Is Hillary Clinton going to be President?

page: 5
5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 10:40 AM
link   


posted by Justin Oldham

My Thesis: Hillary will do her bit to advance that agenda. I know some hope for her to make reforms, but they'll be disappointed. The looting and pillaging will continue. She may do it with a bit more style than some of her predecessors, but she'll still be doing it. [Edited by Don W]



Maybe I’ve missed it in earlier posts, but you referred to her “agenda.” Briefly, what do you believe is her agenda?

Here’s my take on it. She’d have to “fix” the mess in the Middle East. She’d have to put the OBL matter back into the criminal justice system bolstered as needed by military might, but declare the WOT ended. I’m thinking reverting to the 1993 tax code to get us back in the black, she’d reduce DoD part of the budget, close the secret prisons around the world, undo as much of the Bush43/Gonzales policies, actions and diplomatic harm as she can, among other things.

She’d want to address the health care problem. She’d restore money to education and infrastructure. She’d try to eliminate the Section 527s. She’d try to restore the FCC fairness doctrine. She’d reform the Department of Interior practices. And the FDA. And etc.


[edit on 10/20/2006 by donwhite]




posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 05:33 PM
link   
Hello Don:

Whoever the next President is, you can bet they'll continue the trend to enhance the authority of the Executive branch. This will "green light" the overall trend in government at all levels to gather unto itself greater power. I do expect the total trend toward centralized power to continue.

In Hillary's case, I'd expect her to embrace that trend. It would be disadvantageous to her to anyting else. If she really does want to clean up the things you mentioned, she will find it easier to do with those enhanced powers. If she did attempt the reforms that would slow, stop, or reverse the trend, she may very well find that her ability to affect change is limited or non-existent.

Placed in that position, I think that I myself would be unable to resist the trend. How could I? From that vantage point, the increases in power would look good, assuming that I really do mean well. I'm ready to be wrong. If anyone can resist that tempation, I'll be happy to offer my apologies and my services to further their efforts.



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 06:05 PM
link   


posted by Justin Oldham

“ . . the next President will continue the trend to enhance the authority of the Executive branch. This "green lights" gathering unto itself greater power. I expect the trend toward centralized power to continue. I expect Hillary to embrace that trend . . “ [Edited by Don W]



You are right. I lay blame on this tend to the fragmentation of Congress. And that in turn is due to the neutering of the political parities. That in turn is largely due to the methods we have for financing elections. On the unproven premise that only 10% of the population is aware of a problem, and that only 10% of them can define it, it is also true that only 10% of the definers can devise workable solutions. Which is 0.1% of the population.



It would be disadvantageous for her . . if she wants to clean up the things you mentioned . . it would be easier with the enhanced powers. Placed in that position, I myself would be unable to resist the trend. How could I? From that vantage point, the increases in power would look good, assuming I do mean well. If anyone can resist that temptation, I'll be happy to offer my apologies and my services to further their efforts. [Edited by Don W]



I guess that’s why King George III said of George Washington, “He is the greatest man of our time.”

In 1933, FDR was advised by some around him he might have to assume extra-ordinary powers to fight the Great Depression, as had been done by Mussolini who enjoyed a lot of popularity not only in Italy but around the world for a “get things done” type. It was not just the trains that ran on time in Italy. Roosevelt, to his great credit, said “No,” and every single measure he undertook to get us out of the Depression was done through Congress and subject to review by the Supreme Court. Roosevelt never "signed off" on an Act of Congress. Roosevelt never issued a secret Executive Order.

FDR took the oath of office seriously. Bush43 does not understand the oath and for sure he does not take it seriously. That is the difference between Bush43 and Lincoln and Roosevelt who both faced greater challenges than Bush43 has even dreamed of, most of which have been of his own making.

Him of L E G A C Y.

To get us through WW2, Bush43 would have had the sycophant AG Gonzales declare him to be GOD.


[edit on 10/20/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Oct, 21 2006 @ 01:22 AM
link   
We've reached a point where the people in power only need one or two pieces of legislation to assume office permanently. the case that I made in my book takes you through just one scenario in which this can happen. the worst of it is that the next President will not need a full-blown national emergency to justify their move toward total power.

This is something that Democrats and Republicans alike will be capable of. Nobody has the monopoly on this much temptation. Having said that, I worry becuase Hillary has skill and ambition that Bush does not . She'll be capable of exploiting these loopholes in ways that he couldn't. Not even the likes of John McCain could resist the power that would so close at hand if he won in 2008.



posted on Oct, 21 2006 @ 02:36 AM
link   


posted by Justin Oldham

We've reached a point where the people in power only need one or two pieces of legislation to assume office permanently. the case that I made in my book takes you through just one scenario in which this can happen. the worst of it is that the next President will not need a full-blown national emergency to justify their move toward total power. [Edited by Don W]



I have never accepted there is a legitimate War on Terror. Terror is a technique and not a person place or thing. I have said Bush43 co-opted the Nine Eleven Event to salvage his failing presidency. His father must have called him after the 2nd plane hit the WTC and said, “Son, war trumps economy.” we have spent over $400 b. since Nine Eleven Event. OBL may have spent $2 million on the thing. We cannot afford this. In 2004 there was the false claim of a “discovered dvd” that purportedly showed OBL’s men reconnoitering Wall Street and W-DC. The police overtime bill was $50 million and the cost of the 3 year old dvd not more than $5,000.

20 or 30 guys in the UK were playing with $100 worth of a chemical mix bomb and we have spent 100s of millions and are not through yet. Their cost? Minimal. We are being whipsawed and are too stupid or stubborn to know it. We must stop fighting dumb and begin to fight smart.



This is something that Democrats and Republicans alike will be capable of. Nobody has the monopoly on this much temptation. Having said that, I worry because Hillary has skill and ambition that Bush does not . She'll be capable of exploiting these loopholes in ways that he couldn't. Not even the likes of John McCain could resist the power that would so close at hand if he won in 2008. [Edited by Don W]



The Clean89 movement in CA was reported on PBS “NOW” tonight. It was so greatly reassuring to see Alan Simpson, Bill Bradley, Warren Rudman Bob Kerrey, former senators, 2 Democrats, 2 Republicans, who are such honorable and reliable Americans. Like I’ve said, I can live with the likes of John Warner or Charles Hegel. Even if they are Republicans. You can get part of it on PBS.org.. The movement to take money out of elections is working well in AZ, ME and was recently adopted in CT for 2008. On the down side, they missed this one, in my old state of KY, it was in effect in 1995 but the losers backed out in 1999 which killed it. As someone said, if Hillary or any Dem nominee can carry the same states as Kerry carried in 2004, PLUS either Ohio of Florida, the Dems win.

Good Luck To You On Your Endeavor.


[edit on 10/21/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Oct, 21 2006 @ 03:34 AM
link   
If the pundits are correct, we may very well see the Dems take enough States to make the electoral count quite clear. For most people, the November vote is a referendum on the war. When I get to do certain radio gigs, that's the opinion that's usually espoused by the callers.

If a ham sandwich runs for the Presidency in 2008, people will vote for it as long as it is NOT a Republican. I recently had a chance to talk with some third party types. In many respects, this is their moment if they can stop fighting with each other long enough to step in front of a camera and make their case without foaming at the mouth.

For the most part, the average Democrat hopeful who is running for office just now needs to avoid foot-in-mouth desease and they'll win certain races almost by default. I'm not the only one who thinks the GOP deserves to lose. With any luck, it'll knock some humility in to them. I'm not asking for a return to classical conservatism beucae I know I'll never get my wish. All I ask for is for a little bit of Not Stupid.

The current state of affairs for the GOP was not hard to predict. I did it back in 2004 when my book first went in to print. the Titanic sank due to human error and the same thing will be said of the Republican party. My only hope is that, like the Titanic, there will be enough survivors to tell the tale so that future generations can learn from the past. If it takes a Hillary Clinton to make that lesson stick, so be it. If she can prove me wrong, I'll be more than happy to tender my apologies and offer my services as pennance for my short-sighted views.



posted on Oct, 21 2006 @ 06:13 AM
link   
there is an actual word for foot in mouth disease...or something much like it.... logoreia.
its true its true
also called running off at the mouth.



posted on Oct, 21 2006 @ 11:09 AM
link   


posted by Justin Oldham

If the pundits are correct, we may see the Dems take enough States to make the electoral count quite clear. For most people, the November vote is a referendum on the war. When I do radio gigs, that's the opinion usually espoused by the callers. [Edited by Don W]



I opposed the Iraq War from the git-go. I opposed the War on Terror from the git-go. I deplored Bush43's speech before the UN. The man is not dumb, but he is not very verbal either. He is not well read. I’ve seen his transcript from Yale and he took a “soft” curriculum to “get by.” The number “75" was his most common grade mark, but there was no explanation on the transcript what that meant. He managed the baseball team, which means he carried the bats.

We know he does not read outside his official duties and we’re not sure if he reads much of that. He does not have a large vocabulary and that means he cannot think well. He is basically uninformed. When he is not reading his speeches, he speaks in 4-5 word bursts, in incomplete sentences and never any premise, facts and conclusions. As a man thinks, so he speaks. As a man speaks, so he thinks.



I recently talked with some third party types. In many respects, this is their moment if they can stop fighting with each other long enough to step in front of a camera and make their case without foaming at the mouth.



Our system is purpose-built to prevent viable 3rd parties. There were only 2 instances in the 20th century where 3rd parties made a difference. 1912 and 2000. Teddy Roosevelt’s Progressive Party gave the election to the Dems and Wilson in 1912, and Ralph Nader’s Green Party gave the GOP the 2000 election. Ross Perot ran a strong race in 1992 polling 18% of the popuar vote, but did not garner a single electoral vote. That shows there is much opportunity for improvement to be made in our system. And we want to export democracy? Is that conceit or jingoism?



“ . . the average Democrat hopeful running for office just now needs to avoid foot-in-mouth disease and they'll win certain races almost by default. I'm not the only one who thinks the GOP deserves to lose. With any luck, it'll knock some humility into them. I'm not asking for a return to classical conservatism because I know I'll never get my wish. All I ask for is for a little bit of Not Stupid. The current state of affairs for the GOP was not hard to predict. I did it back in 2004 when my book first went in to print. If it takes a Hillary Clinton to make that lesson stick, so be it. If she can prove me wrong, I'll be more than happy to tender my apologies and offer my services as penance for my short-sighted views. [Edited by Don W]



Well, there is a lot of things that can happen between now and 2008. But Bush43 is predictable if nothing else. He cannot change his mind in public. He gets no contrary opinions or advice from those around him, in large part because he views contrary opinions as an act of disloyally. He does not easily revisit decisions once made. He is not accustomed to compromise - “you are either with us or against us” - and sees nothing in shades of gray, bur only in black and white. I do not think we have had a man for president less well prepared or mentally equipped for the job. But then, he is America’s first designated president, gaining his office by a vote of 5 to 4.


[edit on 10/21/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Oct, 21 2006 @ 04:40 PM
link   
I understand your points about Mr. Bush. When we voted for him, we got a team of handlers and close-in advisors AND George W. as President. HJere again, this was something I predicted in my book. That particular trend (as I see it) was begun with Jimmy Carter, who brought with him a very few advisors as he asumed office.

Reagan may have been the first truely managed President. His team was large and diverse. His handlers were able to talk to him about the finer points of whatever they thought he needed to do. Bush 41 came in to office with a similar advisory team, but fewer handlers. Bush sr. failed to heed much of the economic advice given to him, and he paid for it.

When Bill Clinton steps in, he's got no handlers to speak of other than Dick Morris, but he does have an active advisory team. They can talk to him about the finer points. His graps of public image is much like Reagan's, and he isn't afraid to use it when it works. Until the Monica thing erupts, he fights with Dick Morris but he does listen to what the man says. There's a character in my book patterned after Dick Morris.

Bush 43 comes in to office with what could be one of the best advisory teams of all time. Trouble is, he's not his own man. His handlers are a troika of men who make up his official chain of command. Chief of Staff, Vice President, and Secretary of Defense. George turns out to be pretty good at following orders. He trusts the people who are his handlers. Trouble is, they've given him bad advise.

Hillary will come in to office with a small cadre of advisors and very few handlers. In many respects, she will know what she wants to do before she takes office. I expect her staff to have a high rate of turn-over. She'll be hard to work with. She may even turn out to be a micro-manager. It's quite posible that her public image may be one of the most closely maintained aspects of her Presidency.

I'm not trying to look at this through a partisan lense. I'm trying to look at this from a technical standpoint.



posted on Oct, 21 2006 @ 04:44 PM
link   
Hillary will win as long as she knows who the boss really is in Washington and it is AIPAC etc. She had done everything right in recent years and even the press has softened up its image of her.



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 02:00 PM
link   
She will never become president. She is damaged goods, her "husband" would have a far better chance of winning again than she could. Besides that every right wing crackpot will ooze out of the woodwork to take a pot shot and perhaps some real shots at her. Mark my word, if she gets the nomination it will be the most ugly election in this countries history.



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
She will never become president. She is damaged goods, her "husband" would have a far better chance of winning again than she could. Besides that every right wing crackpot will ooze out of the woodwork to take a pot shot and perhaps some real shots at her. Mark my word, if she gets the nomination it will be the most ugly election in this countries history.


Based on what we're seeing in the 06 races, I have no doubt that the 08 bid for President will be a running gun battle all the way. Your implication that her husband's indescretions will play a major role in her defeat is, I think, an over-estimation. So far as we know, her husband has had an affair but she has not. All of the male contenders for that job are known to have had their own affairs. She'll be able to cast herself as a hurt wife, which will go some distance toward making her the lesser of evils.

I have no doubt at all that the radicals on both sides will come out of the simulated artificial wood grain. then again, part of what you'll see in 06 and 08 is the reaction from the middle class in regards to the war. The poliitcal blood-letting will be extreme by anyone's measure. I stand by the lengthy reasoning I've already made in this thread.

that includes the possibility of real of staged assasination attempts. Any of the Presidential hopefuls who survive a shooting will virtually be guaranteed a win thanks to the sympathy vote. McCain may not have the nerve to attempt such a thing, but I do think Hillary would...if it occured to her.



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 06:41 PM
link   
The injured wife ploy might have served to get her into the Senate but I tend to think that it would backfire on her in a run for president...who wants to vote for a president running a poor poor pitiful me campign?



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 09:25 PM
link   
I don't think you will see any of the po' pitiful me stuff. These are the big leagues. The handlers who manage her opposition will know better than to
play the fidelity coard. That ultimately plays to her advantage. Although it will never be said, the fact of the matter is that her gender will work to her advantage in this age of political correctness.



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 01:59 AM
link   
I have to agree with Justin, Hilary is the likes of one we have not seen. She is working hard right now to coddle all sides by keeping quiet and yet letting little quotes slip every now and then. I feel that the undecided is where she may gain a victory because the Democrats will without doubt vote for her. In the next year you will start seeing her become more involved in overseas policy including taking trips to barter deals for the U.S.. If she can swing this she will gain votes from Republicans.
Now the question remains who would be her running mate in 08?
Call this what you will but here is my theory, Hilary will team up with Obama because this has the potential for a gret number of swing and undecided votes. They will run as the fix whats wrong with America dream team, and unless the Republicans come up with some god type challenger they would walk away with the polls. I just wonder if something happend that would cause Obama to not be there at the end Would Bill be the V.P.?



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 03:53 AM
link   
As the First Spouse, Mr. Blinton would have no lawful claim to succession. Obama fits the profile in terms of the sort of person Hillary would look for as a running mate. He's relatively clean, and he knows how to keep his mouth shut. He's the 21st century version of Dan Quayle with better spelling skills and superior physical coordination.

I'm already on record in this thread as saying that Hillary likely run as a reformer. She's staying off the radar just now, which means that as each month passes...the trail to her past misdeeds grows even colder. Expect that some of her operatives are out and about doing a little clean-up. She'd be foolish to ignore that opportunity.



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 09:30 PM
link   


I think Hillary Clinton is a formidable candidate," Cheney told Fox television in an interview with just two weeks left before critical November 7 US legislative elections.

"I think she could win. I hope she doesn't. I disagree with her on nearly all the issues, but nobody should underestimate her. She's a very serious candidate for president," said Cheney.


link

Well you have to wonder if Cheney is as accurate as when he said that the insurgency in Iraq was in its last throws.
Cheers xpert11.



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 09:35 PM
link   
what do you expect Hillary would be the Republican's ideal candidate...intensely polarizing.



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 01:57 AM
link   
In answer to your question Ragster, No, she won't and neither Hillary nor Rice will run.



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 05:06 PM
link   
Hey, folks. I'm sorry I can't get to ATS as much as I would like to right now. I'm very busy with work, and I'm also knee-deep in political analysis. As we get closer to the November 7 election day, we're all seeing some wild stuff going on with political polls and t.v. commercials. This kinda stuff is 'research' for me, and I tend to be wrapped up in it, but forthe sake of this thread...I suggest to you all that this is a look in our near future.

Some of you may have seen the recent interviews featuring Barak Obama. Seems that he's floating his trial balloon for the 08 Presidential race just now, and he's being well received. If you turn off the sound on these interviews and watch is eyes, and physical mannerisms, you'll see that this is a man who know's what he's doing. He's following a carefully plotted script, and he means to stick to it.

Thee interviews are important. These are the soundbites that are going to make or break his career, and he knows it. Please note how Hillary stays lost in the background, without comment on Mr. Obama's remarks which now flow like pearls of wisdom from mouth of s skilled orator. This is what I mean when I say that the "real" candidates for 2008 are being manufactured like precision time pieces. When faced with this much advanced planned and real cunning, it's easy to see why swaggering old school pulpit p-p-pounders like McCaine will be undone by the media sharks.

These are just some of my notes and observations at this point. What do the rest of you say?





new topics
top topics
 
5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join