Is Hillary Clinton going to be President?

Hillary Rodham Clinton

Born in Illinois in 1947, the first of 3 children, she would be 61 years, 2 months and 24 days old on January 20, 2009. She has 12 years experience as the wife of the governor of Arkansas, 8 years experience as the wife of the president, and will have 8 years experience as the only woman ever elected to the US Senate from New York, the 2nd most populous state. It is my opinion she is the best qualified person in America to be president, based on her lengthy record of service and near-service. In other words, she already knows how to wield the levers of power. She knows already the people to bring into office around her. She has a vision for America that I admire and look forward to with great anticipation.

I was looking back - recalling - over the personality often associated with the oldest child in a multi-sibling family. That child, especially if a female, is given responsibility first in the family after the mother. We can surmise that she discharged those duties with aplomb and simultaneously developed a self-identity that has stood her in good stead throughout her adult life. A female’s version of “trust but verify.”

She learned a valuable lesson in her one notable failure, the health care initiative in Bill’s first term. Not only did she gain self-confidence in losing but she got her feet put squarely back on the ground; without being vulgar, she puts her pants on like we do, one leg at time. A reminder every successful pol needs from time to time. Q. What 2 words begin with the letters H and U? A. Humility and Hubris. The one serves you well the other demands to be under control at your peril.

She has successfully walked the tight rope in NY for 6 years. Everyone who could count above 10 knew she was repeating Robert Kennedy’s move nearly 2 generations earlier. She was putting herself on the national scene whether you liked her or not. There was a time when being a senator was a good leaping off point for the presidency. HST. JFK. LBJ. RMN. And you could throw in GF. It’s true governors have been in the ascendancy since JC, RR, WJC and B43.

But the L E G A C Y of B43 may be so bad and run so deep that governors may be “out” for a generation to come. I surely hope “MBA” is made into a dirty word never to be repeated. Ill informed bottom line types we can do without; we ought to ban anyone who has signed more than 100 death warrants, too. That’s incredulous to me. Like “hiring” the God-Father to manage the nursery. Too close to death to be wary of it. Say hello 3,000 KIA in Iraq. “Hey, it’s all in a day’s work!” OK, I’m digressing. Stop.


[edit on 12/5/2006 by donwhite]

Originally posted by anxietydisorder

Dude that is one scary pic of Condi. ::Shudder::

Sorry edit to get back on topic.

I think Hillary would make a great first president. Shes scary, Intelegent, and Insane. It would be great to see her as the first woman president. Course I am all for anything that causes controlled panic disorder and chaos.

[edit on 5-12-2006 by whatukno]

Don and I have been kicking this around in this forum and through u2's for quite some time. I'm not so sure that Governors are going to geta bad rap because Geore W. turned out to be a bad President. Governors have to compromise if they want to get anytying done. That's usuaully what makes them such good Presidential material.

As I've said before, here and in other threads, we've entered a period in our history when strong Presidents will be the norm. I've had the opportunity to work for a U.S. Senator, so I know how ambitious they can be. In their world, compromise is often a dirty word. Everything is for sale, and they mean to get the most from each sale, no matter what's on the table.

As much as we worry about Bush43 and his unwillingness to compromise, we're going to have a lot more to be afraid of from whoever is the next President. Anyone who thinks Barack Obama will be a pussycat if he somehow manages to get the office will be quite surprised. Anyone who holds that job is going to be a complete and total hard-ass in every sense of the word. As I am fond of saying in the Conspiracy Master's forum, that's the trend and there's no way to avoid it.

In her case, Hillary brings a level of Machievellian skill to the table that we haven't seen in quite some time. She will expand Presidential power by exploiting the trend in ways that really do make me worried. In her case, I do think she'll get a little more mileage than anyone else might. McCain will use the tools he inherits to a mderate degreet of success. Obama, I think, might embarrass himself a few times before he managed to successfully ride the tiger.

Popularity is fleeting. Here today, gone tomorrow, unless you take great pains to nurture it and feed slowly like a tiny camp fire that could one day grow in to a massive conflagration. I'm not seeing too many signs that indicate just how Obama is feeding that flame. The MSM seems more interested in keeping it alive than he does. He seems happy to ride the wave. Given his continued lack of many and infrstructure, he will not be the 'next great thing' that so many hope for.

As much as I don't like it, we are going to get what we deserve. It'll take a President who harbors globalist ambitions to scare enough of us back on to the right frame of mind to see where we've gone wrong. Then and only then, will we be in a positon to being making repairs to the country and the Constitution.

posted by Justin Oldham

I'm not so sure that Governors are going to geta bad rap because George W. turned out to be a bad President. Governors have to compromise if they want to get anything done. That's usually what makes them such good Presidential material. [Edited by Don W]

You are right, J/O. Actually, I was thinking more of national publicity than of the real talents it takes to be a good leader. Those are much harder to see and don’t usually make much news. I guess you could say I went for platform rather than for performance.

We have entered a period in our history when strong Presidents will be the norm. I've worked for a U.S. Senator, I know how ambitious they can be. In their world, compromise is often a dirty word. As much as we worry about Bush43 and his unwillingness to compromise, we're going to have a lot more to be afraid of from whoever is the next President. Anyone who holds that job is going to be a total hard-ass in every sense of the word. As I am fond of saying in the Conspiracy Master's forum, that's the trend and there's no way to avoid it.

You, know, J/O, I think you are right. But I also think it depends a lot on whose ox is being gored. I am convinced everyone likes a strong leader, someone who can do the hard thinking for them, but he or she must reach the right decision or they become part of the problem, not the solution.

In her case, Hillary brings a level of Machiavellian skill to the table that we haven't seen in quite some time. She will expand Presidential power by exploiting the trend in ways that really do make me worried.

I have read that “The Prince” was the first pragmatic dissertation on international relations to be widely read. A secular book in a sectarian world. He wrote in a time when there was so much more religiosity in the Western world, many people believed God intervened in human’s daily affairs and that each person had a guardian angel. Secret intrigues. Betrayals. It was the era of absolutism. And Machiavelli wrote God out of politics.

Machiavelli realized that was just not the case. He was hard nosed. His best known adherent today is Henry Kissinger, Henry the K, who I detest. Not because of his pragmatism, but because of his duplicity. His untrustworthiness. I said all that to say that Hillary being accused of having “Machiavellian skill” is not a bad rap. It is just being an honest observer and a reliable reporter.

Foot Note: I have tried to read "The Prince" but found it not unlike Mein Kampf, too dull, too boring and too convoluted for me. As they say in court, it assumed facts not in evidence. I have read about 30 pages of "The Prince." It is a short book. I have read a little more of Mein Kampf but I think it is impossible for an English-person to understand a German-person explaining Hegel.

McCain will use the tools he inherits to a moderate degree of success. As much as I don't like it, we are going to get what we deserve. It'll take a President who harbors globalist ambitions to scare enough of us back on to the right frame of mind to see where we've gone wrong. Then and only then, will we be in a position to being making repairs to the country and the Constitution. [Edited by Don W]

Agreed.


[edit on 12/5/2006 by donwhite]

Machievelli is not easy reading. As a matter of comparison, I doubt that his work contains as much venom as you'll find in Mein Kampt. I've read both in their entirety, and there are many chapter's in Hitler's book which clearly demonstrate that he doesn't really know what he's talking about when it comes to the 'real' politics of his "final solution."

Machievelli is a cold-heared bastard who has completely divorced himself from any concept of morality and what we might call ethics. Know what you want. Figure out how to get it. As long as nothing is off limits, you can and will succeed if you can bring yourself to pay the price that is required to achieve your goals. that's Machievelli in a nutshell.

There are several thngs that we know McCain won't do. He just doesn't have it in him. Hillary, on the other hand, has demonstrated that her list of things that are off limits is...much shorter. Psychologically, this demonstrates that her ambition is much greater than his. Unless he has deceived us, we sholdn't expect McCain to out flank her during these upcoming elections.

I have no doubt htat Henry Kissinger fancies himself a Machievellian. Trouble is, he has been wrong more often than he has been right. It's fair to say that he's been too clever for his own good. He's proven that he can play both sides of the fence, but that's all he's really good for. He's been a very good sycophant. He's been a lousy Presidential advisor.

To back up my statement, I'd like to point out htat he vanished from the political scene after the fall of Nixon because nobody would put up with him. Hey, if Jerry Ford can say 'no' to this guy (without falling down), you know he's got no real street cred. It wasn't until Bill Clinton came along that Mr. K. was able to put on some fresh lip moisturizer.

You'll note that he isn't seen much these days. Even he is smart enough to stay away from W. I've read his books, and when he does bother to say something that relates to the real world, he's usually headed in the right direction. Like W., he doesn't seem to do well when he's off script. I know that some of that is a funciton of his current age, but the rest has always been his ego over-powering his arrogance as he tries to shield his contempt for us from the t.v. cameras.

I really think Senator Clinton will be the next Commander-in-Chief.


Barack Hussein Obama just doesn't have the recognition required to become President at this time.
I think he's a bit young and inexperienced to throw his hat into the ring right now, but he would make a good Vice President if Clinton chose him as a running mate for 2008.

I suspect they're already talking about it.

AP Image


I can't wait to see their love child.



EDIT:
Sorry Michelle, but he won't get to the top without some compromise...


[edit on 6/12/2006 by anxietydisorder]

Mr anxietydisorder looks toward Illinois junior Senator Obama as a VP candidate for Hillary. I say No.

1) Social inertia will make it an uphill pull for a woman to win the top spot. We saw first hand how social inertia was played in the Tennessee senate race last November 7. Disgracefully so, by the players and the played.

2) Which leads right into my second reason it won’t happen. To add a minority to the ticket would be asking the voters for too much at one time. Colin Powell? OK, but he’s not interested.

3) Hillary will have one chance and one chance only for the WH. Her year is ‘08. She will not give away the VP slot cheaply.

4) The VP choice must be able to put the South into play. I like Mark Warner the former governor of VA or just re-elected Senator Bill Nelson of FL. I think Warner has the more charisma. The new VA senator Jim Webb cannt be ruled out, either. But not Edwards or Gore, both are losers.

5) American politics are pretty much frozen into Red Blue mentality. The swing vote looks to be about 3 million, based on the Dems plus Greens in 2000 and the Red Blue divide in 2004. Those come down to Ohio and FL.

This is my take on ‘08.



[edit on 12/6/2006 by donwhite]

Hello Anxietydisorder:

You might want to re-wind and have a look at some of what Don and I have already hashed over in this thread. There are a lot of things in play that line up just as Don said. 2008 is Hillary's year. She's approaching the end of her shelf live., so to speak.

Not only do I think that the country is ready for a woman to be President, I also think we're ready to see a minority as VP. Obama's getting a free ride just now, but htat will cnange. He did grow up with a silver spon in his mouth. 2008 is a long ways off, and he still has plenty of time to make a career-killing mistake.

Don may be right, and Warner may be good for the Clinton ticket, but he shows no signs of wanting it or being in Presidential mode. I think it takes a big man to say 'no' to the highest office in the land. Even if they lose, most people who run for President still manage to walk away with a few million dollars for their troubles.

A lot of us are now busy chewing our way through the text of the recommendations made by the Iraq Studies Group. The one things that strikes me now...even though I am not done with my first look...is the fact that the this document will be regarded by future historians as more proof of just how much in disarray the Republicans are at this time.

posted by Justin Oldham

Not only do I think the country is ready for a woman to be President, I also think we're ready to see a minority as VP Obama. 2008 is a long way off, and he still has plenty of time to make a career-killing mistake [or make significant and spellbinding oratory or prescient speeches.]

A lot of us are chewing our way through the recommendations of the Iraq Studies Group. One thing that strikes me . . even though I am not done with my first look . . is the fact the this document will be regarded by future historians as more proof of just how much in disarray the Republicans are at this time. [Edited by Don W]

As I pointed out earlier, there are 2 reasons Americans begin to want to end a war. 1) We’re losing, and 2), We’ve been lied to. That should have been the singular lesson for any American leader to learn from the Vietnam War . .

. . although there are still posters here who labor under the happy dream - nightmare? - that we could have won there if we had just killed enough of them. Hmm? As in the Old Testament, God said, kill every man, woman and child, their oxen, their asses and everything that liveth! Tear down their barns, burn their houses and pour salt onto their fields. Hmm? I’m surely glad to know this is a religion of peace. You could have fooled me. Or do we, like some Muslims, have a cut and paste religion? I do recall when questioned about the Commandments - there are 614 including the 10 we all know about - Jesus is reputed to have said, “There are but 2, Love God with all your heart, and Love your fellow man as yourself.”

In my lifetime we have not been in a war where 1) was happening without being accompanied with 2), so I cannot say with authority that we would stomach 1) as long as our leaders did not do 2). But I guarantee you the same outcome in any war where 1) and 2) come together. Guarantee. And it won’t matter where Jane Fonda travels.


[edit on 12/7/2006 by donwhite]

No amount of money advisor's or media coverage can help you if elements of your core supporter base don't like and this is before you have even run for the nomination. Barack may be the best of the Dems for a couple of reasons. The first is that he dosnt have a lot of baggage behind him the second reason is that he hasn't flipped flopped around the Iraq issue as far as I know.

posted by xpert11

No amount of money, advisor's or media coverage can help you if elements of your core supporter base don't like and this is before you have even run for the nomination. Barack may be the best of the Dems for a couple of reasons. The first is that he doesn’t have a lot of baggage behind him; the second reason is that he hasn't flipped flopped around the Iraq issue as far as I know. [Edited by Don W]

I am not at all impressed if the only negative is that the person flip-flopped. Only the 10 Commandments are engraved in stone. The human experience changes too often, too fast for any unchangeable person to be a good leader. You have to look no further than B43 to see where that gets you.

As for Barack Obama, when is the last time the US made a president out of a person on the national scene just 2 years? 4 in 2008. I’m not denigrating the value of service in the Illinois Legislature, but wait up here! 2 years in the Senate in the Minority Party is not long enough to see how a man or woman can work with others, can form coalitions, can offer legislation, can take the lead in representing the Party, all the things we need to see first, and not last, as in the current B43. Which is to say, if we have learned anything these past 6 years it is that being governor of Texas does not qualify you to be a good president. Au contraire.

In the event that Barack Obama does get tapped for VP, he will be put on a very short leash. His sudden fame is a double-edged sword. It still might not mean anyting if he fails to generate enough money to make a serious run in 2008.

If she doesn't want him on her ticket, you can bet that Hillary will starve him out if she can. Nobody is above the use of sabotage at this high level in politics. I continue to note that the Republican contenders are taking their time about getting in to the fray. This tells me that they are in no hurry to anoint their sacrificial lamb.

posted by Justin Oldham

In the event that Barack Obama does get tapped for VP, he will be put on a very short leash. His sudden fame is a double-edged sword. It still might not mean anything if he fails to generate enough money to make a serious run in 2008.

That’s right. He must have done a good job in the Illinois legislature, and he was the right person at the right time to run for the Senate. We used to offer that explanation how one guy advanced over another in the Air Force. And it is true. In the EM ranks of the AF, HQ set the number per command to be promoted each quarter. That meant a score of 80 might get a promo in one command but 90 would be required in another. Luck plays a role in every person’s success or failure in life. We shouldn’t overlook that.

If Hillary doesn't want him on her ticket, you can bet that Hillary will starve him out if she can.

Nothing underhanded about the VP choice. The Pres nominee usually gets his choice, but I’m sure it is a committee decision. Obama is sufficiently acute on politics that he knows what we know and more. Hillary has one chance and that is in ‘08. Geraldine Ferraro with Mondale lost so badly to Reagan in ‘84 it was not possible to say she had helped or hurt.

There are still a lot of people in America who think a president ought to be a man. I am convinced only Colin Powell - and only on the Dem ticket - had a chance to make a serous run for the presidency in ‘08. But he does not have the “fire in the gut” drive and has reiterated he is not available. Obama would swat Rice handily if we wanted an all color race. Hmm?

I continue to note the Republican contenders are taking their time about getting in to the fray. This tells me that they are in no hurry to anoint their sacrificial lamb. [Edited by Don W]

Well, with the legacy of Bush43 hanging around every GOP’s neck, I can see your point and raise you one. Or two. Hastert and Frist did the GOP no good, either, although they must had fun running a “little Hitler” style group session disguised as Congress. I do look forward to Trent Lott, racist and all.


[edit on 12/8/2006 by donwhite]

I do think that the voters are going to punish the GOP in the 2008 elections. This vendette will play a role in the rise of Hillary Clinton. When I published in 2004, it wasn't hard to see this backlash coming, so I did include it in my book. Bush 43 won't have much of a legacy thanks to this epic spanking.

In many respects, he's committed the three worst sins that any President can be guilty of. Bernanke's mismanagement of the interest rates which have crippled the housing market will catch up to Mr. Bush next year. It'll be a long time before people forget that he murdered his own high-growth economy. His failure to deal with other domestic issues (i.e., immigration) will make for a historical "strike two."

Most Americans have a love-hate relationship with the war in Iraq. Almost nobody can get past the fact that Mr. Bush lied about WMD's. The sloppy way in which he has managed this war has only magnified that animosity. I think historians of tomorrow will classify this as his "strike three." For now, it's a safe bet that most voters will link the GOP with a failed war, which will influence the way they vote for the next 8-12 years.

After amarthon reading session, I have finished the ISG report. My eyes hurt. As I listen to the news, it's clear that this technical paper is being regarding by supporters of the war as a statement of policy. Opponents ridicule it as a white wash. The fact that Mr. Bush has already decided to ignore it will only increase voter anxiety as we go in to the Presidential races of 2007.

If I were a paid political advisor in the McCain camp just now, I'd counsel him to come out loud and vigorous. In radio terms, he needs to drive a stake through the Bush administration. The louder and more opposed he is, the more likely he will be to gain traction among right-wing voters who are looking for somebody to believe in. If he can't harness that resentment, he will surely lose.

posted by Justin Oldham

If I were a paid political advisor for McCain just now, I'd counsel him to come out loud and vigorous. In radio terms, he needs to drive a stake through the Bush administration. The louder and more opposed he is, the more likely he will be to gain traction among right-wing voters who are looking for somebody to believe in. If he can't harness that resentment, he will surely lose. [Edited by Don W]

There is a numbers gap here, J/O. I’ve heard McCain use as low as 40,000 more troops, but that seemed connected to the Green Zone only. In another context I believe he has said "100,000" more. I’ve heard others say 100-200,000 are needed to “secure” the country, whatever that means. And last, I”ve heard it said we don’t have any more troops. USMC on their 3rd tour. NG recalled 3 years early. Army strong looks more like Army worn-out. That’s why I’m an AF type. You get the same medals and ribbons but without all that hassle. As I counsel our president, stop fighting dumb and learn to fight smart.



[edit on 12/8/2006 by donwhite]

Donwhite IMO there is a difference between changing your stance depending on which way the wind blows and being flexible. The current Bush admin is special in the sense that it is so far removed from reality I'm not sure what you could compare the current admin to.

McCain seems to be playing the politics surrounding Iraq smarter then you might think. Unless McCain is brain dead he knows that more US troops in Iraq wont make a difference. McCain seems to gambling that once Iraq has fallen like a pack of cards he will be able avoid the blame by saying something like " well I suggested that more troops be sent . "

[edit on 8-12-2006 by xpert11]

John McCain has already show us what's in his lay book. He's already busy in New Hampshire, waiving the bloody shirt and warning of doom if HE isn't sent to the White House. I understand his point, and I'd much rather see a conservative in the White House just now, but his playbook is woefully out of date and hopelessly limited.

Republicans who want to keep their jobs in 2008 are going to be forced in to bad place. If they don't villify President Bush and crucify the members of their party who screwed up; they won't hold enough seats in 2009 to call out for pizza. Their base is fracturing, and the only way to weld it back together will be to harnest some of that fire and brimstone to heat the shattered steel befoe it's impurities are purged...prior to re-casting.

I don't like to say it, but the GOP needs to spend some time in the wilderness to re-invent. We should watch what McCain does with interest because he'll be the last of a dying breed of old school politicians who deserve to be put out of their misery.

posted by Justin Oldham

John McCain has shown us his playbook. He's already busy in New Hampshire, waiving the bloody shirt and warning of doom if HE isn't sent to the White House . . but his playbook is woefully out of date and hopelessly limited. The base is fracturing . . the only way to weld it back together will be to harness some of that fire and brimstone . . I don't like to say it, but the GOP needs to spend time in the wilderness to re-invent. We should watch what McCain does because he'll be the last of a dying breed of old school politicians who deserve to be put out of their misery. [Edited by Don W]

John McCain was born in 1936 [Hillary in 1947] and would be 72 years, 4 months and 21 days old on Inauguration Day, 2009. More than 2 years older than Reagan on his swearing-in day, our oldest president to date. McCain was first elected to the Senate in 1986, serving more than 22 years. John McCain is No. 25 on the seniority list. McCain has tended to be more towards the middle of GOP politicians, ideologically speaking. I’m not sure I like McCain too much, outside his heroic service in Vietnam. FYI, Barbara Mikulski of Maryland is the Senate’s most senior woman.

Foot Note:
US Sentors by Seniority in the Senate
1 Robert Byrd (D-WV) January 3, 1959
2 Ted Kennedy (D-MA) November 7, 1962
3 Daniel Inouye (D-HI) January 3, 1963
4 Ted Stevens (R-AK) December 24, 1968
5 Pete Domenici (R-NM) January 3, 1973
6 Joe Biden (D-DE)
7 Patrick Leahy (D-VT) January 3, 1975
8 Paul Sarbanes[2] (D-MD) January 3, 1977
9 Richard Lugar (R-IN)
10 Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
11 Max Baucus (D-MT) November 15, 1978
12 Thad Cochran (R-MS) December 27, 1978
13 John Warner (R-VA) January 2, 1979
14 Carl Levin (D-MI) January 3, 1979
15 Christopher Dodd (D-CT) January 3, 1981
16 Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
17 Arlen Specter (R-PA)
18 Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) January 3, 1983
19 John Kerry (D-MA) January 3, 1985
20 Tom Harkin (D-IA)
21 Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
22 Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) January 15, 1985
23 Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) January 6, 1987
24 Richard Shelby (R-AL)
25 John McCain (R-AZ)
26 Harry Reid (D-NV)
27 Kit Bond (R-MO)
28 Kent Conrad (D-ND


[edit on 12/11/2006 by donwhite]

I do agree that there is something of a "Bob Dole" curse that McCain wouldhave to overcome if he really does get he Republican nod. I had a few chancesto meet Bob Bole in his...younger days...and he did have problems staying focused due to age-related issued. I have no doubt that Hillary's handler's will use every available makeup truck going to take a few years off of her.

When paired with Barack Obama, that team might appear to be altogether too young and peppy. It may end up looking like Republican Old Guys versus the Democrat's Youngsters. Age may appeal to the hard right, but it won't do much for the under 30 crowd who will be attracted to people who appear to have more in common with them. Just a little contemporary lingo coaching could go a long way for Hillary. I'm sure that McCain wouldn't be bothered.

posted by Justin Oldham

I do agree that there is something of a "Bob Dole" curse that McCain would have to overcome if he really does get he Republican nod. I had a few chances to meet Bob Bole in his . . younger days . . and he did have problems staying focused due to age-related issues. I have no doubt that Hillary's handler's will use every available makeup trick going to take a few years off of her.

When paired with Barack Obama, that team might appear to be altogether too young and peppy. It may end up looking like Republican Old Guys versus the Democrat's Youngsters. Age may appeal to the hard right, but it won't do much for the under 30 crowd who will be attracted to people who appear to have more in common with them. Just a little contemporary lingo coaching could go a long way for Hillary. I'm sure that McCain wouldn't be bothered. [Edited by Don W]

Barack’s overwhelming reception by NH voters surprised everyone. His 25 minutes extemporaneous speech contrasts sharply with the studder-step speech of our Glorious Leader. As you think so you speak, as you speak so you think. Plus, our Glorious Leader usually has only the same 2 or 3 words with which to express large thoughts; you know he is stymied by serous issues.

When you add the Greens, the man lost by 3 million votes in 2000. Ugh! Who says third parties are not sometimes consequential?

Back to the present. Bush43 is pathetic. He is like a drunken sailor. He is bouncing from post to post, trying to find someone who has the magic bullet to get him out of the worst mess America has faced since the end of WW2. All to his own making. Single-minded VP Cheney along with the Oberfuhrer, Herr Rumsfeld - B43's first scapegoat - pushed a weak minded Bush43 along. Now that they have produced this disaster-in-being, and have no way out, B43, rebuffed in Amman, has called in a cleric from Baghdad! Sweet Jesus! How low can you go? And don’t forget the culpability of the Birmingham Songbird, Sec Rice.

Aside. Why, you ask, do you call her the B’ham Songbird? Well, I’ll tell you. In the academic world you must publish or perish! So, she became a Provost (one of several #2s) of Stanford University. Affirmative action at its best? Or worst? Anyway, no matter how you feel about her, I looked up her list of 5 books. It turns out 4 of those books were “co-authored” which in the academic world means you paid someone to write the book for you. Scholars do not co-author.

Number 2 reason. I have heard Ms. Rice imply strongly that she was acquainted with the 4 girls who were murdered that fateful Sunday. She was indeed a child in Birmingham (b. 1954) when the Ku Klux Klan bombed the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church on September 15, 1963, killing the 4 young girls. The oldest girl was born in 1948, 2 were born in 1949 and the 4th was born in 1951. This strongly implies to me that she would not be likely to have known any of those girl, due to the discrepancy in age if for no other reason. Unless she will declare when and how she know those girls, I say it is improper and (intentionally) misleading for her to speak of her childhood and mention those girls in the same breath.

Resume. So how does Hillary “handle” Barack if his popularity does not prove - and soon - to be a flash in the pan? If any country can elect a person as patently unqualified as Bush43, then you cannot totally discount the presidential potential of a Barack Obama. At least, to get the nomination of the Democratic Party. Do you remember Michael Dukakis? Never fear, as the Republicans showed in Tennessee, the race card - their favorite - will be played, early and often. Hey, it got Bush41 into office! Hey, it got Jesse Helms into office 2 times! Hey, it still works - see Senator-elect Crocker. The GOP is perfectly at home with fanning latent racism in America. To their shame.

Conclusion. I have no way to know how long Obama can play this out. Congress convenes on January 3 which should put him to work making a record for 2008. That will tend to dull or stop his early run at steamrolling. But it does mean Hillary will not have the Merriest of Christmases!


[edit on 12/12/2006 by donwhite]