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

CNN has already proven that it is biased toward Senator Clinton. I can't help wondering if the management encouraged Anderson Cooper to throw a little gasoline on the fire. Perhaps a phone call from the Clinton camp witha few...suggestions...might have helped them along.

We can actually put that conspiracy theory to a simple test. CNN will host the Democrats tonight, and then...we'll see just how real that Hillary bias actually is.

Okay...we now know that the CNN bias is real. As real as it gets.

From start to finish CNN moderator Wolf Blitzer was tossing Hillary softballs. I can live with the fact that she and Barack were oh-so-cordial, but yikes! I know that Wolf is a cunning linguist, but he went down so many times I thought Hillary would blush.

My sense of the thing is that bot candidates actually had some of the quesitons beforehand. I'm pretty sure that's not the case. I think both were just very well prepared. Many of us on ATS have predicted a high degree of media collusion in this election. If you were skeptical before, you should not be so any more.

[edit on 31-1-2008 by Justin Oldham]

I think either John Mccain or Hillary Clinton will become president.

Originally posted by TheoOne
I think either John Mccain or Hillary Clinton will become president.

Hello TheOne. Haven't seen you in a while. Hope all is well.

It's looking more and more like Clinton-Obama will face off against McCain-Romney. We'll know for sure in just a few days.

Note I haven't seen the debate but hear are some thoughts.

Well the dems do have benefit of there supporters being united by there anti Bush and anti Republican sentiment that must be running higher then usual . So it only makes sense that the two leading candidates would be all smiles in public . I'm not sure how to describe it but if Hillary and Obama are on the ticket it wouldn't come across right if they went from being down each other throat to being best buddy's.

Note I am not saying that Hillary and Obama should pander to each other as a part of the show but just to keep up the notion of the happy front as a creditable notion. The Republican candidates have no concept of such a notion.

reply to post by Justin Oldham

. . we now know that the CNN bias is real. From start to finish CNN moderator Wolf Blitzer was tossing Hillary softballs. I can live with the fact that she and Barack were oh-so-cordial, My sense of the thing is that both candidates actually had some of the questions beforehand. I'm pretty sure that's not the case. I think both were just very well prepared. Many of us on ATS have predicted a high degree of media collusion in this election. If you were skeptical before, you should not be so any more.

You know J/O, I’ve said this whole thing - the Dems campaign - was scripted. The prize is too valuable to leave to chance. It seemed to me that many questions in past debates were asked in an attempt to raise personal animosities between the contenders. That has failed. I think it is nothing short of a miracle the Dems have been able to “entertain” the public for more than a year now and the two survivors still act civil towards each other. Feb 5 will show who the people want in the top slot. Any Dem could live with any Dem candidate but for a variety of reasons I have said this is Hillary’s year. Barack can be just as viable in 2016. If Feb 5 is for Barack - I do not believe it will be - then I predict Hillary will NOT take the #2 job. She’s been there, done that. She would be happier in the Senate from NY.

yikes! I know that Wolf is a cunning linguist, but he went down so many times I thought Hillary would blush.

Wow! What a play on words! I’m shocked that you would be thinking that in this critical moment, Mr. J/O.

[edit on 2/1/2008 by donwhite]

I watched the debate again. It was re-aired on CNN this morning. I have no doubt that Barack has given it his all. I really do think he wants the top job. Now that I've seen it again, I would like to point out something else.

I watched Barack closely with the sound off for parts of the debate that I remembered clearly. I think he gets it. I think he knows how this plays out, and I think he's ready to accept the Vice Presidency.

reply to post by Justin Oldham


Are you pronouncing this thread CLOSED?

What of the Clinton's unsavory past? Surely Whitewater, Vince Foster et al, bought pardons and even stealing the White House silverware will soon be resurrected by the Republican nominee, if not by Obama even sooner. Will no one listen to how Hillary and her illustrious husband have no class and no moral character? Who do the Democrats think they're electing to a "third" term Bill, Hillary, or Bill and Hillary a.k.a. Billary?







[edit on 2/1/2008 by TheAvenger]

reply to post by TheAvenger

What of the Clinton's unsavory past? Surely Whitewater, Vince Foster et al, bought pardons and even stealing the White House silverware will soon be resurrected by the Republican nominee, if not by Obama even sooner. Will no one listen to how Hillary and her illustrious husband have no class and no moral character? Who do the Democrats think they're electing to a "third" term Bill, Hillary, or Bill and Hillary a.k.a. Billary?

Unsavory? Name me one person who has been more throughly vetted in the last 30 years! If these old and totally discredited allegations are the only gutter-filler the GOP can muster, then it’s ‘Hello Hillary’ on January 20, 2009.

Richard Mellon Scaife is the best-known living member of Pittsburgh's storied Mellon clan, whose eponymous bank made the family a 19th-century fortune Scaife, who owns several newspapers, is a major backer of conservative causes; his political donations fueled the rise of the New Right and its moral crusade against Bill Clinton, making Scaife the central figure in Hillary Clinton's "vast right-wing conspiracy." In the 1990s, his gift of $1.8 million to The American Spectator funded investigations into Whitewater and Bill Clinton's personal life, including David Brock's notorious "Troopergate" exposé, which led to Paula Jones' sexual-harassment suit against the president.

Scaife was no run-of-the-mill Clinton hater. In the 1990s, the heir to the Mellon banking fortune contributed millions to efforts to dig up dirt on President Clinton. He backed the Clinton-bashing American Spectator magazine, whose muckrakers produced lurid stories about Clinton's alleged financial improprieties and trysts. Scaife also financed a probe called the Arkansas Project that tried, among other things, to show that Clinton, while Arkansas governor, protected drug runners.

The estranged wife of billionaire and newspaper owner Richard Mellon Scaife, the Pittsburgh banking heir turned media mogul, was awarded $725,000 a month in temporary support during their acrimonious divorce, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported Sunday.
www.huffingtonpost.com...

In many respects, the Clnton's baggage is nothing new. They have already been through the court of public opinion, and judged. What else can be said or done? Bill and Hillary are smart enough to know that if they stay focused, eventually they will outlast our social memory. That's what they are doing now.

With the media colluding with them, they can't lose at this point unless enough people turn out to vote differently. Bear in mind that Ron Paul exists as a candidate because other people have voted for him in large numbers. It's not like you don't have a choice. That's one of the greatest things about primaries that I can think of.

That's why your vote matters.

Originally posted by donwhite


Unsavory? Name me one person who has been more throughly vetted in the last 30 years! If these old and totally discredited allegations are the only gutter-filler the GOP can muster, then it’s ‘Hello Hillary’ on January 20, 2009.
Arkansas Project that tried, among other things, to show that Clinton, while Arkansas governor, protected drug runners.

What of the missing pages of the Barrett report? You can bet that the GOP will ensure the widest possible distribution. An editorial about it appeared in the Washington Times a week or so ago:

Washington Times

It sounds to me like Hillary is going to get "swiftboated." I strongly approve.







[edit on 2/2/2008 by TheAvenger]

reply to post by TheAvenger

What of the missing pages of the Barrett report? You can bet that the GOP will ensure the widest possible distribution. An editorial about it appeared in the Washington Times a week or so ago: Washington Times It sounds to me like Hillary is going to get "swiftboated." I strongly approve.

The Washington Times has no readership or good reputation to persons who can read words of more than 3 syllables. The Times founder, Korea’s Dr. Sun Myung Moon has claimed he is humanity's "Savior, Messiah, Returning Lord, and True Parent." He is well-known for holding Blessing ceremonies, which are often called "mass weddings;" and for founding The Washington Times newspaper in 1982. Need I say more? Oh, while he lived in the US, he bought more than 100 Rolls Royce cars. A fascination or a fixation?

Republicans began trashing their opponents with Dwight Eisenhower in his 1952 run against Adlai Stevenson. He got Protestant churches in the Old South to lambast Stevenson for being a DIVORCED man, and him of Kay Summersby fame. Every Republican campaign except Gerald Ford’s, used ugly, false and malicious claims and tactics against their opponents. That’s de rigeur for the GOP! And to spew forth pure RACIST trash if Obama is on the Dems ticket. You do know your GOP Mr A.

[edit on 2/3/2008 by donwhite]

reply to post by donwhite


So I suppose the Democrats are pure as the driving snow, Bill did not have sex with that lady,(and the others) Hillary did no wrong in the Whitewater scandal or anything else. The evil Republicans are the bad guys, always wrongfully downing the Democrats for imagined sins.

Sir or Madam, you are living in a dream world. The Clintons are bad news for America. Obama is bad news for America. I don't really like McCain or Romney either. Ron Paul and Huckabee have a zero chance. We really have no choice, for my money. I have picked Romney as the lesser of all evils, and certainly disagree with many of his positions on various important issues. A worse field of Presidential candidates I have never seen.

reply to post by TheAvenger

So I suppose the Democrats are pure as the driving snow, Bill did not have sex with that lady,(and the others) Hillary did no wrong in the Whitewater scandal or anything else. The evil Republicans are the bad guys, always wrongfully downing the Democrats for imagined sins.

Whitewater ended in 1990. 18 years ago. So who cared then and of what relevance is the Monica Lewinski affair? Get a life. I’ve already mentioned Ike, and now the 1968 anti-black school busing opposition by Richard Nixon. Playing the race card. What Dem has ever done that kind of dirty trick? Or Ronnie Reagan’s oft repeated racist story of the Welfare Cadillac. What stories did Carter of Mondale tell? Or George Bush Sr’s story of Willie Horton. What did Gov. Dukakis do about that? And Bush43's endless moves to disenfranchise blacks and so on. Which party used the Playboy ad in 2006 against the black Harold Ford to win a senate seat in TN? How many times did Jesse Helms of NC use the anti-black affirmative action ad to beat Mayor Gant for the senate? The worst thing the GOPs have done to America is to destroy the US Supreme Court, for which they were richly rewarded in 2000.

Racism is the Republicans stock in trade.

Oh yeah, 'Democrats are pure as the driving snow.' The Dems fought 10 years to raise the minimum wage. They have added an extension of unemployment insurance to the newest economic FIX. The nasty Dems have added a BONUS in food stamps to the FIX. Yes, those nasty Dems.

[edit on 2/3/2008 by donwhite]

No sense beating my head against the wall arguing with a Democrat. BTW, more unemployment and welfare has to be paid by those of us who WILL work for a living. I have no problem with short term assistance, but those on it for generation after generation are hurting this country, not helping it. The missing pages of the Barrett report that Democratic congressmen have illegally buried will come out in time to disqualify those who deserve it.

Please vote for whomever you choose. I will.



[edit on 2/3/2008 by TheAvenger]

reply to post by TheAvenger

No sense beating my head against the wall arguing with a Democrat. BTW, more unemployment and welfare has to be paid by those of us who WILL work for a living.

Unemployment insurance is a New Deal program that is funded by the employer. There is a 3.2% tax on wages up to a fixed amount, say $45,000 a year. Like all taxes it is a deduction off the gross income. Each employer has hi9s own account. As he accumulates reserves, his tax goes down in steps to the floor, 0.5%. If he has too many claims, his tax can rise to 10%.

To be eligible to receive benefits a person must have worked in covered employment for 4 out of the last 5 quarters. The maximum benefit payable is 67% of the state’s average weekly wage. The actual amount depends on the employees own wages over the past 15 months. Benefits are payable for 26 weeks, and the employee must be “actively” seeking employment. When hard times come the US often adds 13 weeks to the benefit period. In rare cases they have added 2 thirteen week extensions.

Ordinary citizens DO NOT PAY unemployment benefits out of their taxes.

Welfare is not easy to get in America, despite so many people here claiming this is a Christian nation. As a mater of fact, in America it seems it is the atheists are far more charitable. How’s that?

There are people who for many varied reasons cannot “keep up.” It’s the duty of those of us who are more fortunate to lend a hand to those who are not. Or don’t they teach that in Church School anymore?

The missing pages of the Barrett report that Democratic congressmen have illegally buried will come out in time to disqualify those who deserve it.

Honestly, I am unfamiliar with “The Barrett Report.” It sounds like something Rush Limbaugh or Fox News would “invent” and I’m sure in any case that it is worthless. And I usually don’t waste time on such tripe.

[edit on 2/3/2008 by donwhite]

reply to post by donwhite


Some actually believe that social security is paid out from the funds paid in too. Helping the less fortunate is fine, but needs a time limit. "Workfare" I might be willing to stomach. The Barrett report took 10 years and 23 million dollars to complete. 120 pages were censored by a panel of judges, but any U.S. congressman can read the censored pages upon request. Rumor is that the Clintons are major players in the wrongdoing found in this report. We will just have to see what, if anything becomes of it.

Freerepublic

I'm confident that a Google search will find much more information on the matter. Have a great evening.


[edit on 2/3/2008 by TheAvenger]

reply to post by TheAvenger


I followed your link. I have heard of the Barrett Report. I'll have more to say about it tomorrow.

Social Security is a special case. Because it is so large an amount, not because it is a trust fund, one of a half dozen. Nearly $2 T. held in trust. Problem is, there is no place the Government can “hold” $2 T. IF that money is taken out of circulation, it tends to deflate the economy. Since 1932 it has been agreed the economic ideal is to INFLATE the economy. A rising tide floats all ships. About 1-2% a year is as near perfect as humans can expect to get. It will work forever so long as productivity increases at the same or slightly more than the inflation rate.

The baby boomers are going to begin to retire in 2010. Until 2040, they will fill the retirement rolls. We will have to borrow several T. to tide us over until 2040 when the demographers say the SS money can again go into the black, that is, more is taken in than is paid out. I’m stopping here, as I have other work to do.

Have a nice evening and I hope your Superbowl team is a WINNER!

[edit on 2/3/2008 by donwhite]

I found this article that gives reasons why both Obama and Clinton wont be on the same ticket .

Obama would not want to carry Clinton baggage. He has offered a vision of change, and having to answer to the years of strife under the Clintons would be too much. It would make sense to have a fresh face serving as his vice president who doesn't engender anger among some in the Democratic Party, and definitely the GOP. An Obama run would be about going after Republicans and independents, and Clinton being on the ticket would make that very difficult.

source

This article ties in with my post where I said they we may be making to many assumptions. Beyond the idea that Obama being Hillary VP wouldnt be beneficial to him I haven't come up with the notions put forward in the article . Also what I quoted above makes the point better then I could have.

Otherwise I cant claim having thought of anything else the article states .
The comment that Bush senior was a party man and become Reagan VP for this reason is interesting.

Can anyone refute the author logic ?

I pretty much agree with the author but mind you I thought that Rudy would win his party nomination to.

It is also worth noting that as far as I know Richards as yet to formally drop out of the race. I have started a thread on this matter.

[edit on 4-2-2008 by xpert11]

[edit on 4-2-2008 by xpert11]