Hillary Clinton will be the first female Vice President.
John Edwards will be the next President, with Hillary waiting for her chance after him. She has a better chance to be president if she starts off as Vice.
John Edwards will be a great president. John Kerry is washed up, John Mcain is washed up, all republicans are washed up for president for a while, Lieberman is washed up.

posted by BartIV

Hillary Clinton will be the first female Vice President.
John Edwards will be the next President,

I think John Edwards would be a good candidate on his own and allied with Hillary the team would be unstoppable! But he will have to hustle. Hillary is not good at being #2.

I strongly doubt that Hillary would take second position to anyone for the 08 race. My speculation is that she will try to an ethnic running mate. As of this moment, I suspect that she'd tap Barack Obama. Mr. Obama is keeping himself out of the public eye just now, busy with good works. Just the sort of thing you'd expect for a person who wants higher office in 2008.

As for John Edwards, he's just not in Preidential mode. He may buck for a cabinet post whe nteh time comes, but then again...so will John Kerry.

posted by Justin Oldham

I doubt Hillary would take second to anyone for 08. My speculation is that she will tie to an ethnic running mate. I suspect that she'd tap Barrack Obama. As for John Edwards, he's just not in Presidential mode. He may buck for a cabinet post when the time comes, but then again so will John Kerry. [Edited by Don W]

OK, I was agreeing with BartIV that John Edwards would be a viable candidate, at least in the primaries. I prefer Hillary. As for Barrack for VP, he seems a bit young. And short on political experience at the national level. For the same reasons Gore choose Lieberman and Kerry chose Edwards, Hillary must have someone who appeals to the Old South. She’s unlikely to blow her only (realistically speaking) shot at the White House. She needs another LBJ.



[edit on 10/17/2006 by donwhite]

posted by Justin Oldham

By the end of this decade, we will see a trend in the U.S. in which government will take a dim view of extravagant social hand-outs. It may no longer be a positive thing to be a welfare recipient. [Edited by Don W]

Whoa up there! If you are not talking about the “handouts” to such as the owner's of the land in the Imperial Valley which we subsidize with taxpayer's water, or Weyerhaeuser and others we give cheap access to the nation’s forests, or ADM who makes ethanol when we ought to be feeding people around the world, where is there any “ . . extravagant social hand-outs?” Disgusting cost overruns by Halliburton in Iraq. Billions with a "B" missing in Iraq. No Congressional interest. FEMA paid $14 for a peanut butter on a bun to a Dutch company despite NO restauranteurs offered to feed a person all day for the same amount.

Surely to God the paltry sums we “give” as welfare are not “extravagant” by any standard I’m familiar with. $455 a month for SSI. Penury is a more accurate term than extravagant. It's a disgrace for the richest nation on earth where there are more practicing if not boasting Christians than in any other country. There is a supreme inconsistency here. Please explain.

I don't want to see her win, but I think she's going to surprise a lot of people. Her baggage would matter more if she ran against a person with an utterly impeccable character.

Ambition and greed coupled with opportunity ruins many people in politics. Lobbyists are the enablers. Yet we wring our hands and claim we can do nothing about this unhealthy state of affairs. We only barely mention it when a notable person is caught. As in Abramoff, Cunningham, DeLay and Nye. Add Foley but for different reasons. No Congressional hearings. No attempt to do anything to alter the system so many find so lucrative. Surely this Congress must be as corrupt as those of the late 19th century?

The men or women whom she is most likely to run against have just enough skeletons in their own closets to allow her to deflect much of the harshest criticism that will be leveled against her. This election cycle will be the most vicious we've seen in a hundred years. The only thing that will keep it toned down at all will be the laws against libel and slander.

Libel and Slander are not effective in political speech. The NYTimes v. Sullivan case said printing even false information, known to be false, is not actionable, unless done maliciously. You can publicize any fabrication you think you can get away with vis a vis the audience, and there is nothing anyone can or will do about it. This tragedy for democracy is the direct and predicted consequence of Reagan’s rebuke and junking of the FCC fairness doctrine.

I expect her to attack Bush's economic policies right out of the gate.. There's a lot of frustration out there that has no name . . My sense is that McCain will try which will mean almost certain defeat for the Republicans in 2008. McCain and Giuliani both have known infidelities in their backgrounds, which allows Hillary to portray them as philandering men . . “

Yes.


[edit on 10/17/2006 by donwhite]

Hillary will be president. The time is right for a Woman president. I do not think America is ready for a black president just yet so I do not see Condi getting elected. I would not vote for Condi but I would actually campaign for Colin Powel if he ran, but then again I still think we need a few more decades in the US to rid our selves of more prejudice people and thinking.

I see the following front runners possibly.

Colin Powell
Hillary Clinton
John MCain
John Kerry

I do not see Kerry winning but he can likely put up a good fight.

Let me stop for a moment to adress an issue that Don asked about. I do foresee that social programs will be looked at differently by public officials in the next decade. We have seen short periods in our past when social welfare recpients were looked down upon much more so than they are today. I think we're going to see some of that again in the next decade (2011-2020).

I know several people who work at my local Social Security office. I've noted a slow changing of their attitudes over the last five years, which I have mentioned to them. they've shown me a few memos and such that seem to back up their 'prejudices.' Social dollars are going t obe harder to come by as the boomers wring the life out of Social Security, which will (they say) drive much of the preducicial opinions forward.

One more example. I know, right now this very second, of three cases in which individuals are receiving SSI and SSD monies without just cause. I'm sure that most ofthe posters here can name atlest one fraud case that they know of. In time, it will be easier to report these cheaters, and we may even see rewards for doing so. Once the MSM latches on to the story of millions stealing billions from honest taxpayers...you'll see some ugly stuff about welfare recpients.

When the balance of power shifts away from the Republicans, I will expect to see the investigations you refer to. I will also expect to see the investigators themselves targeting the little guy. It won't surprise me to see web sites and phone numbers for annonymous tips. the whole thing will be spun by the media as "real reform."

I myself have been a Social Security recpient. I've seen the filing and monitoring process for myself in two different States. My sense of the thing is that Hillary would limit her administrations impact on the SSA drones during her first term in office. The second term might very well see her prodding Congress to make changes in that agency that might instigate reform.

hey anxietydisorder, i had a good laugh on that one, hillary clinton behind the podium and steps out pregnant and what you said about her lovers and stuff.

I won't pretend I can foresee the future, but I will say she does probably have the best chance any woman has had in U.S. history.

Still, I'll say I prefer McCain/Rice over Hillary/whomever.

From where I sit, it's looking like the GOP is factionalizing. By the time we go to the polls in 2008, they may not be capable of getting out the vote as they have done in the past. I can see how McCain will end up as the Republican nominee, but I don't see how he'll ge enough of his party's registered votes to win.

I do expect to see a throw-down next year between Reagan Republicans and the so-called Rockefeller Republicans. My money says that today's neo-cons will be the ony party splinter to avoid being total marginalized. By the time the next President takes office, whoever that is, the Evangelicals will walk away from the party in disgust.

posted by Justin Oldham

When the power shifts from the Republicans, I expect to see investigations . . I also expect to see the investigators themselves targeting the little guy. [Edited by Don W]

Well, the election is still a few days away. Yogi Berra said it isn’t’ over until it’s over. Obviously, the Dems will do “oversight” with a vengeance if they win one of the chambers. That will be good for the country. It cannot be worse than the situation currently existing. I am not suggesting for one minute that anyone who lies, cheats or steals should be overlooked.

But keep in mind, J/O, that to steal $1 billion in one year would requite 144,675 fraudulent applicants. (Can our bureaucracy make that many mistakes?) How many FBI agents will it take to interview those false applicants? How many courts to try them in? It costs $45,000 a year in the Federal System to keep a prisoner and that would mean spending $6 for every $1 lost. Not economic.

From where I sit, it looks like the GOP is fractionalizing. By the time we go to the polls in ‘08, they may not be able get out the vote as they have in the past. I can see McCain will end up as the Republican nominee, but I don't see how he'll get enough of his party's registered voters to win.

Sen. John McCain is a true American hero. He is too old, his message is mixed, and he does not have the “fire in the gut” to be prez. He is too honest to pull a Nixon ‘68 on the country. I just saw him on CBS News and he does not have that enthusiasm needed. He is an elder statesman. A good counselor. But never a president.

I expect to see a throw-down next year between Reagan Republicans and the so-called Rockefeller Republicans. My money says that today's neo-cons will be the only party splinter to avoid being total marginalized. By the time the next President takes office, whoever that is, the Evangelicals will walk away from the party in disgust.

On that note, I agree. I doubt 1% of the general public world identify with the neo cons. If the GOP ends up under the total control of the neo cons, it will be “Libertarian West” and will fade into history as the Federalists and Jeffersonian Democrats did.

I have no doubts that McCain wants it. I met him in person back in '87 and he had that attitude that said, "I'm going to be President some day." I got the same vibe from Bob Dole when I interacted with him. Dole's performance during the Presidential debates against Clinton was embarrassing. McCain will have the same troubles with Hillary. Compaired to her, he will look and sound like he's asleep at the podium.

Mr. McCain has been paying his dues for a long time, just like Hillary. He's been at it longer, and the fact htat he hasn't already been President should tell him something. Trouble is, the Republicans are hide-bound when it comes to this kind of thing. My suspicion is that they know it, and accept it. They may have already written offthe 08 race. Some could even hope that McCain gets a spanking at the ballot box.

posted by Justin Oldham

I have no doubts that McCain wants it. I met him in person back in '87 and he had that attitude that said, "I'm going to be President some day." I got the same vibes from Bob Dole when I interacted with him. Dole's performance during the Presidential debates against Clinton was embarrassing. [Edited by Don W]

Both Dole and McCain are 1st class heroes. Dole is older than Clinton by about 20 years. Both Dole and McCain are non-ideologues in their politics. Neither wears his religion on his sleeve. They are what I call Eastern Establishment Republicans, like John Warner, Charles Hegel - not exactly east but of the same cut - and Lincoln Chaffee and the 2 ladies from Maine. And many others. I don’t know much about the House. Too many members. They get to speak only 1 minute or so. McCain looks too old.

Mr. McCain has been paying his dues for a long time . .

That’s what Robert Alphonso Taft - Mr. Republican - thought in 1952. In fact, he had made a deal with Tom Dewey to let him run again in 1948 if Dewey would back him in 1952. The king makers said “No.” We like Ike.

He's [McCain] been at it longer, and the fact that he hasn't already been President should tell him something. The Republicans are hide-bound when it comes to this kind of thing. My suspicion is that they know it, and accept it. They may have already written off the 08 race. Some could even hope that McCain gets a spanking at the ballot box.

Cynic that I am, I would say no to that. There is a $3 T. pie to cut every year. Even if only a little sticks to your hands, that can be a very sizeable piece. Are you familiar with the 15% flat tax in Iraq, and the prohibitions in the new Iraq Constitution against interfering with foreign investors? Say hello Halliburton, VP Cheney and the Oberfuhrer, Herr Rumsfeld.


POST SCRIPT
Senator Robert A. Taft, of Cincinnati, Ohio. R.A. T. Rat, I, as a UAW child, called him. Co-father of the infamous Taft Hartley Act, passed by the 80th “Do Nothing” Congress as HST described it in the 1948 campaign. That law, by the way, is tagged as the starting point for the destruction of the American middle class. From Thom Hartmann’s book, “Screwed: The Undeclared War Against the Middle Class and What We Can Do About It.” Hartmann’s thesis is that a middle class is not an evolutionary necessity but rather middle classes only occur under certain favorable circumstances.

The organized labor movement in the US was that favorable circumstance. Although union membership peaked at 30% of the working class, another 30% of employed workers got much the same benefits because their employers did not want to see their workers unionized, or were public employees who began to receive competitive wages. So 60% of the work force was unionized or worked at union rates.

Without attributing a grand scheme concocted in hell to the GOP, the policies favored by the GOP have nevertheless worked as it part of a grand scheme to destroy those much needed favorable circumstances begun under FDR and the New Deal.



[edit on 10/19/2006 by donwhite]

I really really hope she isn't the next president. I would love to see a woman as president just not her. I really don't care if the next one is republican or democrat as long as they are not named Bush or Clinton. We need a president who is their own person.

While I would personally be extremely reluctant to vote for Clinton (actually you would have to drag me kicking and screaming, and I am a democrat) I cannot imagine why anyone would want (or could) vote for Rice...she has been the most ineffectual Sec. of State in recent memory and her role in getting us into Iraq is indesputiable. She would have to fight against her failure every step of the way.

posted by gallopinghordes

I hope Hillary isn't the next president. I would love to see a woman as president just not her. I don't care as long as they are not named Bush or Clinton. We need a president who is their own person. [Edited by Don W]

2 comments.
1) Who can be his or her “own person” when you think the top dog must have 100s if not 1000s of highly educated, capable and to some extent self sufficient people - money-wise - to aid in the capturing of the grand prize. I believe the White House has 3,000 employees. Even the butler and janitor must be highly talented in what and how they do their jobs. And etc.
2) If you don’t like Hillary for the top spot, then what other woman - not Condo Rice, please - do you think is not only capable - experience and savvy - and who has the self starting impetus - impulse - to go for broke? To be able to keep her eye on the prize? Focused like a laser beam.


[edit on 10/20/2006 by donwhite]

posted by grover

I would be reluctant to vote for Clinton and I am a Democrat, I cannot imagine why anyone would want to vote for Rice . . she has been the most ineffectual Sec. of State in recent memory and her role in getting us into Iraq is indisputable. She would have to fight her failures every step of the way. [Edited by Don W]

I don’t know what to think about Condo. She’s been caught lying recently when she denied CIA Tenant briefed her in July, ‘01, then had to squirm by saying it was not more then routine, to which Mr Tenant produced his diary to show he warned her an attack was imminent but could not say what, when, how or where. Further, if you Google her, you’ll find 4 of the 5 books she claims have co-authors which means she did not write the books but paid another person to do so and add her name. She was a young lady on the move and knew the basic rules of the game but not how to play them too smartly. She sure as heck is no Jean Kirkpatrick! Jean had more testosterone than most of the men around her. Politely put.

Rice tries to make capital on being a poor black girl in Birmingham who barely escaped death in the 16th Street Baptist Church bombing of 1963. When you catch a person lying in one area, they may have lied in others. I’d like to see just how close to those 4 dead girls she really was. I would wager she knew “of” them, but really did not “know” them. By lying, she sullies her real accomplishments.


[edit on 10/20/2006 by donwhite]