Well Don, let's take one thing at a time. Secretary Rice is a seperate issue from this thread, so let's concentrate on Hilary.

As a political scientist, I do think it's unlikely that Obama's popularity will last. In terms of Democrat politics, Hllary is doing exactly what I would counsel her to be doing at this time. She's off hte radar, recruiting and reconoitering. It's treu that Obama stands to make a million dollars from his book tour, but that's not even a single media buy in the realm of Presidential fundraising.

Now, then. Were he to acquire financial backing sufficient to begin hiring a Presidential electioneering staff, that would be a different matter. Hillary has already signed the top guns who work the blue States. She beat him to the punch on that one. He could get lucky and find himself a diamond in the rough, but the odds do not favor that happy chance.

With money and the right staffers, backers, and handlers, he may be able to carry his populism to the polls for a win. Trouble is, vets in this business plan years ahead for this sort of thing. That's why I say that he's going to be a VP contender. His currency is popularity. That's what he has plenty of. If he ever came in to enough money to threaten Hillary, he'd have a bad accident of some kind.

I'm not saying that she would have him killed. She would, however, leak any dirt on him to the tabloids while her best people were fabricating more. Political sleez and it's finest. Because he is riding so high in the polls, it's not hard to take advantage of human nature so long as the lies are believable. Traces of cocain dust in a limo. Doctored photos. Verified campaign contributions from questionable sources.

It's worth noting that Obama is a big deal because the MSM says that he is. If the decided to drop him tomorrow, he'd vanish faster than ice cream at a weight watcher's party.

posted by Justin Oldham

I think it's unlikely Obama's popularity will last. In terms of Democrat politics, Hillary is doing what I would counsel her to be doing at this time. She's off the radar, recruiting and reconnoitering. It's true that Obama stands to make a million dollars from his book tour, but that's not even a single media buy in the realm of Presidential fund-raising.

Now were he to acquire financing sufficient to hire a Presidential staff, that would be a different matter. Hillary has already signed the top guns who work the Blue States. He could get lucky and find himself a diamond in the rough, but the odds do not favor that happy chance.

With money, the right staffers, backers, and handlers, he may be able to carry his populism to the polls for a win. Trouble is, veterans in this business plan years ahead for this. That's why I say that he's going to be a VP contender. His currency is popularity. That's what he has plenty of. Because he is riding so high in the polls . . It's worth noting that Obama is a big deal because the MSM says he is. If they drop him tomorrow, he'd vanish faster than ice cream at a weight watcher's party. [Edited by Don W]

I cannot dispute Obama is a potential VP candidate unless he shows up in Iowa and NH with 2 big wins! Isn’t there a 3rd state in the early primaries? In which case we’re talking a new and unforeseen ball game. Although the Dems went awry with Dukakis in 1988 . . Dems are still trying to get a handle on the democratized primary and open convention initiated with the 1968 Convention.

Let’s see now, in ‘68, Hubert Humphrey, 72, McGovern and in 76, an outsider, Jimmy Carter. In ‘84 back to normal with Mondale and throw in Ferraro to placate the wild left of the Dems. ‘88 was oops! And then ‘92, back to normal with Clinton. Gore was normal in ‘00 and Kerry also in ‘04. So now with the eye on the prize, will the Dems go with a black amateur? Uh uh. They want this one and know ‘08 is their’s to lose.

As much as I’d like to be conciliatory, I say again it will be a lot to ask of the voters to stomach a woman as the top gun. No way will we see 2 novelties on the same ballot. Which brings me back to strategy. We know it will come down to Florida and Ohio again. Well, we think we know that. Unless something big happens between then and now, I think that is a very reasonable prognostication.

The Dems have a governor in Ohio so he ought to carry 75% of the weight there. The GOP held Florida, and we know from the past no crooked deed is above the GOP. The best the Dems could do was a Dem Atty Genl. But the GOP controls the Legislature so don’t expect him to get a big election monitoring budget. I believe the Dems lost Florida’s gubernatorial by 138,000 but Bill Nelson, Dem senator up for re-election, won by 400,000 votes. Florida voters do know how to split their vote. A good speaker like VA’s Mark Warner can carry Florida, I believe.

As of today, the Dems are laying back on the Bush43 pathetic hunt for a way out of his self-made quandary. He is in so deep he is actually looking desperate hunting for advice from anyone. But Bush43 has not changed . He got the bi-partisan “way out” from the ISG but is too stubborn too dub or too high to accept that. It has now been pronounced as a “dead letter.” 10 distinguished citizens, 8 months of their time, $8 million for research and expenses and Bush43 has not read it through. A way out for the country to come together behind him.

He lied his way into Iraq. Now, he's trying to lie his way out but this is not Mama Bush and Crawford. This is the real world were real blood has been spilled for his arrogant indifference to human life. Hey, he had 154 men executed in Texas. What's life to him? When Iraq collapses, it would have been shared blame. Now, when it goes nuclear, it will be what it always was, his and his alone. A match in the history books for James Buchanan or Herbert Hoover.



[edit on 12/12/2006 by donwhite]

There's no doubt that any number of solutions to the Iraq problem are on the table in front of Mr. Bus hright now. If you and I had met back in 2004, we would have made that asessment early in our conversation. the fact ofthe matter is, as you say, that he is too stubborn to accept anyting less than what he desires most to hear.

That stubborn factor plays heavily in to the favor of the Democrats. I do think they'd be bold enough to put what you called two novelites on the same ticket. I say that because women in politics isn't as novel as you might think. There are now eight female governors. One of them just took office in my own State. I think the voters are willing to vote for a woman as President.

I would say that even the secular progressives wouldn't make a big deal out of Hillary's gender. I think most people will see her gender as a non-issue. that doesn't mean they won't hold her to a higher standard. Anyone who takes office in 2008 will be held to a higher standard for all the obvious reasons.

I think those higherstadnards will be part of what sink's McCain's bid forthe Presidency. He has too many known flaws, whereas Hillary's list of known flaws is shorter, and Obama's is shortest of all. For those who want to entertain wild notions, think about just how unbeatable Obama could be eight eight years...if Hillary makes very few mistakes. What would it take to unseat teh Democrats then?

posted by Justin Oldham

“ . . no doubt any number of solutions to Iraq are on the table in front of Mr. Bush . . he is too stubborn to accept anything less than what he desires most to hear. [Edited by Don W]

I am convinced we do not have any more soldiers available. I am convinced there are no other allies willing to send soldiers to Iraq. I am convinced the violence is mainly due to Shia v. Sunni and is not by outsiders including al Qaeda. It’s a 90/10 split. Which is to say we have a full blown Civil War on our hands. Animosities incurred but also kept under control by Saddam, are now being played out. Based on numbers, the Shia are almost certainly to be the winners but it will be a while, until both sides are tired of killing. Kurds 15%, Sunni 20% and Shia 65%.

The world will go on even if we leave Iraq in deep embarrassment. Our regional influence will be greatly diminished. That is the only down side I see. It will not effect our access to Persian Gulf oil because it takes two to tango. We are the only people who can afford to buy 15 million barrels a day. Where there are willing buyers , there will come willing sellers.

That stubborn factor plays in favor of the Democrats. I do think they'd be bold enough to put what you called two novelties on the same ticket. There are eight female governors. One just took office in my own State. I think voters will vote for a woman as President.

May I brag? Ky had a woman elected as governor in 1983, Martha Lanye Collins. Average to above average in her performance. A Dem of course. (Most Ky Dems are conservatives and would be GOP if further north.)

I would say even the secular progressives wouldn't make a big deal out of Hillary's gender. I think most people will see her gender as a non-issue. That doesn't mean they won't hold her to a higher standard. Anyone who takes office in 2008 will be held to a higher standard for all the obvious reasons.

I was watching a conservative think tank a couple days ago, Judicial Watch dot Com. They are already planning to raise the $1,000 cattle investment turned into $100,000, and the Whitewater issue, plus the “sale” of pardons and sleep-overs. They are accusing the Clintons of grand theft off the AF 1 and from the WH. They are also saying the Clintons ran a ‘criminal ring’ out of the White House. That was not otherwise specified, so maybe they have Clinton mixed with Nixon?

I think higher standards will be part of what sink's McCain's bid for the Presidency. He has too many known flaws, whereas Hillary's list of known flaws is shorter, and Obama's is shortest of all. For those who want to entertain wild notions, think about just how unbeatable Obama could be eight years . . if Hillary makes very few mistakes. What would it take to unseat the Democrats then?

Well, as you point out, what would it take to unseat the Dems? Recall that from 1968 until 1992, the GOP was in the WH, minus the 4 years of Jimmy Carter. Or, from 1968 to 2008, minus 12 years, a total of 28 years out of 40, and 7 elections won. The Dems held sway from 1932 to 1968, except for 8 years of Ike. 28 years. 7 elections.

You obviously hold Barack Hussein Obama in higher regard than I do. It is not that I am not completely taken aback by his talent and good looks, but it is also playing in the background that the only reason whites are so embracing of him is he is 80% white. I heard a beautiful black guy about 50-ish speaking last night on CSpan. He used the street dialect of America’s southern blacks. Sometimes it was hard for me to understand him but the things he was saying were PhD level though he spoke as a Grade 10 level. He was very black - maybe 75%? - and I thought to myself, this guy is smart enough to run for higher office but would he have a chance? He is a state senator from North Carolina. Wise, coherent, thoughtful, but not polished.

I see McCain having an early lead but fading as other GOPs come to the fore. He is too old. He is not far enough to the right to capture and hold the far right wing of the GOP. He is not comfortable with the racism they seem to be so enamored with. As found in the Jesse Helms wing.

The public has done with Iraq. The pols will have to catch up. I don’t know how the immigration issue will play out. That may turn out to carry more weight than Iraq. We cannot deport them. We are unwilling to “hang” the real perpetrators, the employers. Note Swift and Co. caught yesterday with 500 illegals in 5 plants around the country. Why do we “wink” at the employers then want to hang the workers?

Americans are still anti-union anti-labor, left over from the Nixon Reagan era despite the fact 80% are in the same boat! This shows the powerful effect of propaganda since Taft-Hartley Act in 1946. By the bye, what about that Taft Commission you mentioned?


Foot Note: Rough and tumble definitions. Shia are to Islam as Catholics are to Christianity. They believe in saints, in holy men, in a hierarchy and in self flagellation as an enhancer of the religious experience. Sunni are to Islam as main stream Protestants are to Christianity. They do not believe in saints, nor do they want a powerful hierarchy. They are not literalists in reading the Holy Koran, they are very comfortable with what we call secularism.



[edit on 12/13/2006 by donwhite]

I'm willing to give Barack Obama his due. Rigyht now, he has popularity. He's able to dodge the real quesiton in favor of the fluff that he excells at just now. Anyone can carry an empty bucket. We still need to see how he responds to the real issues. If it turns out that he can't carry the water for his team, we shouldn't be at all surprised.

I don't agree with his politics, but like Isaid; I'm willing to give him his due. In a Vice Presidential debate, he might be hard pressed if his opponent ws running a a real record of accomplishment. Assuming that he faces off against Giulianni, it'll be one rock star versus another.

Senator Taft did chair a commission that reported to the President in 1940 about the looming threat of Japan. I can't find a catalog number fori it. Sorry.

Hillary's laundry list is known, and the answers from her camp to those charges are known. In this case, we may expect to see that the public is just a little too familiar iwth her sins. McCain, on the other hand, has kept his laundry off the public line for much longer. Many of the things which come to light about him will be heard by many for the first time.

If I were and advisor, I might suggest to Senator McCain that he answer those charges in his own way through a tell-all book in late 2007. As any good spin doc knows, answering a charge in your own words with your own proofs makes it harder for others to say anyting else that sounds worse. My hope that McCain's handlers will counsel a bit of pre-emptive damage control.

posted by Justin Oldham

“ . . give Barack Obama his due. Anyone can carry an empty bucket. We need to see how he responds to real issues. If it turns out that he can't carry the water for his team, we shouldn't be surprised. I don't agree with his politics, but I'm willing to give him his due. In a VP debate, he might be hard pressed if his opponent was running on a record of accomplishment. Assuming he faces off against Giuliani, it'll be one rock star versus another. [Edited by Don W]

Did not Rudy Giuliani have a nasty divorce? Is that consistent wit the strong GOP claim on family values and support for “standard” marriages? Will sanctified GOPs be willing to forgive him? I know next to nothing about Obama’s life before he became an Illinois legislator. I’m surprised we have not already heard anything bad about him.

Hillary's laundry list is known and the answers from her camp to those charges are known. In this case, we may expect to see that the public is just a little too familiar with her sins. McCain, on the other hand, has kept his laundry off the public line for much longer.

Well, the Whitewater allegations must have been the most throughly investigated claims ever. Although we may not believe Hillary and the gift of $1,000 invested in cattle futures, that’s her story and it cannot be changed now. As for the other items, AF1 and stealing furniture out of the WH, I was under the impression the Secret Service found them “innocent” of any wrong-doing. I cannot see the public responding much to this old stuff. As for McCain, I am unaware of any untoward events in his life. I’m sure there was the S&L scandal when he attempted to intervene on behalf of a person later convicted of real grand theft. As in Hillary, that was dealt with and is too old to be of any interest to 99% of the voters. This stuff is pure Swift Boat type.

I might suggest to Senator McCain that he answer those charges in his own way through a tell-all book in late 2007. As any good spin doc knows, answering a charge in your own words with your own proofs makes it harder for others to say anything else that sounds worse. My hope that McCain's handlers will counsel a bit of pre-emptive damage control.

Uh, you mean “early” ‘07 don’t you? You wait too long and he is dead. I don’t mean literally, but politically. That is what “killed” Kerry, if he had any life at all. You must either pre-empt or respond the next day if you can’t get it out the same day.



[edit on 12/13/2006 by donwhite]

Don makes a good point. The dirt on Hillary is essentially old news. I think a lot of people will just tune it out when it's brought up again. I do expect to see a few new wrinkles on that material, but nothing good enough to stop the presses. Because none of it stuck before, it won't stick in '07.

McCain and Giulianni both have marital issues. It's late for me and my brain is not firing on all cylinders. In terms of raw baggage, I think McCain acutally has more than Hillary. He did, after all, get cuaght with his hand in the Keating cookie jar.

Okay, here's a serious question for those of you who can speak tp the subject. What do you really want to see out of a Democrat who is President? Bear in mind that this person is likely to have the benefit of majorities in Congress. What could you realistically hope for?

posted by Justin Oldham

Here's a serious question: What do you want to see out of a Democrat who is President? This person is likely to have the benefit of Democratic majorities in Congress. What could you realistically hope for? [Edited by Don W]

January 10, 2007 Statement of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on the President’s Speech on Iraq

"Based on the President’s speech tonight, I cannot support his proposed escalation of the war in Iraq. American troops continue to serve and sacrifice in Iraq, performing magnificently and bravely. Iraq requires a political solution, not a purely military one, and we did not hear such a proposed solution tonight. The American people have demanded, and as the facts on the ground require, we need a new course and an end to the current failed policy. The President’s speech failed to adequately address 1) the political situation in Iraq, 2) rising sectarian violence, 3) mounting strain on our military, 4) growing Iranian influence, 5) and festering divides over how to distribute oil revenues.” [Edited by Don W]

After 2 days of “official” leaks, and constant denials by Tony Snow at what were once called "briefings" but what we now call a “Snow Job,” it's out. It looks as if Bush43 has learned nothing since November 7. Unless you can call hunkering down a new strategy. From his old Crawford days, circling the wagons around himself. A "new" team of guys that have come out of retirement to help him bail the boat!"

Bush43 rejected the cover offered him by the ISG. Made up of 5 Dems and 5 GOPs, if he had embraced that Report and began to follow the 3 major suggestions and slowly implemented the remaining 76 observations, the Dems in Congress and the '08 Dem candidates would have had little choice but to “go along to get along” or risk the inevitable GOP slander and false accusations of "unpatriotic."That would have made the blame for this Neo Con failure of thought, plan and principle, less a target and more a shared tragedy.

It is hard to imagine who inside the White House is pushing Bush43 today. The generals have carefully distanced themselves, Condo Rice is quiet as a church mouse, and VP Cheney has lost his usual excess of braggadocio. We suspect it was Bush41 that arranged the ISG in the first place, to help his son out of a hole you cannot see the bottom to. I know, it’s a preposition.

Bush43 has never displayed any sign of humaneness. He boastfully presided over the execution of 154 men in Texas in barely 6 years as Governor, him and Alberto Gonzales. That averages out to 1 man every 2 weeks for 6 years. No sign of humanity there. Now with 3,012 KIA and counting, and twice that many horribly wounded, any sympathetic reference he makes seems to be an afterthought. Like his earlier rush to capture Osama bin Laden. Duh, who's he? And recall Rumsfeld used a rubber stamp to sign the obligatory letters of condolences to the loved ones of the KIA?

I have said earlier, the Iraq mess has been compounded by the fact Bush43 lied to the American people one time too many. Now, he, like LBJ before him, has separated himself from the long suffering ever tolerant people, and he has become a political pariah.

The only honorable course remaining for Bush43 is to resign his office.


[edit on 1/11/2007 by donwhite]

posted by Justin Oldham

Here's a serious question: What do you want to see out of a Democrat who is President? This person is likely to have the benefit of Democratic majorities in Congress. What could you realistically hope for? [Edited by Don W]

1) A balanced budget.
2) Restore the Clinton 1993 tax rates.
3) Rein in the military spending budget
4) Restore good relations with the United Nations
5) Restore good relations with each country around the world whether or not they agree with us in every respect
6) Open up to Cuba, Venezuela and Bolivia, especially.
7) Resume honest talks with North Korea
8) Resume honest talks with Iran
9) Stop atrocities in Africa, especially in Darfur
10) Act like decent people ought to act

As I have said in earlier posts, and in other threads, Dems and Republicans alike will have to come out against the war and any future escalations if they want to keep their jobs. Don makes a good observation when he points out that Hillary has used the occasion of his recent speech to plot a very effective and believable course change.

I spent some time this A.M. going over the text of the President's Iraq speech, and on the whole I've got to agree with Don agian. Seems clear to me that Mr. Bus hhasn't learned anything. This is yet another speech that he should have made on the deck of that aircraft carrier. At the very least, he should have said those words and made those policy changed two years ago.

As the Machievellian that I am, I can say with conviction that the GOP has "misunderestimated" the Democrat strategy of taking impeachment off the table while at the same time pushing for a one hundred hour legislations binge. More tha anything else, the average voter wants to see "progress," or something that looks like progress.

We haven't seen what you'd call forward momentum at home or at war in quite some time. The Republicans were gridlocked for too long, and we got used to it. Resigned to it. I'm willing to take my shots at the Democrat agenda because it's got some holes in it large enough to drive my truck through...but that's not the purpose of this thread.

Okay, now. Based on the points laid out by Don, my question changes. How do the Democrats pull off what you suggest without expanding the size of the Federal government? My thesis since joining ATS has been that politicians from both sides of the aisle will keep on growing the bureaucracy. I see no reason why they will stop now.

It's to her advantage for Hillary to push the pay-go thing, as well as the alleged lobby reforms and that swipe at the 9-11 panel's list of reforms. All of these things give the appearance of reform and forward momentum. Trouble is, the lobby reforms aren't really reforms as written and the pay-as-you-go AND the House bill to implement the 9-11 commission's recommendations look like open-ended invitations to grow the Federal bureaucracy.

I'm not looking at this through a partisan lense. I've admitted to my Machievellian bias. I'm looking at this question in the conext of my thesis, which you can read in the CM forum. What says you?

posted by Justin Oldham

Okay. Based on the points laid out by Don, my question changes. How do the Democrats pull off what Don suggested without expanding the size of the Federal government? My thesis has been that politicians from both sides of the aisle will keep on growing the bureaucracy.

Trouble is, the lobby reforms aren't really reforms as written and the pay-as-you-go AND the House bill to implement the 9-11 commission's recommendations look like open-ended invitations to grow the Federal bureaucracy. [Edited by Don W]

Six months ago I was looking to see about Pantex at Amarillo, the only atom bomb assembly and disassembly plant in the US of A. It is under the Department of Energy. A misnomer. The hype said the DoE had 18,000 employees and at another place in the website, it said there were 114,000 civilian employees under contract. Like Pantex. So my question is,”How many employees does the DoE have?” Or how many does it pay the wages of, if you like this subterfuge?

Now, I oppose privatizing of governmental functions. This has been the GOP mantra since FDR. Our country had 130 million people in 1940. We have 300 million in 2006. I would not be alarmed if the government was 2.5 times as large today as it was in 1940, and reducing it in accordance with efficiencies made possible by technologies not even existing in 1940. I want no one sitting around idle, but I want public employees to handle the public’s business.

I cringe when I hear the IRS is farming out unpaid tax bills to bill collectors. It is disgraceful. How can you respect your government when it acts no better than a bunch of money grubbing rascals who have no ethics worth discussing? We have contractor operated prisons in many states and I suppose in the Federal government. I question how it is legal to delegate power to a private company to confine people. It is the power of the government by which one is called to justice. I see nothing in the entire system that lends itself to private citizens or businesses. All the more so if the private guards are armed and allowed to shoot to kill. Ugh.


[edit on 1/11/2007 by donwhite]

Don won't get any argument from me when it comes to the privatisation of certain traditional government roles. We're having a local battle over prisons here in alaska. The State wants to build one, but it doesn't want to run it. The privatisation of the Iraq war logistics is perhaps the worst and most agregious abuse of Federally mandated privatising that I know of. All of a sudden those $600 toilet seats we used to read about during the Cold War don't sound as bad as they used to.

Has the alleged brew-up between the Clinton and Obama camps changed your thinking in any way?

Statement of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on the President’s Speech on Iraq delivered on January 10, 2007

"Based on the President’s speech tonight, I cannot support his proposed escalation of the war in Iraq. American troops continue to serve and sacrifice in Iraq, performing magnificently and bravely. Iraq requires a political solution, not a purely military one, and we did not hear such a proposed solution tonight. The American people have demanded, and as the facts on the ground require, we need a new course and an end to the current failed policy. The President’s speech failed to adequately address 1) the political situation in Iraq, 2) rising sectarian violence, 3) mounting strain on our military, 4) growing Iranian influence, 5) and festering divides over how to distribute oil revenues.” [Edited by Don W]

posted by Justin Oldham

Has the alleged brew-up between the Clinton and Obama camps changed your thinking in any way?

Yes! I wish Bill Clinton could run again. He’d win in a walk-a-way. OK, back to earth. I’d supposed you’d compare Barrack’s speech to Kennedy's 1960 Catholic disarming speech to Texas Dems. While well received by the Selma audience, I’m not sure it will be enough to hold his 40% favorable in the polls. America’s blacks have been screwed and re-screwed too many times to take a flyer. They know that rich, powerful (and white) Dems are their best hope for improved conditions “on the ground.” Barrack’s major problem with African Americans is his lack of Federal experience and being too new in town to have any chips to call in W-DC. In the Senate old guys like Virginia’s Warner, Lugar of Indiana and Hatch of Utah can claim preference over a newbie like Obama. Seniority crosses party lines in the Senate.

I cannot believe that Obama and Bill Clinton are not in constant and extended conversation. This is no time for a ‘winner take all’ or ‘a burn the bridges behind you’ type of primary campaign. Even if it comes to that, it is far to early for anyone to seriously breech the unwritten codes of mutuality. Save that for the summer of ‘08. Simply put, this is Hillary’s year, in part due to her age, she will be too old for 2012. Obama can gain stature if he runs just so hard, but not too hard. I’m sure (without knowing) that the old hands like Congressman Charles Rangel are counseling Obama. “Go slow, boy. you need time in the trenches. Your time will come.” (They can call him “boy” where I could not.)

What say you, J/O?

[edit on 3/5/2007 by donwhite]

I'm enclined to agree with your sentiments. The language coming out ofthe DNC right now is ambivelant towards Obama, which means essentially what you said. I liked Obama's speech, and for what it's worth I think it was the right one to make at that time and place.

As I watch what goes on below the radar, I am still not seeing any good recruitments by the Obama camp. Early money has gone his way, but he's not scoring the big name donors that will tell the rest which way the wind is blowing. I'll stand by the assessment I made in this thread many months ago. Hillary may have a bumpy ride, but she will be the next President unless she makes a mistake that could cost her the job.

posted by Justin Oldham

It's unlikely Obama's popularity will last. In terms of Democratic politics, Hillary is off the radar, recruiting and reconnoitering. It's true that Obama stands to make a million dollars from his book tour, but that's not even a single media buy in the realm of Presidential fund-raising.

Were Obama to acquire financial backing sufficient to begin hiring a presidential electioneering staff, that would be a different matter. Hillary has already signed the top guns who work the Blue states. She beat him to the punch on that one.

With [enough] money, staffers, backers and handlers, he may be able to carry his populism to the polls for a win. Trouble is, vets in this business plan years ahead for this sort of thing. That's why I say that he's going to be a VP contender. His currency is popularity. It's worth noting that Obama is a big deal because the M-S-M says that he is. If they decide to drop him tomorrow, he'd vanish faster than ice cream at a weight watcher's party. [Edited by Don W]

J/O, I agree with you appraisal and your VP prediction, but I still cannot adopt it as my own. This is due to my reluctance to see the Dems take TWO “hidden” issues to the public in one election. A female and a black. The ‘84 Mondale Ferraro team never had a chance to beat Reagan. OTOH there was no proof Geraldine hurt the ticket, either.

I was an early Colin Powell enthusiast but he says he is out and I believe he really means it. We can speculate over why, but that is just a game. Obama is no Powell. And why not? Obama is too young, too new to W-DC and untried and unproven. All of which Powell has. But Obama sees the White House and Powell sees early retirement.

Condo Rice is too much glitz and too much Ms Quota, if Mr Powell was B43's Mr Token. I call her the Birmingham Songbird because she has attempted (apparently without success) to lay claim to the 16th Street Baptist Church bombing. I have demonstrated she was 3 when the victims were 9, 10, 11 and 14. Very unlikely she ever knew them BEFORE the bombing. I’m sure she know OF them afterwards. But that’s not the same. All but one of her 4-5 books were “co authored” and you know what that means. She’s all glitz and no go. Have I not predicted that Negroponte is her heir designate? Or successor in waiting? Plus, as NSA, she gave lousy advice. What I’d call flatulent if not fraudulent. Condo is a good example of the Peter Principle in action.

posted by Justin Oldham

I'm inclined to agree with your sentiments. The language coming out of the DNC right now is ambivalent towards Obama, which means essentially what you said. I liked Obama's speech, and for what it's worth I think it was the right one to make at that time and place.

I watch and I am still not seeing any good recruitments by the Obama camp. Early money has gone his way, but he's not scoring big name donors that tell the rest which way the wind blows. I'll stand by the assessment I made in this thread many months ago. Hillary may have a bumpy ride, but she will be the next President unless she makes a mistake that could cost her the job. [Edited by Don W]

It’s her’s to lose, you say, Mr J/O? I agree. It’s like the Perfect Storm. Several features are coming together in 2008 that favor her candidacy. In fact, the biggest “problem” she has now is not to become overshadowed by Bill. Her best asset could do to her what Obama, Edwards and Gore cannot do. Render her irrelevant.

Digression. The Republicans could not defeat Franklin Roosevelt in 4 attempts. As long as he lived. But as soon as he died, and they got the chance, they gave us the 22nd Amendment. At last, they “beat” FDR! FDR died April 12, 1945, and the GOP offered the amendment March 21, 1947. An act by the “80th Do Nothing Congress” that HST was able to denigrate and capture the 1948 election, the Amendment became law on March 1, 1951. The 80th Congress had been sworn into office on January 3, 1947 following the electoral victory of 1946. The GOP took barely 8 weeks to bring forth the amendment. As if God was paying back the evil GOP, the amendment stopped both Ike and Reagan from winning an almost certain 3rd term. Hah! But, in 2008, it is “saving” them from a sure re-run of 1992.

We are only now beginningto see the Giulliani campaign take shape. There's an important thing happening here that could challenge Hillary's rise to power. rudy's status as a moderate seems to be winning approval from more and more people. It's not yet enough to threaten the Clinton candidacy, but it could be if Giulliani's PR machine doesn't get brought down by one scandal or another.

If Don is right, and the average American voter doesn't want to risk all on TWO untried quantities, we could see a Giulliani win in spite of Republican gaffs to date. I'm not actually sure this is the case, and I'd like to explain why.

As much as I don't like Democrat politics, I do think that the country is ready for a woman to be President. I also think that race is not so much a factor as it used to be when it comes to the question of a black candidate. given the problems associated with illegal immigration, you might see mroe resistence to a popular Hispanic leader who was running for President.

Having said that, I think there's a perception that the last thing we need in office in yet antoehr Republican. Overwhelming sentiment suggests that we've been too badly served by the current crop of 'alleged' conservatives to risk electing another one to the highest office in the land. that's unfortunate because I think that we need big C conservative leadership just now. We're not going to get it, but the historian in me says that's what we need.

My suspicion is that Hillary will ultimately steer a moderate course as her campaign progresses. If she does, she'll beat Rudy even with his rising popularlity. Her moderation will not be so full-blown that you'll be able to say that she's weak. It will be backed up by a track record or legislative accomplishments over the next two years. In her case, being a Senator will help more than it will hurt. Rudy's got to hit the bricks and make a lot of speeches to complete with that.

In the end, I'm not certai nthat his star can be made to burn brightly enough to eclipse his competition.

posted by Justin Oldham

We are beginning to see Giuliani’s campaign take shape. There's an important thing happening here that could challenge Hillary's rise to power. Rudy's status as a moderate seems to be winning approval from more and more people. [Edited by Don W]

Yes! And outside the Republican Party faithful, too. His numbers are rising in the so-called “Independent” voters approval ratings. I hate to feel it necessary to say but the Dems need for the Iraq War to continue to go badly until November 4, 2008. They may get all the help they will need from the White House which has not got it right so far. The Dems may be able to “lay low” in the public arena without having to present a “plan” to extricate America from the Iraq war which the GOP cannot do even though they are 100% in charge and have been since 1994 and 2001. Hmm?

In truth, the Dems really can do nothing about the war but grouch about and hold hearings ad nauseam. The country is not yet at the “shut it down” the war mood. Until then Congress is 535 random voices - more like old London’s Bedlam than a solemn convocation of the College of Cardinals. I recall, historically, that Sen. Robert A. Taft of Ohio was known as Mr Republican. When he spoke, people listened. We do not have such a Member of Congress today.

If Don is right, and the average American voter doesn't want to risk all on TWO untried quantities, we could see a Giuliani win in spite of Republican gaffs to date.

At the risk of repeating myself, Barrack Obama is like a “Nova,” a suddenly bright star. But I do not see him as a “Super Nova,” an exploding star that for a moment is the brightest object in the Universe. The Crab Nebula being the remnants of the only one seen in historical times. He is too young to lead the nation of 300 million people of every ethnicity on Earth. Like iron in the forge, he needs more tempering.

The Dems need to do 2 things if Hillary is their candidate. 1) Decide whether the election will turn on the South or on the West. 2) Choose a candidate most likely able to put that region into play. If the South, then logic says Mark Warner of VA or Bill Nelson of FL. If the West, then Bill Richardson of NM, or another from that region. Perhaps if the Dems Keynote Speech is made by the fellow from Colorado and it resonates, he could be the one?

I'd like to explain why. I don't like Democrat politics, but I do think the country is ready for a woman President. I also think that race is not so much a factor as it used to be when it comes to the question of a black candidate.

Yes to the former, No, to the latter. Have you been reading those threads about “latent” racism in America? I have pronounced that racism is the American albatross. It permeates our society. Every issue either begins as a race issue or ends as one. Even this discussion confirms my bleak outlook. Only a spotless super patriot like Colin Powell - who was cruelly misused by Bush43 - could make a serious run in this era, IMO. Given the nation’s demographics - 13% black - 14% Hispanic - I do not foresee a black on top of either party’‘s national ticket. In my lifetime.

Surely we have not already forgotten the 2006 Tennessee senate race? Or the Virginia race which had a better outcome, IMO. Racism is a staple in the Republican quiver. Bob Corker. George Allen. Jesse Helms. Bush41's love affair with Willie Horton. It’s there and it won’t go away. Not as long as it is a net gain vote getter. Note: Racism by Tennessee GOPs was gratuitous. Black Congressman Ford never led Chattanooga businessman Bob Corker in any poll. Close? Yes, but this was not a game of horseshoes.

I think there's a perception the last thing we need in office in yet another Republican. My suspicion is Hillary will ultimately steer a moderate course. If she does, she'll beat Rudy. [Her moderation] will be backed up by a track record of legislative accomplishments over the next two years. In her case, being a Senator will help more than it will hurt. Rudy's got to hit the bricks and make a lot of speeches to compete with that. In the end, I'm not certain that his star can be made to burn brightly enough to eclipse his competition. [Edited by Don W]

Incumbency! American electoral politics at every level must surely favor the incumbent by at least 15 points. Whether we can ever level the playing field remains uncertain. It does, after all, require the incumbents to take that action. It is somewhat reminiscent of the 1964 Buddhist monks self immolation in Saigon. Unlikely.

[edit on 3/8/2007 by donwhite]

Hm. Okay. Here we go. From a sociological standpoint, latent racism will always be with us. We can remind ourselves to be open minded, but we can't always referee our prejudices. We need more societal evolution to wash away what we think of as racism today.

Encumbancy is truely the bane of modern politics. i've knwon the senior Senator from my home State for more than twenty years. He's in his late seventies now, and I still can't recall the last time he had a new opinion about anything. He'll die in office, and I know that. He's a decent man, and I know that, too. It doesn't change the fact that his encumbancy has prevent our State from benefiting from new ideas.

It is my hope that the the average American will be ready to talk about term limits after Hillary leaves office. I'm, hopeful that after being dominated by two dynasties, the political scene will change. My suspicion is that the Dems will committ many of the same sins done by the Republicans when they held the keys to the kingdom. It won't be fun to live through, but I remain hopeful that we'll be more enlightened for the experience. I hope that term limits for members of Congress will be more likely.

I find it more than a little ironic that all of this could happened as the Left attains more political power than they've ever had before in our national history.