream being thought of as”heavy” it is lighter than milk!

While Hillary has been planning this run since 1992, I doubt Obama has such a long history behind him. I’d guess his surprise victory in Illinois in 2004 was the first time anyone around him ever mentioned the White House. Obama needs to have 2 plans in place. 1) his re-election in 2010 and 2) how to capitalize on his new-found national popularity. Don’t forget if he had not been a black senator - first since 1966's Edward Brooke of MA - the junior senator from Illinois would be approximately unknown.



posted by xpert11


posted by Justin Oldham
I say that Mr. Paul is not making the effort that he would make if he were really in this thing to win. I don't mean any disrespect to the man, but he's just playing at this and it shows.


For the sake of discussion lets assume that Justin is also right about the Republicans losing the 2008 election. Will the political career of the GOP candidate who loses be over? Nixon was defeated by JFK and after a lean period he made a political come back that took him to the White House . . [Edited by Don W]



I don’t know how old Dr. Paul is. I believe any candidate begins to fade as he approaches the promised life span - Holy Writ - 70 years - and I cite John McCain as one of those. 45 to 60 are the favored ages for viable candidates. Another reason I suggest Hillary’s year is 2008. And offer that Obama can realistically plan on 2012. This is her only chance, he will have several. You have got to give deference to your elders.



Should the Republican candidate put in a respectable showing but still lose, will they have a political life line that can be used in 2012-16?
Kerry almost won in 2004; mind you his stock as candidate has sunk and can’t be salvaged. The Dems don't impress me in the slightest.



Would you elaborate with 2 or 3 reasons why you are not impressed by the Dem candidates? What would you like to see those candidates do or say? And please do not offer a mass seppuku from Japan.



Maybe the Republicans became complacent like the first Bush admin did. Bush senior and his team may have thought it was their right to win the 1992 election. The danger of that thinking is by the time you set about changing your mind it is far too late. [Edited by Don W]



The Dems 2006 victory was very narrow. But for the failure of B43's Iraq Adventure, the GOP would have continued to hold both the House and the Senate. The War aside, B43's policies have largely been implemented. Reagan’s goal of de-funding the welfare state - it could not voted out - is so far along under B43 one could reasonably declare victory. If you are a Neo Con Republican, you can take considerable pride in what was accomplished in such a short time. Not even six yeas, as you would have to date the Neo Con Ascendancy to the Nine Eleven Event. Serendipity.

[edit on 4/24/2007 by donwhite]




posted on Apr, 24 2007 @ 06:28 PM
link   
Note to other members I posted the quoted text on this thread .

To start with the Dems as a whole don't impress me while they oppose the Bush admin (when the polls tell them to. Is Nancy really the best the dems can come up with ? ) I am at a lose as to what there plans and values are if they have any . So far none of the dems candidates have done much for me.

Hilary stance on her Iraq war vote is bizarre to say the least and indicates that she wants to have her cake and eat it to. I am with holding judgement when it comes to Obama to his credit he had enough brains to oppose the war in Iraq.
Obama still seems like kids toy on Christmas morning a novelty rather then a serious contender.

What dose the fact that someone like Obama who lacks experience is in the race for the dems nomination ?

Don you might want re post your above opinions concerning the Republican candidates in the relevant threads.



posted on Apr, 24 2007 @ 09:37 PM
link   
Here's the thing about Barakc Obama. He's a new face, and he says the kind of thing that resonate with the average voter on a "populalist" level. When he ets back to us, Don is likely going to mention that some Dems have done this with great success in the past.

Once upon a time, Republicans had plugged in to the populist message, although they never made as much of it as post Civil War Democrats have. The current failure of both major parties to tap that energy source stems from a variety of factors. today's Dems and Republicans sound like each other in many respects because they are. they've made so many deals over the decades that they are welded together at the hip.

Now that old school small government advocacy is dead, the way is clear for Obama or somebody like him to spin the populist credo is ways that no conservative now in office could hope to do. Remember that 90% of politics is perception. What you see is NOT what you get, but a lot of people think it is. So long as he can keep his PR image fed and stable, Obama will be a contender just for that reason.



posted on May, 24 2007 @ 11:38 AM
link   
Posted In Error

Moderator: Please delete this post.

Readers, see post following.

[edit on 5/24/2007 by donwhite]



posted on May, 24 2007 @ 01:29 PM
link   


posted by Xpert11

To start with the Dems as a whole don't impress me while they oppose the Bush admin when the polls tell them to. I am at a lose as to what their plans and values are. So far none of the Dems have done much for me.

Hilary wants to have her cake and eat it to. I am withholding judgement on Obama . . he had enough brains to oppose the war in Iraq. Obama still seems like kids toy on Christmas morning a novelty rather then a serious contender. [Edited by Don W]



We’re in the doldrums now. You should recall reading that - the doldrums - was the bane of sailors heading west across the southern parts of the North Atlantic? The Sargasso Sea. Sea of Weeds. And the doldrums, those calm days after days with no wind, when sailors had to “pull” their ships by rowing small boats out front. Recent GOP debates have added some interest but the lasts debate seems all to much like the first debate. How many times can you avow you are for you are against torture? Neither position seems to get much response from the public. Is that a non sequitur?



posted by Justin Oldham

Here's the thing about Barack Obama. He's a new face, and he says the kind of thing that resonate with the average voter on a "populist" level.

Once, Republicans plugged into the populist message. . the current failure of both major parties to tap that energy source stems from a variety of factors. Today's Dems and Republicans sound like each other in many respects because they are.



I submit this is because both rely on the same bankers. I know, I know, its CFR.



Old school small government advocacy is dead . . the way is clear for Obama spin the populist credo in ways no conservative now in office could hope to do. So long as he can keep his PR image fed and stable, Obama will be a contender. [Edited by Don W]



On that evaluation I must concur, Mr J/O. It looks to me the Big 4 in each party are saving their money for the push to begin in November,’07, and looking to the month of January of ‘08. Starts with Iowa, then to Nevada and on to New Hampshire and South Carolina ending with Florida. We’ll have a good idea who is going to win the big prize by Ground Hogs Day.

[edit on 5/24/2007 by donwhite]



posted on May, 24 2007 @ 04:25 PM
link   
Any good strategist worth their salt would counsel a slow down on spending just now. Capitol Hill is carrying enough water for the Democrats just now, and the average American is preparing to ignore Washington in favor of Summer activities.

There is also the matter of competing primaries. Some of the States are kicking around the idea of setting their primaries EARLIER than January 29 of 2008. I don't care who you are, everyone in the race will need to save their pennies until that matter gets ironed out, nailed down, and painted in pace.



posted on May, 24 2007 @ 07:20 PM
link   


posted by Justin Oldham

Any good strategist would counsel a slow down on spending just now. Capitol Hill is carrying enough water for the Democrats and the average American is preparing to ignore Washington in favor of Summer activities.

There is also the matter of competing primaries. I don't care who you are, everyone in the race will need to save their pennies until [primary dates] get nailed down and in place. [Edited by Don W]



OK, J/O, where are we on the early states? Iowa has vowed to be first and New Hampshire warns it is to be the first with a vote over a caucus even if they have to move to ‘07. I thought Nevada had intruded between IA and NH? Wrong I guess.

Florida’s governor signed a bill Wednesday to move the FL primary to Jan 29, 2008. That makes FL the first large state (#4) to hold a primary. 3,000 people move to FL every day. Per FL Chamber of Commerce.

What about CA? I saw Arnold Schwarzenegger on Jay Leno last night, but he did not talk about the ‘08 race.

[edit on 5/24/2007 by donwhite]



posted on May, 24 2007 @ 07:27 PM
link   
California's primary is February 5th. Might be the 7th, I'm not quite sure. Other States are still wrangling over the possibility of earlier dates. As eager as they are to elect a new President, the candidates are all ot them having worries over money and market saturation.



posted on May, 30 2007 @ 11:39 AM
link   
J/O: California's primary is February 5th or the 7th, I'm not sure. Other states are wrangling over earlier dates. As eager as they are to [be] elected [our] new president, the candidates are all having worries over money and market saturation. [Edited by Don W]

DW: FL just set Jan. 27, I believe. Frankly, I’m not so sure we don’t have too much democracy here in the US of A. Smoke filled back rooms gave us A. Lincoln, T. Roosevelt, W. Wilson, F. Roosevelt, H. Truman, D. Eisenhower, JFK, RMN and GF. Jimmy Carter was the first democratically chosen party candidate on the Dems side, and Ronald Reagan was the first on the GOP side.

Yes, there were primaries from longer ago than I can remember, but the number of delegates so chosen were insignificant to the nomination. Further, no one minded much to discount the value of the small state primaries and caucuses. New Hampshire could be first on the bandwagon, but it was not going to choose America’s president. Dem or GOP.

The Dems began this democratization of the nominating process in 1968 and by 1972, it produced George McGovern, a fit candidate for sainthood if ever there was such as a senator. The GOP was barely 4 years behind. Usual for the GOP in matters of progress. Perhaps a bit quick, even?

And here we are. For the first time in history, we have a presidential selection process that consumes the better part of 2 years. Come Quick, Sweet Jesus! Whereas the 2004 selection process cost us $1.1 b. it is likely that we’ll cross the $2 b. mark by 2012. Hey, who needs CFR when the R&Fs are so “generous?”

“Shucks, we get to vote and it don’t even cost us nothing,” sez your typical American voter. He not only can’t spell CFR but he doesn’t understand why it is on my mind all the time, why I see every problem as underlaid by lack of CFR. Hmm?

[edit on 5/30/2007 by donwhite]



posted on May, 30 2007 @ 02:33 PM
link   
You and I are pretty much on the same wave-length here. As a political scientist, I'm enclined to think (read, "hope") that the primary system is self-regulating. As you, I, and others have pointed out...the rush is on to be done with W as fast as we can. That's the primary motivator behind all these early primaries.

I do think to some degree, the contemporary primary system is a barometer of national anxiety. Having said this, I'd like to point out one thing. As I work on my next book, several things jump out at me. First and foremost would be the ease by which the party machines can use and abuse the primary system. The second would be the ease by which a single candidate could abuse the primary system.

I'm not really to put on a tinfoil hat, but I am enclined to be more observant in the future. Early primaries capitolize on voter frustration...or fear...andthey allow the dominating party to stay on top while spending fewer dollars in the long run. I think we're going to find that the 2008 racers over-spent by something on the order of 10%. Doesn't sound like much, but remember what Done said. B as in Billions.



posted on May, 30 2007 @ 04:32 PM
link   


posted by Justin Oldham

As a political scientist, I'm inclined to think (read "hope") the primary system is self-regulating . . the rush is on to be done with W fast . . that's the primary motivator behind these early primaries. I think to some degree the contemporary primary system is a barometer of national anxiety.

Having said this, I'd like to point out one thing. As I work on my next book, several things jump out at me. Foremost would be the ease by which the party machines can use and abuse the primary system. The second would be the ease by which a single candidate could abuse the primary system. I'm not ready to put on a tinfoil hat, but I am inclined to be more observant in the future.

Early primaries capitalize on voter frustration . . or fear . . and they allow the dominating party to stay on top while spending fewer dollars in the long run. I think we'll find that the 2008 racers over-spent by something on the order of 10%. Doesn't sound like much, but remember what Don said. B as in Billions. [Edited by Don W]



Theoretically, a primary seems the most democratic selecting process. Few of us realize that most of the primaries BIND the delegates to the first vote only. That is a necessary proviso if your delegates are to have any bargaining power at all should your choice not win on the first ballot.

I suppose one thing that is happening today is we are approaching the ultimate in sophistication by those who want to manipulate the electoral process, which includes all the candidates, of course. ONLY the citizenry is left out of the pre-voting day machinations! Hmm? Say again on “democratic?”

OTOH, if money was outside the electoral equation - as in CFR - then perhaps the primaries would be truly democratic! But do the R&Fs really want that? You’ll have to ask them, what they want is what we get.

[edit on 5/30/2007 by donwhite]



posted on May, 31 2007 @ 02:13 PM
link   
Don, have you noticed just how little we've heard about campaign finance reform during this election season? Your comments got me curious, so I decided to look and I'm not finding much.



posted on May, 31 2007 @ 04:35 PM
link   


posted by Justin Oldham
Don, have you noticed just how little we've heard about campaign finance reform during this election season? Your comments got me curious, so I decided to look and I'm not finding much.


Uh, you're rigfht, J/O. Do you think I'm pushing that too hard? Hmm?

Maybe I'll try a different tack? Thx.

[edit on 5/31/2007 by donwhite]



posted on May, 31 2007 @ 04:41 PM
link   
I'm not happy about the lack of chat on this topic. I think you're right to be talking about it. I end up talking about it with people I meet on the street, but I don't hear a word from any of the Presidential candidates on the subject. My every day experience is that the average guy cares about this, and it seems that the politicians no longer have in a interest in it.



posted on Jun, 3 2007 @ 08:27 PM
link   


posted by Justin Oldham

I'm not happy about the lack of chat on this topic. I think you're right to be talking about it. I end up talking about it with people I meet on the street, but I don't hear a word from any of the Presidential candidates on the subject. My every day experience is that the average guy cares about this, and it seems that the politicians no longer have in a interest in it. [Edited by Don W]



1) Nobody gives money without expecting something in return. Even if the exact terms are not discussed. Both the donor and the recipient know the recipient will do “what is right” or he or she will get no more money. A quid pro quo.

2) Hardly anything in life is black and white so the recipient can “shade” his or her future decisions and still sleep at night. The donor gets enough to keep the money coming. Even if a candidate has personal misgivings over the money issue, unless there is a popular groundswell for drastic reform of the current system it is not going to happen.

3) As we know it takes 60 votes in the Senate to do consequential things in America. I am not implying that fewer than 60 Senators necessarily want the present situation to continue, but I am suggesting that even campaign finance reform is not black and white. Piece-meal is the best we can hope for right now. People do care, but see above. They do not care enough right now to rush to undo a system older than the two Roosevelts. I’m thinking Tilden v. Hayes, 1876, as emblematic of our current so-called broken “system.”

[edit on 6/3/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Jun, 4 2007 @ 12:21 AM
link   
Ragster’s Thread Question: Do you guys believe that Hilary Clinton will be the next President, I believe she and Rice will run for President. This is very possible is it not.


posted by Justin Oldham
Any strategist worth his salt would counsel a slow down on spending just now. Capitol Hill is carrying water for the Democrats just now . . there is also the matter of competing primaries. Some of the states are kicking around the idea of setting their primaries EARLIER than Jan 29 of ‘08. I don't care who you are, everyone will need to save their pennies until that gets ironed out and painted in place. [Edited by Don W]


Rice run for prez? When in American history was the last time a sitting secretary of state ran for president? I offer it was 1808 when James Madison ran and was elected. The whole Federal government exclusive of the Army and Navy, Post Office, Customs Collectors and Members of Congress probably numbered fewer than 500. William Jennings Bryan OTOH, after running for prez 3 times and losing each successive time by a larger margin, became Wilson’s first Secretary of State. What’s that tell you about that office as a gateway to higher office?

Hillary looked good tonight. Very attractive. I like her current hair style. She was poised. She was commanding. She was articulate. She did not garble her words or show excessive emotions. Yet she was not another Iron Lady as Margaret Thatcher was called either. Humble when necessary, forthright when opportunity presented. She took charge of the group of competitors when Wolf Blitzer tried to inject those divisive questions about who is responsible for the war and so on. She turned him off, diplomatically. Hillary will add 5 points to her already significant lead. At this rate, before the year’s end, the pundits will be talking about her winning on the first ballot and then by consensus, nominated by acclimation!

[edit on 6/4/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Jun, 4 2007 @ 10:07 AM
link   
I will agree that Hillary acquitted herself in high style in the New Hampshire debate. A lot of things synced up for her. Properly rested, properly prepared, and properly positioned (politically). A handler such as my ficitonal Fisk could not have pave the way any smoother.

Wolf Blitzer was clearly predisposed towards the candidates in general, though I did get the distinct impression that he deferred to her almost by reflex. He may have played some role in helping her look good, but her presentation was all her own and it did drive the event.

I am no fan of Hillary, but I will acknowledge political skill when I see it...no matter who the candidate is. As a dark master of American politics, I know what I saw. I saw a shrewd operator in action, and nobody laid a glove on her.

On a side note, I think we saw an attitude shift on Obama's part. If I was writing a novel I'd suggest that somebody has gotten to him. I won't say thatI am writing such a book, and I won't say that I'm not. I'm just saying that he seems to be more careful than he has been recetnly, like a man who has been "educated."



posted on Jun, 4 2007 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Justin Oldham

On a side note, I think we saw an attitude shift on Obama's part........

I'm just saying that he seems to be more careful than he has been recetnly, like a man who has been "educated."



I was paying particular attention to Obama and found it a bit strange.
He seemed to feign interest in what other were saying, but not really interested, it was more like he was pretending to be interested while thinking about what he would say next.

I just feel he is waiting for someone to make a mistake so that his handlers and the media can jump all over it. I think he knows he can't win the nomination for party leader, but he's holding out hope.



posted on Jun, 4 2007 @ 05:43 PM
link   
We can both be wrong here, but I'm still feeling it. I don't know what has altered his thinking, but I'm sure we will eventually find out what it is/was.



posted on Jun, 4 2007 @ 05:58 PM
link   


posted by Justin Oldham

Hillary acquitted herself in style in the NH debate. A lot of things synced for her. Rested, prepared and positioned (politically). A handler such as my fictional Fisk could not have paved the way any smoother. Wolf Blitzer was predisposed towards the candidates in general, though I got the distinct impression he deferred to her almost by reflex. He may have played some role in helping her look good, but her presentation was all her own and it did drive the event.


Wolf is a gentleman. I noticed that too, but I don’t think he wants to become know as a Democrat sycophant. That is not good for CNN or for him. He’ll be tougher next time.



I am no fan of Hillary, but I will acknowledge political skill when I see it . . I saw a shrewd operator in action and nobody laid a glove on her.


Smart. Educated. Articulate. And a woman driven! I say again, D R I V E N! And you know what she is driven to accomplish.



On a side note, I think we saw an attitude shift on Obama's part. If I was writing a novel I'd suggest that somebody has gotten to him. I won't say that I am writing such a book, and I won't say that I'm not. I'm just saying that he seems to be more careful than he has been recently, like a man who has been "educated." [Edited by Don W]


I have already mentioned here more than one time that the senior blacks in Congress are not going to let Obama spoil this singular opportunity to get a president who will listen to the needs of Americas dispossessed. Hillary Clinton. There are 43 blacks in the House. I feel sure Rep. Thompson, chair of Homeland Security, Rep. Rangel, chair of Ways and Means, Rep. Conyers, chair of Judiciary and other long time members, are not going to let that happen. And you know those 3 senior men are in daily contact with Bill Clinton who has gold plated credentials in the black community. Uh, make that platinum, if you please.

I think we’ve seen a “new” Obama who will not directly clash with Hillary.

[edit on 6/4/2007 by donwhite]



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join