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.

 

Clinton? Obama? or Edwards? Who Will It Be?

page: 13
12
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Justin Oldham
 

Economic issues have now come to matter more than national security. Republicans can't fight back because they would have to turn on the Bush administration to do it. They are straight-jacketed. It hurts me to see the party of my choice in this position but there it is. As a commentator, I have to call it for what it is. McCain and Huckabee are in the same boat. They have no money . . donors won't back then unless they continue to make the kind of appeals that got them from the back of the pack to the front. To win, they have to be more honest and more specific than they are.


I hope you are right, Mr J/O, that the economy is ahead of national security in the electorate’s’s concerns. All the indicators point to a re-run of Bush Sr's dilemma in 1992. Add to that the Iraq War failure and you do have a hill too steep for any GOP candidate to reasonably expect to climb.

McCain is also too old. His year was 2000 but he lost out to dirty politics. I don’t think he will continue to win primaries. I see it as between Romney who has a proven track record of success (and capable of shifting his values as needed) which are valuable political attributes and Huckabee. We all know Huckabee’s appeal is mostly due to his religious attractions. I don’t like that but 30% of GOP voters love it. Since 1980, the GOP has nearly wrecked the US Supreme Court in its effort to undo Roe and Brown.


Having said all that, let's look at a new wrinkle in the calculation. GOP tacticians now have to decide who they'd rather go up against in a general election. Obama's lack of specifics would seem to make him the ideal opponent because he can be taken down with specifics. The trouble is that if they beat him, Republicans can be labeled as the racists who took down the first viable black man. Don't think for a minute that the Dems wouldn't play that fiddle. They would. My speculation is this. They will back off on Obama and focus on Hillary so that they can be seen as defeating the better candidate. Hillary's girl-factor isn't so pronounced. There is also the fact that Obama isn't like to fare that well on Super Tuesday. Even if he does, Hillary will turn on him fast enough.


I hope you are right on the GOP hitting on Hillary and shying away from Obama as him being too risky to have the race baiting change levied against them for the umpteenth time. Nixon opposed school bussing. Reagan drove the welfare Cadillac. Bush Sr loved Willie Horton, and Bush Jr has never stopped jabbing at blacks. I’m still waiting for the Damascus Road conversion of the GOP.

Hillary can hit back. She can dish it out and I believe, do it better than any of her putative GOP opponents. And look like a wanna-be grandmother all at the same time!


Obama himself still has one choice to make. Does he want the Presidency enough to risk an all-or-nothing throw of the dice? Or, does he settle for VP and wait his turn to be President? I say he settles for the VP. When it comes to politics, "some" is better than "none." There is no combination of candidates on the Republican side that can beat a Clinton-Obama ticket. If the economy was on solid footings, the GOP could beat the Dems on a national security platform. As many ATS posters have pointed out, the economy is not on solid ground. It's melting as we watch.


If Hillary sweeps February 5, I’m pretty sure the OLDER hands in Congress will have a sit-down with Barack and put him on that track. That is logical. Obama has earned it. He is worthy of it and after 8 years in the #2 slot, he can make a formidable run in 2016. He’d be 56 then, I believe. Just the right age. So, for now, wisdom dictates patience.




posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 02:12 PM
link   
If Obama wants that VP job, he'll have to continue his credible run. If he slacks, he risks giving Edwards a shot at undermining him. If Hillary and Barrack both run hard enough through Super Tuesday, they might shake Richardson and Edwards. If the race becomes too spendy, those two would have no choice but to drop out.



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 01:50 PM
link   
It's now being reported by overseas news sources that Bill Richardson will drop out of the '08 Presidential race. It's too early to tell if there's any truth to this. We shoudl not be surprised. He doesn't have enough money to compete. He'd have to drop out after being crushed during the blitz on Super Tuesday.



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Justin Oldham
 



If Obama wants that VP job, he'll have to continue his credible run. If he slacks, he risks giving Edwards a shot at undermining him. If Hillary and Barrack both run hard enough through Super Tuesday, they might shake Richardson and Edwards. If the race becomes too spendy, those two would have no choice but to drop out. It's now being reported by overseas news sources that Bill Richardson will drop out of the '08 Presidential race. It's too early to tell if there's any truth to this. We should not be surprised. He doesn't have enough money to compete. He'd have to drop out after being crushed during the blitz on Super Tuesday.


Assuming Richardson joins Biden, Kucinich and Dodd, who is left that is a realistic contender? Other than the Big 3. As you point out, Obama is not home free but he surely has a better shot than Edwards because Edwards is “used” material and his appeal is too limited. What votes he’d gain in Ohio he’d lose in Florida and other “swing” states. Obama seems to energize the 2008 counterparts to the 1960s youth types. The perfect counterpoint to Hillary's appeal to us seniors and to older females.

Similarly, on the GOP side the race is already down to 3 or 4 at the most. Despite the loyalty of Ron Paul’s menagerie, he is not going to be there at the final cut. He is too extreme (and too forthright). You know what I think of the Regan Revolution.

Big money Romney, is now admitting he is at his rope’s end in Michigan. No silver there will do. It’s GOLD or GO. Huckabee is also a candidate of limited appeal. He is definitely strong in the GOP base - the 11 states in the Old South per Kevin Phillips in his new book American Theology - but he will falter in California and New York. And etc. A sure LOSER for the GOP. Of course, they cheerfully gave up Sens. Goldwater and Dole in the past.

That leaves us with the ELDER statesman, John McCain and the always ebullient but so far a non-candidate, Rudy Giuliani. It is obvious Rudy has a strategy. NOT to expose himself to states where he is likely to lose, a mistake Romney has made. Rudy is saying those early states with few convention delegates are not that important if you can carry the big states with the large blocs of delegates. We’ll see how that works in real life.

So the Dems are down to three and the GOP down to TWO?



PS. J/O, you should consider running this book in the background, if you have not already read it. American Theology: The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil and Borrowed Money in the 21st Century. 2007, by Kevin Phillips. RC 61924

[edit on 1/10/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 01:56 AM
link   
I expect Edwards to stay in the game. At this point, he has just enough delegates to be a tease to Hillary and Barack. He's still a spoiler, and a contender for the Vice Presidency. We should not be surprised if Hillary and Obama come to some sort of understanding regarding Edwards. My sentiment is that Super Tuesday will break Edwards, and he'll be forced out.

Tonight's Fox debate in South Carolina was very partisan. the moderator was openly hostile to Ron Paul, and Mitt Romney.



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 06:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Justin Oldham
 


I expect Edwards to stay in the game. At this point, he has just enough delegates to be a tease to Hillary and Barack. He's still a spoiler, and a contender for the Vice Presidency. We should not be surprised if Hillary and Obama come to some sort of understanding regarding Edwards. My sentiment is that Super Tuesday will break Edwards, and he'll be forced out.


Unless Obama or Hillary make a serious faux pas, they seem to be locked in a long running campaign that may extend to the August convention due to the Dems proportional delegate selection scheme. As it was explained last night on CSpan, proportionality not only guarantees candidates who poll over 15% get delegates, but that once a candidate falls behind, he or she will find it nearly impossible to pull ahead.

One-third of the Dem delegates are “hand picked” by governors, mayors and so on and they may well hold the power to decide who the nominee will be. That by the bye, favors Hillary as the insider versus Obama as the outsider.


Tonight's Fox debate in South Carolina was very partisan. the moderator was openly hostile to Ron Paul and Mitt Romney.


I am sorry to hear this. As you may have read in earlier posts, I hate Rupert Murdoch. I have all FOX channels OFF my remote so I really am unaware of anything on FOX. I was very disappointed in Wolf Blither when he ran the last CNN sponsored Dems debate. The candidates seem willing to do almost anything but take off their clothes to get free tv time. (Anderson Cooper seems to have a shortage of testosterone. I have never watched Nancy Grace nor her male wanna be, Glen Beck. CNN died when Time-Warner took it over).



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 01:18 PM
link   
It's worth noting that Bill Richardson hasn't endorsed anyone yet. He did this deliberately, so that his delgates would still be in play. that makes him a possible VP pick if Hillary can't stand Obama. My sense of the thing is that she dislikes him, but she may dislike Edwards more.

[edit on 11-1-2008 by Justin Oldham]



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 11:35 PM
link   
Michigan is the next state to hold its primary. That will be on Tudesday. I predict a loss for romney, a win for McCain, and anotehr slim win for Mrs. Clinton. It's altogether likely that the Obama "movement" will stumble in Nevada. The media seems to be turning on him. I sure hope he has clean underwear.



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Justin Oldham
 


It's worth noting that Bill Richardson hasn't endorsed anyone yet. He did this deliberately, so that his delegates would still be in play. that makes him a possible VP pick if Hillary can't stand Obama. My sense of the thing is that she dislikes him, but she may dislike Edwards more.


What do you think Jack and Bobby Kennedy thought about Lyndon in 1960? Word has it they laughed at him as a Southern Hick. But when it came push to shove time, they KNEW no one had a better handle on Congressional politics. Do you eat your pride or shoot yourself in the foot?

The Dems require 2,025 delegates to win. As of Jan. 8, Clinton has 183, Obama has 78, Edwards has 52 and Richardson had 19. The GOP on the other hand, requires 1,191 delegates to win. As of Jan. 8, Romney had 30 Huckabee had 21, McCain had 10, Paul has 6, Thompson 2 and Giuliani has but 1 delegate. Numbers from CNNPolitics.com website.


Michigan is the next state to hold its primary. That will be on Tuesday. I predict a loss for Romney, a win for McCain, and another slim win for Mrs. Clinton. It's altogether likely that the Obama "movement" will stumble in Nevada. The media seems to be turning on him. I sure hope he has clean underwear.


The Culinary Union of Nevada has endorsed Obama. Since we are now talking freely about race in Dem politics, it stands to reason because I perceive many if not most of the Culinary Workers are black (or Hispanic). They have a perfect right to vote for one of their own. Whites always have. Hillary went to NV however, to cut her loses there and to stop a small set back from becoming a hemorrhage. That’s called “tending to business.”



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 02:05 PM
link   
Mrs. Clinton was on "Meet the Press" this weekend. the host, Tim Russert, hit her with the hard questions. The entire point of her performance appears to have been to show that she's tough. She can take it.

From a purely political tandpoint, she was fierce. As I said the day before the New Hampshire primaries, she needs to get mad more often. She speaks with more passion when she's mad. She got a lot of good soundbites from MTP this weekend.

I think she's going to do better in Nevada than many suspect. She's been in that State talking face to face with teh culinary workers, 57% of whom are female. As I continue to say, her best weapon against Obama is to be specific. If she can sound practical, she will take the shine of his optimism.

You will note that she trotted out a seventy billion dollar stimulus package to slow or stop the slide towards recession. There's more to that than meets the eye.

If Bush does anything like what she suggests, he appears to be validating her ability to make decisions.

If he does not follow her recommended course, she can endlessly excoriate Republicans for having dropped the ball.

Bear in mind that Obama is long on optimism and short on specifics. If he comes after her on this matter, he risks looking like he's uninformed if he tries and fails to trump her stimulus plan.

Let's not forget that the MSM is slowing turning on Obama. The Clintons are making their share of mistakes, but Obama isn't making any new friends. Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton are still waiting for their moment. If THEY sense that the honeymoon is over, they will pounce.



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 09:22 PM
link   
I noticed something today that I should mention to this discussion group. As the media and various special interest groups try to hurt the Clinton campaign because of Hillary's botched MLK remarks, I caught a glimpse of what I think is yet another sign that the press is about to turn on Obama. I think they read the Nevada tea leaves and see a Clinton win. Are they backing off to avoid looking foolish when she pulls away from Obama after Super Tuesday?



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 11:22 PM
link   
I've just come from watching the Democratic debate in Nevada. I wasn't at all surprised to see Clinton and Obama do such an elaborate hat dance to "bury the hatchet," but I was surprised to see Hillary sieze the initiative onthe "black and brown debate." Wow. That's brass.

When she spoke, Mrs. Clitnon was careful to stick to what she would do based on her experience. Sticking to specifics will be her best tactic against Obama. When Brack talked about miitary recruitment on college campuses, he came off sounding clueless.

If she can continue stating her case in those terms, she will erode Obama's support base. Forcing him to talk specficis will eventually cause him to say something that sounds just uninformed enough to slow his momentum.

Meanwhile, over in Michigan...Romney wins his home state by nine points. Ron Paul makes another eight point showing, and Fred is...well...Fred is Fred, even if he did lose to Ron Paul. At least he didn't lose out to Rudy.



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 08:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Justin Oldham
 


I noticed something today that I should mention to this discussion group. As the media and various special interest groups try to hurt the Clinton campaign because of Hillary's botched MLK remarks, I caught a glimpse of what I think is yet another sign that the press is about to turn on Obama. I think they read the Nevada tea leaves and see a Clinton win. Are they backing off to avoid looking foolish when she pulls away from Obama after Super Tuesday?


Well, Hillary did well in Michigan, polling 63% of the Dems who voted. That is better than any Gallup poll as a measure of her popularity there. The upcoming Saturday Nevada caucus holds signs of an Obama win, based on the number of new voters signing up, and the trend of new young voters to like Obama over Hillary.


I've just come from watching the Democratic debate in Nevada. I wasn't at all surprised to see Clinton and Obama do such an elaborate hat dance to "bury the hatchet," but I was surprised to see Hillary seize the initiative on the "black and brown debate." Wow. That's brass.

If she can continue stating her case in those terms [experience], she will erode Obama's support base. Forcing him to talk specifics will eventually cause him to say something that sounds just uninformed enough to slow his momentum.

Meanwhile, over in Michigan...Romney wins his home state by nine points. Ron Paul makes another eight point showing, and Fred is...well...Fred is Fred, even if he did lose to Ron Paul. At least he didn't lose out to Rudy.


More importantly, it is reported Hillary and Barack have concluded a truce over the MLKJr quote and hopefully on any other gratuitous references to race, color, religion or national origin.

[edit on 1/16/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 01:25 PM
link   
I think that Clinton and Obama will both want very much to stay away from the lightning rods of race and gender. Obama got away with saying very little on the subject, but he might not be so fortunate next time.

Romney's win in Michigan was decisive. I'm not sure what he can do to keep the wave going through Nevada and South Carolina. When I listened to his speeches, I heard a man who was willing to promise almost anything to anybody. McCain was more the realist, but he tended to rub the people of Michigan just a little bit the wrong way.

The Nevada debate showed us the new direction Hillary will take when dealing with Obama. Here's a little something yu may not have considered. Voters can now feel free to ask Hillary much more specific questions when they meet her on the campaign trail.



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 10:53 AM
link   
It's worth noting that Israel has recently tested its new Jericho III intermediate range ballistic missile. This test launch was done deliberately to send a message to Iran. We should assume that the Presidential candidates know about this.

It's important to understand that Israel might act on its own to prevent the Iranian nuke plant from going online in July of '08. they can do this by conventonal air strike, or by missile attack. Let's remember that they do have GPS guided weapons. Jericho III is a nuclear delivery system meant to deploy city-killers.



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Justin Oldham
 


It's worth noting that Israel has recently tested its new Jericho III intermediate range ballistic missile. This test launch was done deliberately to send a message to Iran. We should assume that the Presidential candidates know about this. It's important to understand that Israel might act on its own to prevent the Iranian nuke plant from going online in July of '08. They can do this by conventional air strike, or by missile attack. Let's remember that they do have GPS guided weapons. Jericho III is a nuclear delivery system meant to deploy city-killers.


ONE more reason we MUST settle the Middle East hot-spot before it is TOO late. Because of Israel the US has NO credibility anywhere when it comes to the Nuclear N-PT. Then last year Bush43 added India to the American Approved List of nuclear powers despite India’s on-going defiance of the Nuclear N-PT. And our second major CLIENT state, Pakistan. Let’s be honest, the Nuclear N-PT is dead and the US killed It!

Our leaders - from 1948 onward - have been SHORT sighted. Unwilling to take on the PRIME issue in the Middle East since 1948. Sometimes due to the strong Jewish lobby in the US, other times because the conflict served our overriding purposes. Let’s face it, such shaky regimes as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt, Syria and yes, even Iran to some extent, find it a very good distraction at home to keep their own people under control. To advocate HATE Jews is a lot easier than solving the problems they face with 90% of the income being received by less than 1% of the population in some cases.

All we need is for Israel to nuke Iran. I predict that would trigger a slaughter in Israel equal to those of the Old Testament, by Arabs from all over the area - run don’t walk - to Israel.

And frankly, if Israel did nuke Iran, a country 2 X the size of Alaska, with 65 million people, it would be no more than a bee sting to the Iranians. Just as we learned during the Cold War, having nukes is more a liability than it is an asset. No one wants to talk about it but I’d guess it costs the taxpayer between $5 and $10 billion a year to maintain the US 20-30,000 nuke stockpile. Don’t forget Halliburton is a prime contractor at Amarillo. That’s like a black hole when it comes to taxpayer’s money.

[edit on 1/17/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 12:30 PM
link   
It's a very real possibility that Israel could...complicate...things for whoever is our next President. You will note that hte mater of Israel has not come up in this election cycle.



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Justin Oldham
 


Have you noticed the new ad on ATS? “Stop Hillary Care.” I never click on those ads as I don’t want them to have my email address. Just imagine this, health care in America is $2.2 T and rising.

A new claim by some anti immigrant person says there are 20 million undocumented persons in the US, not 12 million. Another one of those unprovable negatives. But if you divide 320,000,000 into $2.2T you get $6,875 per person, per year. Health care in America. MORE than the total GDP per capita of Peru, (93), Lebanon (96), Albania (97), Armenia (98), Jordan (101), Guatemala (102), Phillippines (1-3), El Salvador (105), Paraguay (107), Morocco (111), Egypt (115), Syria (116), Cuba (117), and ending with Somalia (193) and Malawi (194). Wow!

And for all that money we do not get the best outcomes in medicine either. A dozen countries do better in infant mortality and longevity than we do. Sounds like someone is getting screwed?



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 02:42 PM
link   
Bear in mind that the ads you see depend on the content of the page they are displayed on. Since we are presently talking about Hillary Clinton, we're going to see a lot of Hillary ads. I recently started a science and technology blog, and its interesting to see the ads that pop up on that.

Health care, as Don points out, is a big deal during this election cycle. You will note that the Republican candidates are saying very little on the subject. You would think that conservatives would be ideally placed to talk about health care reform, and the numbers associated with it....but...they are staying quiet.



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Justin Oldham
 


Bear in mind we are presently talking about Hillary Clinton, we're going to see a lot of Hillary ads. I recently started a science and technology blog, and its interesting to see the ads that pop up on that. Health care, as Don points out, is a big deal during this election cycle. You will note that the Republican candidates are saying very little on the subject. You would think that conservatives would be ideally placed to talk about health care reform, and the numbers associated with it....but...they are staying quiet.


I don’t hold out much hope for any significant health care reform. From Dems or GOPs. Health care is a $2.2 T. industry, highly organized and all parts with one overriding goal - to maximize profits. Have you noticed how the pharmaceuticals have allotted medicines to remain non-competitive? All with the “blessing” of the FDA. The FTC. The SEC. The DoJ. Not YET enough people are dying for lack of medical care. 18,000 is the number I heard. As in other areas you have remarked on J/O, it’s going to have to get worse before it can get better.

Drugs Example. CBS News did a story on Lipator Wednesday night. It said 18 million people are taking Lipator and it is a $21 billion medicine. The very much down side of Lipator is shown by a double blind test which showed placebo provided subjects had 3 heart attacks per 100, whereas Lipator provided subjects had 2. A net reduction of 1 heart attack per hundred subjects.

The point of the story was that only 10%-20% of the people now on Lipator actually should be taking the drug. If we could snap our fingers and lower the number of Lipator users to 3 million, we could “save” $15 billion in that one medicine. How can Congress realistically address the heavily advertised medicine makers that malpractice suit shy medical doctors are willing to prescribe even when not medically indicated to patients who EXPECT a prescription after each visit?? Lipator, like the 527s, will claim the First Amendment right to bamboozle the public! 'Original Intent' Justices where are you when we need you? Thanks to the post Warren Supreme Court, we can only wring our hands and go furtively shivering with fear and trepidation.

The easy confluence of the AMA, AHA, PMA and Insurance industry make the Health Care Industry our "Perfect Storm!"

Admit it or not, our FFs have certainly given us a government that can barely move. Structurally hamstrung. Ineffective. Moribund. Blocked by money. In any tortoise and hare analogy you will have to admit we have a tortoise type government.

[edit on 1/18/2008 by donwhite]



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join