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: 14
12
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 02:42 PM
link   
For the reasons you just mentioned, I dislike the notion of a single payer health care system. Why? the organized lobbies you just mentioned would push for increasingly larger pay-outs, and we'd lose what little control we have over expense and individual choice.

I know from first-hand just how easy it is for a government agency to hide its expenses. when I worked for the Bureau of Land Management, the true costs of most things were "unknown."

I'll use myself as a revelevant example in regards to health care. As I type, I have four medicine bottles on the desk next to me. Any one of these can impact my quality of life, so they are "necessary" to me. When I go to my local pharmacy to fill 'er up, I ask for the cheaper version. If I don't they give me the "brand leader" which is always over-priced.

At the moment, there are still small pharma companies trying to make a buck. If the big guys are ripping people off on drugs that they can make cheaper...they will. They'll make them cheaper, and I will buy them. It's my job as a good consumer to know this, and do this.

If Uncle Same becomes the one and only insurance provider for health care, you say buh-buy to those little pharmas.




posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by donwhite
 


I believe Hillary has been taped by the NWO to be the next President of The United States Of America, Bill Clinton will then head up the United Nations watch and see as it unfolds. So once Billary takes control you think you have lost many of your freedoms now just wait and see what happens.

We do not know what is said behind closed doors and what deals are struck that adversely affect our citizens of this country. Out front the politicians will say what can we do for you but we know they mean WIIFM meaning themselves.

Are any of these politicians accountable on the promises they make to try to be elected? I will answer that and the answer is absolutely not. They can all say what they want to, truth or not and get away with it with no real reprecussions. So if we go back and do the check list on these elected representatives on what they promised and what they actually did for the people would any recieve a passing grade I think not. Rik Riley



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Justin Oldham
 


I dislike the notion of a single payer health care system. Why? the organized lobbies you just mentioned would push for increasingly larger pay-outs, and we'd lose what little control we have over expense and individual choice.


Two issues. Single payer and patient choice.

Single payer. I cannot make a connection to who pays the bills and how that would necessarily lend itself to providers charging more. OTOH, I do foresee an overall system savings by going to single payer. In fact, there is little need to involve humans in a pay system. IF we had standardized policy forms - or even if we don’t - the doctor or pharmacist could file his claim for payment as he filled the prescription or made his patient notes. With EFT the doctor or pharmacist should have his money in his account before you can leave the premises.

As you probably know every medical procedure has been assigned a number a long time ago. Medicare - the health care engine - knows what it will pay for that procedure. My Medicare Supplement company cares not a whit what I have done as their obligation is to pay 20% of whatever Medicare pays. That should be done automatically and I do not need to get TWO mailings of EOB - explanation of benefits - first from Medicare then from my Supplement company. Waste! Waste of time, waste of paper and waste of postage.

Patient choice? Entirely illusionary. Patients cannot carry on an intelligent conversation with their doctor. We cannot seek lower physician rates. We have NO choice. We get done to us or for us what they decided we need. Or want. Or can afford. Depending. Choice is only an asset when it is an informed choice. Or when there are genuine options. Like prostate cancer.
I don’t have it but if I acquired it today, I am old enough that I would most likely die of old age before I’d die of prostate cancer. I’m not sure what I’d do today, but if I was 30 or 40, I know what I’d do.

Aside: I have my Medicare Supplement through Transamerica Ins Co. They offer me a $14 a month reduction in premium if I allow them to bill my bank electronically. Sure I took them up on that. That is the only company I know of that gives you a break although ALL companies ask that you permit electronic billing. Hmm?

Across the US there must be 3,000 insurance companies selling policies in the health care field. Since a long time ago - 1950s for sure - insurance companies have added or deleted coverages, altered deductibles, and offered higher or low co-pays in an effort to make their policies competitive. I worked for TIC - Travelers - now part of CitiGroup - and I almost NEVER encountered an Agent who knew much about the policy other than the premiums. Frequently it fell to me, the claims adjuster, to explain just what the insured had bought. Often they would claim the agent had represented a “better” plan than they had bought. We could fix this problem very easily.


At the moment, there are still small pharma companies trying to make a buck. If the big guys are ripping people off on drugs that they can make cheaper...they will. They'll make them cheaper, and I will buy them. It's my job as a good consumer to know this, and do this. If Uncle Same becomes the one and only insurance provider for health care, you say buy-buy to those little pharmas.


J/O, it is still a disconnect for me to go from single payer to goodby small pharma companies. Let me give you a REAL reason the small companies are in jeopardy. Celebrex and Lipitor are two top earners for Pfizer. In 2004, the 17 year patent for Celebrex expired. Then all those smaller pharma companies could have jumped in and produced the medicine and supposedly, brought the price down. (I do not believe in the MARKET as there is NO free market).

Pfizer, being smarter than the average bear, had their chemists work hard to ADD a molecule to the Celebrex formulation and even though the added molecule had no effect on its effectiveness, the US Patent Office granted Pfizer a NEW 17 year patent. THAT is what kills the small pharma companies, NOT a single payer.

Q. Is Pfizer still entitled to call itself AN ETHICAL company?


More Later.

[edit on 1/18/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Justin Oldham
 


Hillary wins in Nevada. Uphill! 51% to 46% according to early returns. Edwards may be OUT. That puts the burden squarely on Obama. SC will define the leader or leaders. I've already voted for Hillary in FL. I'll be out of town and don't trust the electronic touch screen machines used in early voting. No paper trail. You would not buy your groceries without a receipt! Who's in charge here anyway?

Romney won in NV as expected. He knocked Huckabee OUT! Paul got more votes than he deserves. Strictly the disgruntled crowd. Romney pointedly says he got MORE Evangelical votes than Huckabee. And I suppose ALL the Mormon votes.

Rudy will meet Mitt and John here in FL. Fred does not have the money to do more here than he does in Sc. Jan. 29. We'll see how it shakes out.




[edit on 1/19/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 06:55 PM
link   
It's being reported that Fred Thompson has dropped out ofthe Presidential race. This news comes right after we saw Hillary and Obama go at each other during he South Carolina debate. What do the rest of you think? Does the departure of Thompson mean anything good for the Republican front runners? Did Hillary win the South Carolina debate?



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 07:55 PM
link   
It is always a long walk back to the dressing room when your out for a duck. That about sums up Fred impact on the race as I said on another thread I thought that Fred would throw in his lot on Super Tuesday but that clearly isnt the case.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 08:23 PM
link   
What amuses me is that if Hillary wins the Democratic nomination, the race card will be played and pressure put on her to name Obama as her running mate. If she doesn't, look for riots in the streets. If Obama wins the nomination and doesn't name Hillary as his V.P. running mate, then he discriminates against a white women. Edwards is the wild card here. It's their own daffy political correctness gone wild. Pure entertainment for a Republican like me.



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 05:12 AM
link   
they are all N.W.O
its a loose loose situation for sure.
kinda like bush againts Kerry or gore.



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 12:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheAvenger
What amuses me is that if Hillary wins the Democratic nomination, the race card will be played and pressure put on her to name Obama as her running mate. If she doesn't, look for riots in the streets. If Obama wins the nomination and doesn't name Hillary as his V.P. running mate, then he discriminates against a white women. Edwards is the wild card here. It's their own daffy political correctness gone wild. Pure entertainment for a Republican like me.


If you go back to read some of the earliest posts in this thread, you'll find that I determined that Obama does not have the political "machine" that Senator Clinton has been buidling for the last four years.

Obama's performance in Nevada proved that he doesn't have enough "boots on the ground" to get the job done. If he really is the old school street-level organizer that his proxies paint him to be, he'd know that he needed more than just the blessing of the media to win in a general election.

Bear in mind that a lot of people assume that blacks will vote for him en masse. Even if that's true, Bill Clinton's distraction tactics are working well enough to make sure that people get mad enough to vote their race, instead of their conscience. Be aware that as he baits the black caucus, Slick Willie is playing up to the Hispanic community's prejudices.

I couldn't help but notice that Obama went to that SC debate spoiling for a fight. In third year debate, most of us learn how to argue semantics. It's a great way to really yank somebody's chain to the point of making them mad. Then, you pop them with a little word play and...wait for it...

*Pow*

Say something factual, but do it in a snippy way that makes the other guy insist on beating you down. Once you've made them look bad, the rest is all cake.

There is nothing you can say to Hillary Clinton that she hasn't heard before. No amount of pain or humiliation will rile that woman when she knows what's at stake for her. Such is the tough hide you get from being the wife of Bill Clinton.

Obama, on the other hand, is full of all kinds of fizz and vinegar. He's got just enough intellect to know he's right, and just enough ego to insist that you know it. I was snarky like that in my youth. Being right mattered more than anything else to me.

Now that she knows how fragile his ego is, she'll wait. Best not to use a weapon like that until its really really necessary.

"Old age and treachery will always win out over youth and skill."



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 10:04 PM
link   
Tonight, we got to see the Republicans debate in Florida. For the first time in this primary season, I think they finally get it. I think they ALL understand just how much trouble their party is in. I couldn't help but notice a mild undertone of contrition among the front-runners as they plead their case for another chance to legislate and lead.

I say they pleaded with the voters because the front-runners made a point of stating that they knew the GOP had screwed up. The insisted that the next Republican President really would lower Federal spending, and do a better job with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I was glad to see that almost all the candidates went out of their way to stay on good behavior. Mitt Romney stuck his foot in his mouth a few time,s and he'll pay for that when the folks on YouTube get done with him.

In one glaring instance of sheathed anger, he declared "I'm not concerned about the voters" when it came to the way he spent his own personal money on his campaign. During later segments of the debate, he said "I'm not concerned about" several things, and "I don't care" about a few others. It won't take somebody long to edit that video and trot it out as a negative ad to smear Romney with his own words.

I really did get the impression that he was mad about the fact that he was being asked to explain how he used his money in his campaign.

MSNBC pundits after the fact made note of the way in which the GOP contenders stayed on good behavior, thus making a decent first impression. I noticed that, too. I liked it, too. It told me that these guys have finally realized what kind of uphill fight they face.

At one point during the middle of the debate, each candidate was asked if the Iraq war was justified, and if it was worth all the blood and treasure we'd spent on it so far. ron Paul was the only one who said flatly that the Iraq war had been a bad idea, and it hadn't been worth the blood and treasure we've spent. Everyone else weaseled their way through a varient of "the war was and still is good."

I like a good soft-shoe dance just as much as the next person, but it was clear to me that none of the front-runners wanted to spend too much time on that question. Senator McCain embraced the war to an extent that he hasn't in the past, going so far as to say that it was morally and ethically "right." In this current atmosphere, THAT was a bold and maverick thing to do. Good.

I liked what I was saw in Florida tonight. I want to see more of it in the future. I'm still wondering why we haven't see that kind of talk from these guys before. I suppose it took a dose of fear to finally galvanize them to action.

There is just one thing I didn't really like about tonight's event. With the exception of Ron Paul, everyone else sucked up to the President's economic stimulus package in one way or another. Even those (Like Rudy Giuliani) who said it didn't go far enough still lauded it as being a really great thing.



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Justin Oldham


Obama, on the other hand, is full of all kinds of fizz and vinegar. He's got just enough intellect to know he's right, and just enough ego to insist that you know it. I was snarky like that in my youth. Being right mattered more than anything else to me.

Now that she knows how fragile his ego is, she'll wait. Best not to use a weapon like that until its really really necessary.

"Old age and treachery will always win out over youth and skill."



Thanks. I really value your thoughts on this one. Any guess about the Clinton running mate pick? I see that the New York Times wants the Republicans to nominate McCain, so I infer that's their guess on the easiest GOP candidate for Clinton to beat. Perhaps I was wise to keep my old "Impeach Clinton" button........

[edit on 1/25/2008 by TheAvenger]



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 04:06 PM
link   
Hello Avenger:

I am still predicting a Clinton-Bama ticket. There's only one way for that to change. If the two of them get so mad at each other that they can't be on speaking terms, we might see a Clinton-Edwards ticket.

There is one wild card here. The same type of 527's that "swift-boated" John Herry are now going to work for Clinton Obama, and Edwards. Same thing on the Republican side. Those special interests could unintentionally harm the relationships between the candidates in either party.

The last thing I want to see is Hllary Clinton in the White House (again). I'm just calling it like I see it. Anyone can be a partisan pundit. I think I serve a better purpose here by pointing things out that happen in both parties. You can make up your own mind.



posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 08:20 PM
link   
It’s being reported, as I type, that Senator Barack Obama (Democrat from Illinois) won by a landslide in South Carolina. He got an estimated 54% of the vote. Senator Clinton (Democrat from New York) got 27%,. John Edwards received 19% of the vote.

Obama’s win is impressive. Nobody can take that away from him. On the surface, it looks like Bill Clinton over-played his hand. Did he really alienate the black voters of South Carolina? Did he really hurt his wife’s chances to win the Presidency?

The answer is “yes,” and “no.”

Yes, Mr. Clinton did a lot of chain-pulling in South Carolina. He did so much of it that you have ask yourself just one question. Why? Wny would any former President in his right mind go out of his way to be so polarizing? The answer is right in front of you, just in case you needed a clue. In political circles, they call it “sucking all the air out of the room.”

Here’s what it really means:

The Clintons works as a team. Bill has been out front doing the Proxy-Warrior thing to keep the media off his wife, and off her political baggage. They already KNOW they’re gonna lose South Carolina. Even so, they need to keep Obama and his people from capitalizing on their Iowa victory. How do they do that? Bill Clinton gets in Barack’s face…and he stays there.

How does Mr. Clinton get away with this?

As I write this, we are just 9 days from the feeding frenzy that will be Super Tuesday on February 5th. You can already see certain members of the media start to drool. Starting tomorrow morning, the Clintons will straighten up and play nice while the media becomes distracted by the Florida primaries.

Hillary is expected to win the Florida contest for the Democrats. Never mind that little spat between the State party and the National chair. The MSM’s short attention span, combined with YOUR short attention span…will negate most of the bad blood generated by Bill Clinton’s antics. Don’t believe me? Come back and read this blog entry in two weeks.

What was the point?

So, now you’re asking yourself why Slick Willy went out of his way to make Southern black voters so very mad? Those of you who remember Bill Clinton’s run for the White House in 1992 will already know the answer. The rest of you won’t like what I have to say.

Bill angered Southern blacks to stir the pot. He knes that what he said will ‘force’ black voters to side with Obama. As black voters do this, they’ll trigger a back-lash among whites and Hispanics who will…vote for…Hillary. The math is actually quite . If the Clintos can get just 3% MORE Hispanics to turn out, they win.

What abut the White vote? That’s a good question. Remember that this is the Clinton SOUTHERN strategy. They’ll change message when they campaign in the West. Southern Whites will vote for Hillary no matter what Bill says about Obama. Old prejudices die hard, and this is one that the Clintons are banking on.

When you get right down to it, the Clintons need to bang on Obama to get just enough extra Hispanic votes to win. There is one additional wrinkle that you need to be aware of. The Clinton strategy is formed without taking in to account the Republicans or the Indies who might vote for them. Why would they do that? No point in counting your chickens before they hatch.

Obama’s decision to go all-out for the Presidency means that the Clintons are forced to play hard. Barack can win if his high-road gamble pays off. If he can keep smiling just long enough to make the Clintons look bad, he could overcome his youth and lack of experience by showcasing a better “character” than we see in the Clintons.

You’re going to hear a lot of ridicule from the media in the next 24 hours. They’ll throw a lot of flack at Bill Clinton for his bad behavior. Then, they’ll have to eat their words after Florida. As he moves in to the Western States, the former President will change his tune to be all nicey-nicey when ti comes to Obama. He will focus on Hillary’s positives, pretending like Obama is irrelevant.

Old school wisdom says you Punch in the Primaries, then Game in General. The Clintons are punching. Barack is taking his lumps, or deflecting the attacks when he can. He is NOT returning fire with any degree of effectiveness. There’s a double-edged sword at work here. The short resume and youthful exuberance that helps him now will come back to hurt him later…at the nominating convention…where he will be forced to ask himself one last hard question.

“I don’t have the delegates to be President. Can I live with being Vice President?”

Please remember, one primary does not make a President. It’s all about that delegate count which he will NOT be winning after Super Tuesday. The Clintons will take thier lumps in the South and win in the West, much like they did in ’92.

Remember that politicians are always thinking several moves ahead. The Clinton plan may be to force Obama to reach even higher when he paints a feel-good vision for our future. As the Clintons go back to issue-based rhetoric and charges, they'll speak directly to voters and not so much to Barack. We got a small peak at this Western strategy when Mrs. Clinton stumped in Nevada.

[edit on 26-1-2008 by Justin Oldham]



posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Justin Oldham
 




pretty good forecast of what may happen........

on the other hand, the party delegates pledging for a candidate are only obliged to their -first- vote.... any further votes are up in the air.

Hillary can win many delegate vote for the first ballot... but after that required commitment & locked vote... the delegates are released !
and are allowed to vote the 'person' of the moment.


The Electorial College (who actually elects the president= & not the popular vote) works in the same manner


I'm still awaiting an 'outsider' to take the Presidency...& leave Hillary
(the final end to a bush-clinton dynasty) & Obama (the 1st phase of P.C.
liberal thought) with either ending with 20% of the popular vote & the electorial college vote....
this appoaching Venus+Jupiter conjunction with the Moon jan-feb '08 is a sure sign of 'change', a change in the political lansdscape which might name the New or Drafted candidate for the '08 election----should make headlines between now and february


[edit on 27-1-2008 by St Udio]



posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by St Udio
I'm still awaiting an 'outsider' to take the Presidency...& leave Hillary
(the final end to a bush-clinton dynasty) & Obama (the 1st phase of P.C.
liberal thought) to both end with 20% of the popular vote & the electorial college vote.... this appoaching Venus+Jupiter conjunction with the Moon is a sure sign of 'change', the New or Drafted candidate----should make headlines between now and February


Your astrological outsider better have a huge bank roll and a 50 state netwrok in his/her back pocket when they pop out of the shadows.

It's worth noting that we are seeing some degree of change right now. the mere fact that there are no riots while a black mand and a woman are seeking the Presidency is--by itself--a signal of change.



posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 09:36 PM
link   
O.K. folks....Here is my prediction for the future presidency of the United States of America! DRUMROLL PLEASE!! Hillary is "elected" barely squeaking by whatever dupe is picked to run on the Republican ticket- with Ron Paul on an independant ticket being used as the "spoiler" (remember Ralph Nader and Ross Perot anyone?) dividing the Republican vote making the election of her despised murdering lying scumbag a#$ seem plausable. W "retires" to enjoy his old age in a drunken drug induced stupor after doing his final part in the "Grand Illusion" by keeping the U.S. economy barely afloat by carpet bombing the nation with $100 bills, the economy will finally crash in flaming ruins during Billarys first year in office. The yowls from the media shills and Neocon players will be heard far and wide as they tell the nation what fools they were to trust the nation to a "Liberal". As the Great Depression of '09 grips the world Congress continues to do its "job" by talking about talking. Civil unrest sweeps the nation causing a "tearful" Hillary to take a tough stance and implement draconion measures and deploy American troops on American soil to "restore order". Then- as Lady Liberty reels from being punched and kicked from every direction by the architects of the New World Order, the next fabricated "terrorist" attack will occur in late 2011 perhaps in lets say oh .. maybe...mid september... I will take a wild guess here and say September 11, 2011. Even as the radiation still makes the melted slot machines glow amidst the smoldering ruins of Las Vegas ,the drumbeat of the Neocons grows louder and louder as they tell the hopeless nation how this was all their fault for being so stupid as to trust our security to weakling liberals. But then - like a gift from heaven, a new hope to "rescue" our bleeding Republic emerges from the clouds of Florida...and the NWO Neocon Goldenboy Jeb Bush descends upon a ray of sunshine to usher in a new era of stability as the first American Dictator! You heard it here first folks!!!!



posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by St Udio
I'm still awaiting an 'outsider' to take the Presidency...& leave Hillary
(the final end to a bush-clinton dynasty) & Obama (the 1st phase of P.C.
liberal thought) to both end with 20% of the popular vote & the electorial college vote.... this appoaching Venus+Jupiter conjunction with the Moon is a sure sign of 'change', the New or Drafted candidate----should make headlines
between now and February


Even thou I am no fan of Paul I would like to see a Paul - Kucinich independent ticket after four or eight years of hard yakka has created the machinery necessary for a respectable run at the oval office.

Here is the score Paul is the closest the establishment is ever going to come to a good shake up because even after you take away corporate interests what is left still isnt a true democracy. The constitution is spouse to prevent one party from holding all the branches of government but it does nothing to ensure equal representation.

If Americans want a true democracy and a more representative political system they should speak now or for ever hold there peace.



posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by ItsHumanNature
O.K. folks....Here is my prediction for the future presidency of the United States of America! DRUMROLL PLEASE!! Hillary is "elected" barely squeaking by whatever dupe is picked to run on the Republican ticket- with Ron Paul on an independant ticket being used as the "spoiler" (remember Ralph Nader and Ross Perot anyone?) dividing the Republican vote making the election of her despised murdering lying scumbag a#$ seem plausable.


I'll buy the notion that Hillary wins. The Republicans have too many strikes agaisnt hem at this point to do anything but lose. Nobody has forgiven the Bush team for their "oops" on the WMD thing, and the mis-management of the Iraq has only made them look worse. The failure of he economy has only put more nails in the GOP coffin.

There is no chance at all that Ron Paul will run on an independent ticket at this time. Remember that a lot of paperwork has to be filed in order for anyone to run for President. If he doesn't file by the end of March, he won't be running as an indy. Nobody has made a move to recruit him, either. That includes the Libertarians and the Greens.

Hillary's win is plausible because she and Slick Willy can play blacks and hispanics off against each other, which will increase the extent to which she wins. Recently, Al Sharpton said that Barack couldn't win because he wasn't black enough. In the last few days, Bill Clinton has made Barack black enough to play on hispanic prejudice.


Originally posted by ItsHumanNature
W "retires" to enjoy his old age in a drunken drug induced stupor after doing his final part in the "Grand Illusion" by keeping the U.S. economy barely afloat by carpet bombing the nation with $100 bills, the economy will finally crash in flaming ruins during Billarys first year in office. The yowls from the media shills and Neocon players will be heard far and wide as they tell the nation what fools they were to trust the nation to a "Liberal."


I think you're right about this one. If they are fortunate, the Republicans can keep the economy afloat just long enough to leave office. Talking heds like rush Limbaugh will blame the Dems for failing to carry through on the reform initiatives started by W, who himself will retire and be happy to just be alone.


Originally posted by ItsHumanNature
As the Great Depression of '09 grips the world Congress continues to do its "job" by talking about talking. Civil unrest sweeps the nation causing a "tearful" Hillary to take a tough stance and implement draconion measures and deploy American troops on American soil to "restore order."




Originally posted by ItsHumanNature
Then- as Lady Liberty reels from being punched and kicked from every direction by the architects of the New World Order, the next fabricated "terrorist" attack will occur in late 2011 perhaps in lets say oh .. maybe...mid september... I will take a wild guess here and say September 11, 2011. Even as the radiation still makes the melted slot machines glow amidst the smoldering ruins of Las Vegas ,the drumbeat of the Neocons grows louder and louder as they tell the hopeless nation how this was all their fault for being so stupid as to trust our security to weakling liberals.


I have no doubt that as the economy worsens, the Democrats will use the opprtunities they get to increase Federal power to "save us." Until the Republican party re-invents itself, talkers like Rush Limbaugh will have no choice but to play the outsider(s).


Originally posted by ItsHumanNature
But then - like a gift from heaven, a new hope to "rescue" our bleeding Republic emerges from the clouds of Florida...and the NWO Neocon Goldenboy Jeb Bush descends upon a ray of sunshine to usher in a new era of stability as the first American Dictator! You heard it here first folks!!!!


that's an interesting theory, but I don't think Jeb wants anything more to do with politics. Once we've suffered at the hands of Hillary, I'd like to think that nobody would tolerate another dynasty hunter in the White House.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 08:45 AM
link   
reply to post by TheAvenger
 


What amuses me is that if Hillary wins the Democratic nomination, the race card will be played and pressure put on her to name Obama as her running mate. If she doesn't, look for riots in the streets.


Awarding Obama the VP slot is not “playing the race card” IMO. Not to offer him the post would be playing the race card, IMO. I admit Obama has caught me by surprise. I first thought he was an articulate and accomplished young-ish black person who would keep his seat in the Senate as long as he wanted it, provided he “walked the line” and did not become too racially doctrinaire. Before his shockingly good run in the early primaries, I had thought Barack might join the ranks of blacks in Congress, like John Conyers, Jr., Alcee Hastings - I like him as he made the GOP so angry they impeached him! A badge of honor! Got to be a good man! John Lewis, Kendrick Meek, Eleanor Holmes Norton, non-voting Delegate from DC, Charles B. Rangel, Maxine Waters, Gregory Meeks and others.

Even if she (assuming she wins) does not make the offer, I do not see riots in the streets. Although racism still reigns in America, the bursting pressure valves that drove the 1960s riots have been relieved. The general conditions of blacks has not improved relative to whites, but now they can elect black mayors and get black police chiefs and the poor and black slaughter-house called Vietnam was finally ended, so the “heat is off” for now.



If Obama wins the nomination and doesn't name Hillary as his V.P. running mate, then he discriminates against a white women. Edwards is the wild card here. It's their own daffy political correctness gone wild. Pure entertainment for a Republican like me.


Post-South Carolina (Obama 55%) with Edwards (17%) trailing Hillary (27%) I’d say that he is OUT of the picture. He attracts mostly people like me who are very much populists with a left lean - strong central government - but there are so few of us that he cannot go far. His name is already on the Feb. 5 ballots so he will probably stay in the race technically until after Feb. 5. He’s a good man and I admire him but his appeal was too limited. Obama OTOH, “won” the VP nomination in SC. IMO.

Republicans will need all the entertainment they can get after November 4 as it will be none to next to none coming from W-DC as Dems work overtime to right the train wreck called Bush43. Say Hello! nostalgia-land.

[edit on 1/28/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 09:50 AM
link   
Those who know the Clinton playbook from 1992 will know what's happening just now. Bill Clinton has "sucked all the air out of the room," forcing Obama off his pedastal, and in to the mud. Obama's surrogates are busy answering charges instead of carrying water.

The Clintons are already changing tactics. Today, we get the State of the Onion address, and tomorrow, we get the Florida primary. Both will make you cry.

*Joke*The DNC forbid the Democratic candidates from campaigning in Flordia because Don White used his secret influence to get Florida's primary moved up. *Joke*

The State of Florida decided to stick to the DNC by providing Democrat ballots anyway. Hillary Clinton will score a "win" in Florida, which will allow Bill to begin stumping on a new and more optimistic message that won't bask Obama quite so much.

Why? Because they got what they wanted out of South Carolina. That one bad show on Bill's part was designed to skew voter opinion in the West, which is dominated by Whites and Hispanics. If you recall the Clinton play book, they will take their lumps in the south but win in the West, starting with California.

Remember also that Obama has now been saddled with unrealistic expectations. If his next win is not as spectacular as South Carolina, we should expect to hear the spinners say, "maybe the voters have reconsidered."

Obama needs another dose of Oprah before February 5th, and he could use it in States like Tennessee. My guess is that the Clintons don't like the fact that Obama got both Kennedy endorsements, but they'll deal with that problem later.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join