Mrs. Bill Clinton will win the Democrat Party nomination. No doubt.

The Republican nomination will come down to Guiliani, and whoever out-conservatives each other between Thompson and Gingrich. McCain doesn't have a chance, and to all you Ron Paul fans out there...Fantasy time is over...get back to reality.

It all boils down to Mrs. Bill Clinton. I see more people rallying against her socialist agenda, than rallying around an ex-Presidents wife.

So look for a Thompson or Gingrich presidency in 2008, and for the Repubicans to take back Congress.

posted by Justin Oldham
I think the GOP party bosses have 'sanctioned' Giuliani to be the sacrificial lamb. He can't win, so what the hey? But [Don W] you're saying "what about Fred?" I’m studying Fred’s bid and it’s just too early to tell. His plan seems to be as follows: A) Rack up ten million dollars. B) Announce just after the 4th of July holiday. As gambling goes, this is a low risk big win proposition for Fred and I'm sure he knows it. He is, after all, gambling with other people's money. [Edited by Don W]

A long time ago I read that if you have to run on your own money, don’t’. If your message does not resonate with enough people to fund the effort, then you’re on the wrong track. The tv commentators say the test for Fred will be how he ‘sticks’ in the polls AFTER he announces. Undefined expectations make him very popular now. Everything to everybody. After he is in the race and has to stand for something rather than standing for everything, his poll numbers will tell us how enduring he will be. If he bumps then slides as I expect, then he will be an also-ran in the footnotes of history. Which is all he has earned so far IMO.

posted by RRconservative
Hillary Clinton will win the Democrat Party nomination. No doubt.

The Republican nomination will come down to Giuliani, and whoever ‘out-conservatives’ the other between Thompson and Gingrich. McCain doesn't have a chance, and to all you Ron Paul fans out there . . Fantasy time is over . . get back to reality. It boils down to Hillary. I see more people rallying against her agenda than rallying around an ex-Presidents wife. So look for a Thompson or Gingrich presidency in 2008, and for the Republicans to take back Congress. [Edited by Don W]

I thought you said Hillary will win the Dems nomination and then you said “it boils down to Hillary.” By which I thought you meant she would win November 4, ‘08. But then you closed offering either a Thompson or a Gingrich presidency in ‘08. Maybe you should reread your advice to the Ron Paul fans?

There are 18 months before the next presidential election. I don’t know what state elections are set for this coming November. Some of them might be an indicator how the public feels since it voted last November. A senator died last week. I’m not sure if his state must hold a special election in November. If there is an election that would be the only one involving a national question and could be read as an indicator.

The issue for the Dems is are the people still satisfied with their choice in ‘06? If ‘yes” then that bodes well for the Dem nominee, but if “no” then it means there is a lot of work to be done! And the GOP nomination takes on new value.

[edit on 6/10/2007 by donwhite]

This weekend, I watched "Meet the Press," and Russert was interviewing a pair of writers who put out a new book on Hillary, entitled "Her Way." their central claim isthat, through gossip, they learned that Hillary's run the Presidency was first concieved back in 1996.

Duh. Anyone who has been following her career and that of her husband would have come to that conclusion by latest 1994. when I saw her on the campaign trail for Bill in '89, I pegged her for an ambitious woman, and I did say to fiends [not a typo] and family, "pay attention to that one. She will be President some day."

Like James and Dolly Madison, Bill and Hllary, Arnold and Maria, there are capable couples out htere would are just looking for the right moment to do a little dynasty building. If the law had allowed for it, Dolly would have been President when the time came.

I'm no fan of such successions, but I do know they are possible.

posted by Justin Oldham

This weekend, I watched "Meet the Press," and Russert was interviewing a pair of writers who put out a new book on Hillary, entitled "Her Way."

Duh. Anyone who has been following her career and that of her husband would have come to that conclusion by the latest in 1994. I pegged her for an ambitious woman, and I did say to fiends [not a typo] and family, "pay attention to that one. She will be President some day."

Like James and Dolly Madison, Bill and Hillary, Arnold and Maria, there are capable couples out there would are just looking for the right moment to do a little dynasty building. If the law had allowed for it, Dolly would have been President when the time came.

I'm no fan of such successions, but I do know they are possible.

Although I think Bill and or Hillary are about 4X more competent than the Bush-man, that does not guarantee their outcomes will be any more agreeable. Competence matters a lot but serendipity also plays its role. For example, I credit the Bush43 win in ‘04 directly to the Nine Eleven Event. Pure serendipity.

Although Arnold started off as if he was an Austrian oberfuhrer for California, he was soon taught his place in the scheme of things by the Dems Legislature. After that, he has proved to be a good administrator and very flexible in his political and social outlook. He’s a guy who can learn. For him, companionate conservative has real meaning. Unlike his Texas predecessor in state office. But then Arnold nearly got impeached for having 1 guy executed, and it cost him honorary Austrian citizenship and his name was taken off a local stadium. See footnote. “Shucks,” said Bush-man (who had 154 men executed), “It’s nothing when you get used to it!”

And J/O, just “ . . say to fiends [not a typo] . . “ what fiends would you know?

Footnote: California has the most people on Death Row but has only executed 8 men since the re-authorization of the penalty by the weak-kneed US Supreme Court in 1978. Texas is #2 in numbers of men on its Death Row but has executed over 300 men, half under George Bush, in the same time period. I’m sure Texas is a lot more law-obedient than is California. It surely has more deterrent. Downnote: Based on the Illinois experience, 21 of those men executed in Texas were innocent. 7%.

[edit on 6/11/2007 by donwhite]

Hear is some breaking information on this topic.

The consistent lead that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York has maintained over Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois and others in the race for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination is due largely to one factor: her support from women.

In the most recent Washington Post-ABC News poll, Clinton led Obama by a 2 to 1 margin among female voters. Her 15-point lead in the poll is entirely attributable to that margin. Clinton drew support from 51 percent of the women surveyed, compared with 24 percent who said they supported Obama and 11 percent who said they backed former senator John Edwards of North Carolina.

This is probably no real surprise to any one. However this does mean that Hillary will very possibly be the Dem candidate. Then if you want to turn this into a battle of the sexes as memory serves there are more women of voting age then men.
So I will say again, will Hillery be the next U.S. president? As said before she controls the big money in the game, and now it seems she controls the women by two to one.

OR

Is Wisdom Gender Specific?

posted by RedGolem

The lead Sen. Clinton has maintained over Sen. Obama in the race for the ‘08 Democratic nomination is due largely to one factor: her support from women. In the most recent W-Post-ABC News poll, Clinton led Obama by a 2 to 1 margin among female voters. Her 15-point lead in the poll is entirely attributable to that margin. Clinton drew support from 51 percent of the women surveyed, compared with 24 percent who said they supported Obama and 11 percent who said they backed former Senator John Edwards of NC. [Edited by Don W]

This is probably no real surprise to any one. However this does mean that Hillary will very possibly be the Dem candidate. Then if you want to turn this into a battle of the sexes as memory serves there are more women of voting age then men. So I will say again, will Hillary be the next U.S. president? As said before she controls the big money in the game, and now it seems she controls the women by two to one. [Edited by Don W]

I have been Hillary’s fan since 1992. Justin Oldham has already pointed out it was recognized by keen observers even before ‘92 that she had presidential aspirations of her own. Her popularity with the female voter is both surprising to me and not surprising at the same time. It is a surprise because up to this election, women did not move to another woman in such great numbers. Women like Margaret Chase Smith. Maine. Shirley Chisolm. NY. Ann Richards. Texas. Eleanor Holmes Norton. W-DC. To name only a few of the many women on the national political scene. These and 100s of others who have been doing the work in the trenches for decades, getting the public ready for its first woman leader. I think the time has come. I believe Hillary is ready!

History. 2 great social movements came to fruition at the close of World War One. Both were led by women. Carrie Nation. Frances Willard. Susan B. Anthony. Different women to be sure. The 65th Congress offered the 18th Amendment - Prohibition - which became effective on January 29, 1919. The 66th Congress offered the 19th Amendment extending the franchise to women which became law on August 20, 1920. It was claimed that adding women to the voting pool wold clean up politics, would bring a new sense of community to the political scene, in short, it would bring us a better world. Since that time (1920) women have generally voted the same way as men. And the world turns not noticeably different.

First in presidential politics. Geraldine Ferraro of NY had run for VP with Walter Mondale in 1984 but the Dems were overwhelmed by the Reagan Bush41 team which carried all states but Minnesota and of course, W-DC. 54.5 million votes to 37.5 million votes. 58.8% 40.6&. Oddly enough, while the GOP gained control of the Senate for the first time in decades - 53 to 47 - the Democrats held the House by a very substantial margin, 253 to 183, almost reversing the presidential numbers, which went to prove Speaker Rayburn’s remark, “All politics are local.” No sea change here. (Yet. That would come in 1994).

Resume. Surprised? No. Because I admit I don’t understand what motivates women. I have never been successively married - 0 for 3 - but when not married I mostly lived at home until my parents died. Loving my mother did not stop me from observing one thing about women: they never forget, while men rarely remember. Those inopportune moments. I think women do view the world differently. It is great for humanity that women do (usually) posses the instinct of motherhood. Were that not so, men would have let our race progenitors die from neglect a million years ago. Lucy would not only have been the first humanoid but she also would have been the last. How that motherly instinct plays out in our day to day lives remains to be seen. I think we shall have a good chance to watch a woman at work. One thing is for sure, she cannot do worse for our country or do worse to our country than the current occupant of the White House. Anyway she goes will be UP!

I’m for Hillary!

[edit on 6/12/2007 by donwhite]

Don,
Thanks for your response.
Sorry that you are 0 for 3 in marriage. Just so we are on the same playing field I am not married and will not try to say I understand anything about women. Any man who does I would say will lie about others things also. I was familiar with some of the history you mentioned. When Clinton first came to the public eye back in 92 or so I could see that Hillary had aspirations of the executive office her self. I knew this was going to happen. Unlike you like I don't want to see it happen. I will be putting my vote in for what ever brain dead puppet the other party runs.
Also unfortunately because Hillary had command of the largest money and group of women voters, like I said above, you may be right that we will see what the gender issue will do to the office of commander and chief.

I've just observed my 12th wedding anniversary to my wife, whom I've actually known for a total of 20 years. As visually impaired person, I don't put any stock in what a person looks like. I do, however, pay close attention to what you say and what you do. If you say you'll do something, and then you do it...

There are few men or women who have "follow-through." Anyone can pledge to the small stuff and make it stick ,but few of us have the wiring to stay on task when something turns out to be hard. I apply this rule to myself, as well. As a struggling writer, its about staying in the fight until something sticks. Until that happens, battle on.

When it comes to politicians, few of them have then nerve to stay on task. They're human, just like the rest of us. All politicians re-make themselves at some point, but some do it more effectively than others. The simple truth is that we've all got to re-invent now and then. I am fast approaching a point in my own life when it will be time to re-invent.

Of all the politicians who are now in the race for the Presidency, Hillary has done the best job of re-inventing. Obama is still so new to the game that he hasn't had the need to re-invent just yet. Although he is not in the race just yet, Fred Thompson is another successful re-inventer. You've got to have a great deal of stubborn "ornery-ness" to do it successfully.

Al Gore and John Kerry both represent extremes when it comes to just how badly a re-invent can fail. Giuliani, Gingrich, and Romney, would each be examples of mildly successful re-inventions. When it comes to politics, the Presidency is an all or ntothing gig. Don and I may be ideological opposits, but we do I think agree on these psychological points.

What she lacks in artiface, Hilary makes up for in Machievellian skill and ornery-ness. I think that too many pundits misjudge her artiface. She is showing us exactly what she wants us to see. Remember that Margaret Thatcher read from a similar playbook. Quoting my idol, Machievelli, "it is better to be feared than it is to be loved. Love may inspire courage, but fear inspires loyalty."

[edit on 12-6-2007 by Justin Oldham]

posted by RedGolem

Don, Thanks for your response.
I will be putting my vote for what ever brain dead puppet the other party runs. Also because Hillary had command of the largest money and group of women voters, like I said above, you may be right that we will see what the gender issue will do to the office of commander in chief. [Edited by Don W]

Take heart Mr RedGolem. “This too will pass away” said some famous wag. We have had Kennedy followed by Johnson, Nixon followed by Ford, Reagan followed by Bush and so on. Except for stuff “around the edges” it is surprising how little difference we little guys notice. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. So every 4 years we have a popularity poll. Thanks for your response.


[edit on 6/12/2007 by donwhite]

posted by Justin Oldham
I've just observed my 12th wedding anniversary to my wife, whom I've actually known for a total of 20 years. If you say you'll do something, and then you do it... As a struggling writer, its about staying in the fight until something sticks. Until that happens, battle on. All politicians re-make themselves at some point, but some do it more effectively than others. The simple truth is that we've all got to re-invent now and then. I am fast approaching a point in my own life when it will be time to re-invent.

Hillary has done the best job of re-inventing. Obama is still so new to the game that he hasn't had the need to re-invent just yet. Although not in the race yet, Fred Thompson is another successful re-inventor. You've got to have a great deal of stubborn "ornery-ness" to do it successfully.

Al Gore and John Kerry both represent extremes when it comes to just how badly a re-invent can fail. Giuliani, Gingrich, and Romney, would each be examples of mildly successful re-invents. When it comes to politics, the presidency is an all or nothing gig. Don and I may be ideological opposites, but we do agree on these psychological points.

What she lacks in artifice, Hilary makes up for in Machiavellian skill and ornery-ness. I think that too many pundits misjudge her artifice. She is showing us exactly what she wants us to see. Remember that Margaret Thatcher read from a similar play book. Quoting my idol, Machiavelli, "it is better to be feared than it is to be loved. Love may inspire courage, but fear inspires loyalty." [Edited by Don W]

My B E S T to you and to your wife of a dozen years. May you see #25 and #50. My parents lived to celebrate their 58th anniversary both in good health for their age, although my father died shortly thereafter of stroke. My mother lived on 7 more years and died of heart attack. May you see your 58th!

[edit on 6/12/2007 by donwhite]

My wife says that even if Hillary becomes President, she'll think about keeping me for another 12 years.

Happy Anniversary to you and your wife from me and my wife of 10 years.

Thanks very much. It's been a good 12 yeras, and I'm hoping that the adventure will continue.

I think I've posted about this in another thread. Even so, I can repeat a few points here. Hillary andher team have more savvy than most of us give her credit for. She's quite Machievellian. This latest ad stunt plays to her contraversies. Expect more.

[edit on 20-6-2007 by Justin Oldham]

Justin,
I remember you saying how Machievellian she is, I however am only able to speak for my self. I did not like where the jingle described is coming from. So do you think this jingle is of good origin for the populace?

posted by RedGolem
Justin,
I remember you saying how Machiavellian she is, I however am only able to speak for my self. I did not like where the jingle described is coming from. So do you think this jingle is of good origin for the populace?

Do you smell a conspiracy here? Proposition: The Dems enjoy a lead over the GOP. The public is disillusioned by the inept nay failed prosecution of the Iraq War. Daily casually reports will doom the Surge. Say Vietnam Revisited. Arabs in general and Iraqis in particular are not so much given to speedy politics as are Westerners and especially Americans. Iraq is 5,000 years old and America is barely 400.

Task for the Democrats: How to hold the public’s interest 14 months. That is the time until the National Convention in Denver, August 24, 2008. We are still in June, ‘07. How would you do it? Why not have a sit-down with the top dogs in the Clinton, Obama and Edwards camps, and script the next few months?

Better let Gore send an observer. Maybe Bloomberg, too, on the q-t. By the bye, Bloomberg poses more a threat to the Dems than to the GOPs. Recalling Perot’s 19 million votes in ‘92, I have tended to discount 3rd parties as mainly nuisances. But 2000 showed how 3 million Green votes threw the election to Bush43. Wow, I’m still feeling the pain and we will feel pain as a country for decades to come for that one. Not to speak of the 3,500 KIA in Iraq. And counting. 15,000 in pitiful care of the VA. Who is it that says Support the Troops! all the time?

Q. How far is it from the White House to Walter Reed Hospital?

Q. Will more Americans dead in Iraq make it better for us when we leave than if we left today?

Q. Will our dead American SURGE ”victims” make Iraqis love us more?

Q. Is it LOVE that we seek in Iraq?

[edit on 6/22/2007 by donwhite]

Originally posted by RedGolem
Justin, I remember you saying how Machievellian she is, I however am only able to speak for my self. I did not like where the jingle described is coming from. So do you think this jingle is of good origin for the populace?

The Sopranos are a glamorized tale of criminal deeds. Americans have always like the image of the Bad Boy even though they know that criminals do bad things. Criminals are idolized because they are 'cool,' slick and decisive when the chips are down. They are seen to be confident, which we like in any sort of character.

I understand what Hillary was doing in that ad. In my own published work, I depict characters who embrace that Bad Boy thing to achieve their own goals. By wrapping herself in a popular image, she's establishing her own brand of "cool" that will appeal to supporters while at the same time making it harder for her critics to say that she's un-cool.

Effective marketing is not always moral. If often dabbles in the things that we say that we should not want. Nobody ever went broke in the ad business by flirting with temptation.

You're on the right track. Mastery of Propoganda and image manipulation is no small thing. Many of us do it on a daily basis. Much of what we do and/or do NOT do is aimed at crafting our own self-imagined profiles in the hopes that others will see us that same way.

Image manipualtion is easier to do than you would think. Suppose that Hillary had not mimicked the likes of Tony Soprano. Suppose she had imitated the persona of a more wholesome character? If I walked up to you unbathed and in dirty t-shirt with blue jeans, you'd think of me one way. If you met me while I was squeaky clean and wearing a suit and tie, you'd tend to think of me in another way.

That's what she's doing. It's what they are all doing. She just happens to be better at it than her competition. I'm not wild about that, but hey. You can't have everything.