It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

First black president or Female?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 06:05 PM
link   
i believe that in 2008 we will see either a female president or black president, the democrats would most likely nominate hillary in my opinion and the republicans will not win it because everyone is mad at them and i dont think they will have a chance.




posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 01:23 AM
link   
I agree that both Obama and Clinton have respectable chances this time out. I believe Obama represents a better chance than Clinton, especially in the general election because he simply isn't connected to nearly as much bad blood as Clinton. Clinton is in the untennable position of having a voting record that puts her to the right of her constituency and a "buzz" that puts her far to the left of many swing voters. She'd actually mobilize Republican votes by being on the ballot, and that's a problem, because the last 2 elections in this country were all about who did a better job not of getting people to vote for them, but getting people NOT to vote against them.

Somewhere in Florida there are 538 people who didn't like Bush in 2000, but also don't care very much about politics. Any political advisor worth his salt is sitting his candidate down and making him stare at the vote count from Florida in 2000, lecturing their candidate about how George Bush came that close to making global-warming denial films while Al Gore sits in the White House. Here's what the advisors are saying, perhaps at this very moment, "All it would have taken is for George Bush to use the word retard, and BAM- if even 264 mentally challenged kids in Florida had parents who didn't vote, those parents would have voted and cost Bush the election!"

That's the name of the game these days- don't piss off the other guy's base. Bad news for Hillary. On the other hand, Republicans are exceedingly weak, she's married to the most image-wise politician currently alive in the United States, and Lord knows she's got the money and the noteriety to make a serious primary bid.

Then there's Obama. He's Charismatic, Articulate, Likeable and Very Intelligent. He WILL NOT lose a debate in his campaign; I am willing to bet money on it. If he gets to the general election, I think he can win frustrated Republicans because from what I see of him through his book, he knows how to communicate with the working man and phrase the necessary compromises between economics and fairness in an understandable way.
The only question is whether or not he'll have the money in the primary to keep himself from being a dark horse candidate, because Democrats don't need an underdog to run against the ghost of this administration.


That brings me to the best part of this whole situation. The fact that it's good for Barack Obama if he has the funding to get out there and get his message across is an incredibly good thing. Why? Because it means he isn't a gimmick candidate. He's qualified and he's black, in that order.

Seeing Ferraro in the Vice Presidency would have been cheap, because she was chosen specifically because Mondale was out to set a precedent. She was a gimmick. When minorities become serious candidates because they are qualified, that's a sign that progress in the equalization of our society, while it has been frustratingly slow at many points, is not at a stand still.

I've got high hopes for the 2008 election. It's a shame that 2010 will eventually come and I'll probably be a cynic again.

edit for typo

[edit on 16-1-2007 by The Vagabond]



posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 01:44 PM
link   
Vagabond. Mr. Obama is indeed a very articulate man, not to mention intelligent. However intelligent and articulate he is, I don't think he can match the Clinton machine (however unfortunate that is...). The democratic nomination is Mrs. Clinton's to lose. She will have to do something incredibly stupid to lose it. MHO, of course.

Another problem with Mr. Obama is, I've yet to hear him articulate a plan of any sort. Yes, he wrote a book, but other than political junkies, how many people are actually going to spend the 25 or 30 dollars to buy it? He needs to get out even more than he is already to have a chance of being more than an also ran. Again, MHO.



posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 05:35 PM
link   
I think you're probably right seagull. Obama's chances hinge very much on money. If he can deliver his message to voters, he has a strong chance of taking them from Clinton in the primary and from almost any Republican in the general. If he can't either generate news coverage or put out a strong positive ad campaign, things get bleaker.



posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 05:42 PM
link   


posted by The Vagabond

I agree both Obama and Clinton have respectable chances this time out. I believe Obama represents a better chance than Clinton because he isn't connected to nearly as much bad blood as Clinton. Clinton has a voting record that puts her to the right of her constituency and a "buzz" that puts her far to the right of many swing voters. She'd mobilize Republican votes by being on the ballot, and that's a problem . . “ [Edited by Don W]



1) I posted elsewhere ‘08 is the year for Hillary, Nancy and John McCain. All are in their 60s; they will be in retirement homes by 2012. I mentioned Speaker Pelosi because another poster averred she might be our next president. Only if Lee Harvey Oswald returns from the dead and confuses VP Cheney for Governor Connolly.
2) Well, Hillary is adroit. Late Wednesday night, she wired B43 that she no longer would support his call to war as she had done earlier because his newly proposed escalation was contra-indicated. She is now free of that albatross.
3) I suggest anyone who does not want to vote GOP and thereby endorse the War in Iraq, will vote Democratic. A poll taken just after the president’s speech showed 47% of likely voters put the Iraq issue first, and 9% put immigration second. 47 to 9! Only a “win” for B43 in Iraq between now and November 4, 2008, will give the GOP nominee an even chance.



Any political advisor worth his salt is sitting his candidate down and making him stare at the vote count from Florida in 2000, lecturing their candidate about how George Bush came that close to making global-warming denial films . . “



Right. The 2008 election will be decided in Ohio (new Democrat governor) and or Florida (new Republican governor). Or so I hear. I believe the FL Dems lost by 380,000 votes in 2004, which more nearly represents Florida’s post Reagan pro-GOP sentiments. Without being overtly Semitic the Dems put Joe Lieberman on the ‘00 ticket to carry the Jewish vote in Florida. He came within 537 votes of doing that, which shows the Dems knew what they were talking about. Privately. Election-wise. By the same token, I believe the Dems will want a candidate who can put the South into play in '08. My idea for VP is Mark Warner, former Gov of Va. Or one VP candidate who can guarantee Ohio, like Dennis Kusinich.



Hillary is married to the most image-wise politician alive in the US and Lord knows she's got the money and the notoriety to make a serious primary bid. Then there's Obama. He's Charismatic, Articulate, Likeable and Very Intelligent. He WILL NOT lose a debate in his campaign; I am willing to bet money on it. If he gets to the general election, I think he can win frustrated Republicans . . “



Wait up here, Mr Vag. Remember the very close Tennessee open seat senate race - until Playboy Club got involved - Harold Ford versus Bob Corker to replace Sen. Frist? The GOP never misses a chance to play the race card. Willie Horton with the first Bush. Jesse Helms 2 times in his last two senate races. George Allen who got trapped when he was caught on video. Although dirty tricks are often said to have been the work product of Richard Nixon, they are wrong. The first dirty tricks were played out in the 1792 election - our #2 - and have been part and parcel of the American political scene ever since. But I asset the GOP are by far the worse of the two parties.

Obama is al long shot, good to have in the background, like a spare quarterback of some talent. But for Democrats in 2008, it is Hillary’s to lose.



The only question is whether or not he'll have the money in the primary to keep himself from being a dark horse candidate . .



I presume no pun intended?



Ferraro was chosen specifically because Mondale was out to set a precedent. She was a gimmick. When minorities become serious candidates because they are qualified, that's a sign that progress in the equalization of our society . . it has been frustratingly slow at many points, [but] is not at a stand still. I've got high hopes for the 2008 election. It's a shame that 2010 will come and I'll probably be a cynic again. [Edited by Don W]



Performance will determine the winner in both ‘08 and ‘10 in my opinion. The voters gave the Dems a chance to show what they can do. If they like what they do, then it’s good news for Dems, if they don’t then it’s back to business as usual. More tax breaks for the R&Fs and more debt for your grandchildren to pay back instead of school tuition. Choices. Priorities.



posted by Seagull

Vagabond. Mr. Obama is indeed a very articulate man, not to mention intelligent. However intelligent and articulate he is, I don't think he can match the Clinton machine. The Democratic nomination is Mrs. Clinton's to lose. She will have to do something incredibly stupid to lose it. IMHO, of course. Another problem with Mr. Obama . . I've yet to hear him articulate a plan . . Yes, he wrote a book, but how many people are actually going to spend the 25 or 30 dollars to [read] it? He needs to get out even more than he is already to have a chance of being more than an also ran. Again, IMHO. [Edited by Don W]



My sentiments exactly, Mr S. Based on what I heard today on CNN, from Mr Axlerod his 2004 Illinois senate race adviser, Barack will keep current with all legal requirements for a candidate but he will not decide whether to “go for broke” until about 3 weeks prior to the last day allowed by law. (No one has told me when that is.


[edit on 1/16/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 03:31 AM
link   
It will be the first balding white guy who used to be Mayor of the city that doesn't sleep. Unless Hilary really did sign that pact with the Devil



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 05:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Obama's ... . If he can deliver his message to voters,


What exactly is his message?

No one knows anything about his economic platform except that he wants to keep the death tax and roll back tax cuts.

He has said he will bring the troops home almost immediately, but he hasn't said how he'd do it or how he'd deal with the mess left behind if that was done.

His resume is empty. Two years in the senate is not enough experience to make a good president. However ... 8 years from now if he runs again ... THEN he'll actually have a resume to bring to the table.

Hillary (with a solid resume) will be the dems choice. If the republicans have either Giuliani or McCain they will have a fighting chance to win. Otherwise it will be President Hillary (God help us all).



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 05:54 AM
link   
Of course .. if Hillary keeps buying endorsements away from Obama, then he won't last through the primaries anyways.

It's money and the Clinton machine ... and a solid resume ... that is going to bring Hillary the dem nomination. Oh .. and Obama hasn't been vetted yet. Once he's into the vetting process it's going to get messy.




top topics



 
0

log in

join