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

reply to post by donwhite


We want to be careful personally I don't want to this thread sent to the wildness because things got heated.

If I am not spouse to care about the events of eighteen years then why should I or anybody else take into account the events of thirty years ago or longer ?

Cheers xpert11.

So, here we are. Two years of speculation about to be put to the test. Super Tuesday wil lbe under way by the time most of you read this post. I'll stand by every prediction I've made in this thread.

reply to post by Justin Oldham

So, here we are. Two years of speculation about to be put to the test. Super Tuesday will be under way by the time most of you read this post.

No one has explained to me why this cycle began last January '07. A full year earlier than any before it. I am thinking it was because the McCain Feingold Electoral Reform Act had backed up the time when reporting of money had to be made public. In any case, we are killing our candidates, blocking those who cannot raise 8 or 9 digits of money and further putting the electoral process out of the reach of ordinary folks.

I was pleased to see so many candidates invited to the debates. Even that mental case, Alan Keyes, got to go even if he did not get to speak. And on the Dems side, Kucinich and Gravel never had a realistic chance.

I'd say Barack Obama and John McCain are the 2 surprises. McCain is too old, a war hawk, and will follow th policies of Bush43 by and large, which are wrecking the country and its economy. You cannot cut taxes (revenue) and increase expenditures (debt) forever, even if you are a Reagan Republican.

After today, we'll see some clean-up moves and then settle down to await the 2 conventions, the Dems first in Colorado at the end of August, and the GOP next at St. Paul, in the first week of September.

From the close of the GOP convention to election day is barely 2 full months. November 4, 2008. It's over, thank God a'mighty, it's over!

[edit on 2/5/2008 by donwhite]

reply to post by Justin Oldham


It goes without saying that today will be very interesting no matter what your politics. Most of us will be watching the returns tonight. Have a great day and a good evening, everyone.

I'll be forthcoming. I'm a registered dem who in my youth was impressed with Gary Hart and Geraldene Ferraro. I wasn't old enough to vote then but they got me interested in the political process. I supported Bill Clinton in both successful bids -- even organized students studying abroad to vote for him. I wished for McCain in 2000 and agree with a post elsewhere on this string that that was his time. I voted for Al Gore.

Early in this primary season I watched a program on Frontline about the messy connections between lobbyists, the religious right and the current republican party. I raced to my computer and typed in hillary.com (instead try hillaryclinton.com) to see what I would find. I was emotionally charged and took part in a call for input on the site about why now might be the time for a woman president. This was a dream I held in my childhood to teens but chose to be a journalist instead of a lawyer/politician noting than as now that there is more truth in journalism than politics.

Anyway, I spewed it all out on Hillary's site and was aghast never to get one shred of response -- not even an automated "thanks for your input" message. I wrote her off.

I then started liking what I was hearing from Ron Paul -- yes.

But I knew I had a long way to go before making a decision. Thank God for the long season in some respects.

I finally got an email from the Hillary campaign the night before the NH primary soliciting me to display a bumper sticker. I was insulted and unsubscribed.

But not 24 hours later, my thinking changed drastically after the diner show of passion from Hillary. I heard in her voice -- beyond her words -- the conviction and vision I longed to find in a candidate. Afterwards my mind was open to her candidacy again.

I've been impressed by her continued conviction. And I love when she says in debates "When I am President." I get chills.

Her specificity on issues, her composure, her skillful oration and her unfailing committment to this long-held goal are certainly admirable.

I've worked in the pharmaceutical industry (after having been a journalist) and I've tracked since 1994 Hillary's push for healthcare reform. And here I think she displays the audacity of hope -- more compellingly than in the title given to Obama's book.

I gave careful thought to the allegations of misjudgement lobbied of late against Obama -- and I thought here that while he may be guilty of poor judgement you could say Hillary is calculating. Which is a worse character flaw?

In the end I voted today knowing I voiced my support for a candidate with vision, a candidate with conviction, a candidate who will do what it takes for the benefit of this country. Any vote today is a vote that plays a role in making history. I'm proud to say, I VOTED FOR HILLARY CLINTON.



[edit on 5-2-2008 by peace82670]

[edit on 5-2-2008 by peace82670]

[edit on 5-2-2008 by peace82670]

reply to post by peace82670

In the end I voted today knowing I voiced my support for a candidate with vision, a candidate with conviction, a candidate who will do what it takes for the benefit of this country. Any vote today is a vote that plays a role in making history. I'm proud to say, I VOTED FOR HILLARY CLINTON.

Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition!

I recall those lines from a song popular during World War Two. In 1942, a recording by The Merry Macs reached number 8 on the Billboard chart. The 1943 version by Kay Kyser and His Orchestra reached number 1. The Song

Down went the gunner, a bullet was his fate
Down went the gunner, then the gunners mate
Up jumped the sky pilot, gave the boys a look
And manned the gun himself as he laid aside The Book, shouting
Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!
Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!
Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition and we'll all stay free!

Praise the Lord and swing into position!
Can't afford to sit around and wishin'
Praise the Lord we're all between perdition
and the deep blue sea!

Yes the sky pilot said it
You've got to give him credit
for a son - of - gun - of - a - gunner was he,
Shouting;
Praise the Lord we're on a mighty mission!
All aboard, we're not a - goin' fishin;
Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition and we'll all stay free!


Here's one more. (I was in the USAF but not the AAC)

Off we go into the wild blue yonder
Climbing high into the sun;
Here they come zooming to meet our thunder,
At'em boys, giv'er the gun!
Down we dive spouting our flames from under,
Off with one hell-uv-a roar!
We live in fame or go down in flame,
Nothing'll stop the Army Air Corps!


Resume: Hillary is the only candidate I think can hit the ground running! That is very important because Buish43 has been a lame duck since the '06 election and this is no way to run a country in the electronic age. We've been put "on hold" until January 20, 2009. You know the President has about 3,000 appointments to his or her staff and to the cabinet level posts. His or her helpers and advisers. She already knows 100s of qualified people to assign to the most urgent tasks for so long neglected. This is made all the more critical in 2nd and 3rd tier appointments where so many religious nuts and neo con wackos have been appointed by Bush43.

[edit on 2/5/2008 by donwhite]

Greetings to Peace82670:

I'm glad to see more peole coming in to take part in this discussion. Before we can be in a position to fix what's wrong with our country, we must first be in a position to talk with each other. Conspiracy theory is fine and well, but we can't help our country if we can't talk about it like adults.

I came to ATS with certain civic issues on my mind. I haven't seen anything that has changed my mind about the Clintons. I'm still very afraid of what they are going to do to this country. I don't like the idea of anyone growing he size and power of our Federal government because they think they know what's good for me. I didn't like it when W did it, and I'm pretty sure I won't like it when Hillary does it.

There is one simple historical truth that motivates me. Governments do not GIVE BACK power, once they have it. Bureaucracies crave power. You can't stop feeding them, once you've started. One universal program leads to the next, which leads to the next...I don't care for socialism, and I can tell you why.

Stop and consider just one thing before you reach for that keyboard. In a socialist paradise, you won't get a chance to say what you're about to type.

Please keep that in mind as you watch today's election results.

reply to post by Justin Oldham

Before we can be in a position to fix what's wrong with our country, we must first be in a position to talk with each other. Conspiracy theory is fine and well, but we can't help our country if we can't talk about it .

What’s going on here? Are all the starry eyed Dems coming out to vote in the primary then only to desert us in the general? This has happened.

Why is Obama leading in Connecticut, Delaware, Kansas, Minnesota and North Dakota? I’m pretty sure the black population in MN and KS as well as ND is very low. I’m not so sure in CT or DE.

Obama won handily in Illinois, Alabama and Georgia but lost in MA, MO and TN. Large Obama majorities in AL, IL and GA are understandable, as are MA, MO and TN for Clinton. Clinton also carried NJ, NY and OK as well, all were expected.

Delegate count as of 10:47 PM was Clinton 304, Obama 263. On the GOP side, McCain has 329 delegates, Romney 93 and Huckabee, 67.

[edit on 2/5/2008 by donwhite]

It's just after midnight on the East Coast as I make this post. We should remember one thing about the American primaries. They are never an accurate picture of he general election that follows.

Having said that, we must realize and accept that today's young voter has finally decided to get off the couch and vote.

Don's fear is well founded. If Hillary wins her party's nomination, a lot of disappointed 20-somethings will go back to their xboxes and bail on the general in November.

Most of us tend to vote with our hearts when we go to the primaries. Some vote with their wallets, but most cast their ballot in an optimistic mood. We are more pessimsitic when we go to the general elections because we don't have so many choices to day dream about. In November, most of us will vote with our wallets.

Unless and until we experience another terror attack, Americans will not be quite so concerneda bout national security. Because economic issues are now much more pressing, we will be swayed by the economy.

Let's also be aware of the fact that we haven't seen such a hard-to-call race in a very long time.

reply to post by Justin Oldham

Don's fear is well founded. If Hillary wins her party's nomination, a lot of disappointed 20-somethings will go back to their boxes and bail on the general in November. Some vote with their wallets, but most cast their ballot in an optimistic mood. We are more pessimistic when we go to the general elections because we don't have so many choices to day dream about. In November, most of us will vote with our wallets.

1) It has happened before. On both sides. Amongst non-professionals genuine enthusiasm for a candidate dissipates rapidly if he or she loses. True believers in the most real sense, they are totally disappointed when their ideal loses. I’m wary of unproven supporters.

2) Yes, I agree with J/O that economics will be the central issue. Ironic because neither side - Dems or GOPs - either “caused” the current recession nor can either “fix” it. The ‘08 election will turn on 2 points no one can control. Perhaps like the ancient Greeks, our future is indeed in the hands of the temperamental and unpredictable GODS. The Dems will win handily if the economy slides further and stays down on November 4, or the GOP may rebound if the economy takes off by October! It’s in the hands of the statisticians!

Unless and until we experience another terror attack, Americans will not be quite so concerned about national security. Because economic issues are now much more pressing, we will be swayed by the economy. Let's also be aware of the fact that we haven't seen such a hard-to-call race in a very long time.

1) Osama is very odd, IMO. He intrigued in ‘04 but in such a way as to aid Bush43. I’d have to conclude by that, that Osama wants America to wage war in as many places and as often as possible, in the furtherance of his own vision of the world. Perhaps Osama thought he could goad Bush43 into attacking either Iran or North Korea?

2) Of course, it ought to be obvious now that Bush43 opted for the childish West of the Pecos response to the Nine Eleven Event. This was due mostly to his own limited knowledge of the world outside Crawford and a cadre of Neo Con warmongers led by VP Cheney around him. The timid and vapid Condi Rice was completely out of her league. (And she still is. But Dumbya wanted her out of the WH. Now he inflicts her on foreign ministers).

The Bush43 War on Terror was unworkable (unwinnable) then (2001) and it is unworkable (unwinnable) now (2008) but an even more decisive reason, it is UNAFFORDABLE. It was the wrong way to go from the get-go.

At some point in time we must stop fighting DUMB and plan how to fight SMART. Or, would you rather blow a bridge in Baghdad or repair a bridge in St. Paul? Assuming you cannot afford to do both.

[edit on 2/6/2008 by donwhite]

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. 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!!!!

My prediction gets closer every day. The selection of Mccain as the Republican puppet negates the need for a "spoiler" in the form of Ron Paul because the thought of of putting an unabashed warmonger in charge when we are teetering on the edge of WW3 will make many sensible Republicans vote for "the lesser of two evils" meaning the Billary/Obomba ticket which will obviously be announced soon.

Don White -- thanks for the support.

Justin Oldham -- thanks for the welcome. Nice to be aboard.

I agree its more important to have an open discussion than to get entrenched behind our idealogies. I agree with Don, to me Hillary is the most qualified. The candidate who frightens me is Huckabee.

The primaries yesterday are just primaries and there is a long road between here and the conventions. Obama may yet have his day.

But time and events will tell. And so far, Hillary is putting her best effort out in front.

I also think that our President is just one person in an important structure of government. I don't pretend to think that our government currently is without its flaws. And I suppose that's why Ron Paul was appealing -- he's just too anti-government for me.

I think there is a possible positive road forward with the right leadership and the right Senate and House. Our forefathers were wise in the way in your life right now you can see wisdom in day to day dealings hopefully from your parents or grandparents.

I trust the Constitution and the ideal of our government. Its important then to choose when we can leaders who are trustworthy in their responsibility for those posts. W certainly has not gotten my trust.

Let's keep the discussion going and growing.

You're not wrong to presume a Clinton-Obama ticket. that's been in the tea leaves for two years.

Now that things are shaking out a littlem ore, let's look at a new wrinkle. If his wild ride continues, Obama could win his party's nomination. If it shapes up to be Obama-Clinton vs. McCain-Huckabee, the Republicans might actually have a statitistically real chance of...winning.

From the start of this thread, we've acknoweldged that the economy will play a major role. I myself don't see how Bush's stimulus plan actually works. With a few creatives lies, he might keep the ball in play until he's out of office, but I am doubtful. I think Don is right. The economy tanks before October.

If McCain faces off against Obama, he MUST force the debate in to foriegn policy waters. Expert vs. Novice. It's hard to beat the war hero with scars on his body when you're the new kid with a good attitude but no real experience.

On the VP front, Huckabee can out moralize Mrs. Clinton and...if he can keep the debate centered on domestic issues...he could trump her lure of universal health care with a populist anti-tax message that would appeal to the voter's wallet.

So, whaddya do if you're the Dems? You go to your convention, and you bargain with Obama.

reply to post by Justin Oldham

If McCain faces off against Obama, he MUST force the debate in to foreign policy waters. Expert vs. Novice. It's hard to beat the war hero with scars on his body when you're the new kid with a good attitude but no real experience.

On war heroes. You may have seen my skeptical post on another thread wherein I recited the statistics that of 695 US airmen held in the Hanoi Hilton as we called it, only 5-10 died. The NVA said their deaths were due to wounds or injuries received BEFORE arriving at the Hanoi Hilton. It was well-known - well, I knew about it - that many of our parachuting airmen were killed by local people before the NVA could get to them. That is an occupational hazard to anyone who is likely to kill bunches of “innocent" people (a term I do not like) while “just doing my job.” And it was their job - the peasants - to kill any surviving airmen. I'd call that the mis-fortunes of war.

One battlefield circumstance we tend to ignore. Or we take the audacious position that OUR airmen are to be treated kindly when captured, even if they did blow up a hospital or school. “Shucks, we all know an iron bomb is only 20% on target.” It goes unspoken here but the death and destruction caused by other 80% of falling bombs we callously label “collateral damage.” Not if YOUR child was killed by one such errant bomb.

Did the NvA practice torture? I don’t know. Obviously - to me - none of the returning airmen looked too bad. I saw the pictures, and they were smiling and waving to the cameraman. International law requires a capturing power to feed it POWs the same ration as their own privates receive. Sure, that’s not what we Western types want - a bowl of rice and a dried fish - but that’s life!

My point is this. If McCain tries to play up the “war hero” status, then I’d want to go over to Vietnam and get the TRUTH! Numbers don't lie.

Similarly, I have always doubted Alexander Solzenitzen’s version of the Gulag Archipelago. I have decided he was either an informer or a plant. Held in a place where 90% were known to die, how come he came out looking so good and so strong?

[edit on 2/7/2008 by donwhite]

I'm skeptical. I don't know if there could be a Clinton Obama or vice versa ticket -- they've worked too hard to differentiate themselves. And I don't believe its Billary -- not even as close at it was suggested when he wore "...the pantsuit in the White House" that it was a co-presidency. Hillary carved her niche then.

I don't think Obama is as strong against the Repubs as Hillary is -- but we all know the fight will be dirtier if Hillary is the Dems target.

Here's some food for thought. Hillary even as a working mother and with the village it took to raise Chelsea has lived the primary caregiver role. Now I'm biased because I'm a woman but I would say the same for a single dad or unconventional household where roles are reversed.... not to digress... but it intrigues me to consider how someone with this persepctive may handle the leadership of our country differently than a man who has had a more conventional role in his life and family.

Add this perspective to a more seasoned set of credentials and perhaps Hillary is the onen for the job in a way that truly is different -- and that's change.

reply to post by peace82670

Here's some food for thought. Hillary has lived the primary care giver role . . but it intrigues me to consider how someone with this perspective may handle the leadership of our country differently than a man who has had a more conventional role in his life and family. Add this perspective to a more seasoned set of credentials and perhaps Hillary is the one for the job in a way that truly is different - and that's change . .

Bravo! P70, you have said it all so well!

Had in interesting discussion with a woman I've met casually through school functions whose name I recognized as a delegate on the NJ ballot for John Edwards. She's left at a loss who to vote for, but seemed torn between a reluctant incling to vote Repub if McCain is the candidate and staying true to her democratic identity. Wonder how many Edwards supporters will sway repub -- and when the Dems will push him to support a fellow dem.

Could an Edwards VP ship strenghten Clinton or Obama? Would either pick him? I doubt it.

Anyway, this other mom and I agree on scariness of Huckabee. The repubs have a tough job now. Seems like Huckabee adds strength to McCain from a republican viewpoint but might make it harder to win dems or undecided who lean democrat.

Hi donwhite and Justin,

First things first. I don't care for any of the Candidates running in any Party. I also do not belong to a Party.

I've been fascinated by what I'm watching and reading today about the Democratic Party and its bid for the White-house. This may well be the most screwed up mess in the history of US elections caused by a mess of a Primary process created by the Democrats.

It is becoming clearer to people that there probably will not be a winner in this race at convention time. It would seem that in their usual bizarre judgment if this is the case; the so called Super Delegates decide who the Candidate is and they totally ignore who won the most delegates. If this happens it becomes a popularity contest. Apparently, through various interviews, Hillary has already won regardless of whether she wins the most delegates. That means if you are a Democrat who bothered to vote in the primaries or participate in a caucus your vote DID NOT COUNT and your Party Leaders DO NOT CARE.

If I were a Democrat I would be flooding the mailboxes demanding the termination of the Party leaders and an immediate end to the existence of the Super Delegates.

The second issue cropping up that is possible (probable?) is lawsuits about some States Delegates being excluded from the Convention as punishment. Yet another bizarrely un-Democratic decision. This would mean the Convention could be delayed further interfering with the process.

Does this mean Hillary was chosen beforehand and Obama never had a chance? It would seem so. I have no doubt those who dreamed up this system were smart enough to foresee this happening. I don't accept it as being a fluke or an oversight. I think if it plays out this way that it is as it was intended. ""Government of the people, by the people, for the people"; not these days and not in the Democratic Party.

Hello Blaine! Good to see you again.

You don't need a tin foil hat to know that Senator Clinton has been working to get herself elected to the Presidency since 1998. The best way to make deals with Congress is to become a member of Congress. I'm sure she had hte super delegate thing in mind when she ran for the Senate in New York.

You've seen me say it in this thread, and in a few others around ATS. Mrs. Clinton has a political "machine" at her disposal that Barack Obama does not.

In recent days, she loaned her own campaign five million dollars. The need wasn't very real, but it looked good. Why? She was milking the sympathy thing yet again. "Poor Hillary, believing so much in her campaign...that is in danger of failure...that she put in her own money."

The Obama candidacy has taken a lot of people by surprise. Even when we saw him coming two years ago, a lot of people said "he can't win." You and I have talked off and on for the last year. You've mentioned to me more than once that you noticed how much people want a change.

Well, they're voting in these primaries for change, and its bucking the system that would otherwise crown Hillary. This desire for change isn't limited to the Democrats. Take a look at John McCain. He's so broke he can't pay attention, and yet he's the GOP front runner by the widest margin.

The party bosses on both sides of the aisle are cheesed off. Those darned peasants have messed up their carefully laid plans.

We've got a lot of reasons to be unhappy with the candidates on both sides of the aisle. The Dems offer us more big government, and the GOP offers us more of what we're now experiencing. The truth is that we will only get a few grains of change from anyone whom we put in to office. Even so, we have to ask ourselves one question.

Is "some" better than "none?"

[edit on 9-2-2008 by Justin Oldham]

reply to post by Justin Oldham


For the dems Super Tuesday didn't prove to be the decisive battle that I expected it to be . One might say that it was a Jutland rather then a Midway .

Obama claimed victory in Louisiana, Nebraska and Washington on Saturday, as well as in the Virgin Islands.


"The stakes are too high and the challenges are too great to play the same old Washington game with the same old Washington players and expect a different result," Obama told a hugely pro-Obama crowd of Democrats at the Jefferson-Jackson dinner in Richmond, Virginia.

"People want to turn the page. They want to write a new chapter in American history."

Source

Unlike the High Seas fleet Obama isnt afriad to leave port and face action again having faced the big guns . Now that the big guns have to resolve things tactics at differnt locations will become important again like they were in places like Iowa.

The next president needs to start the process of healing the US nation much like Ford did in fact Carter thanked him for doing so in his first address to the nation. There is no way that Hillary could do this.

Here is an idea I would like to float out there.

I do wonder if Richards is plotting to capture first as a comprise(SP?) candidate. I am not saying that will happen but it might be worth thinking about.

[edit on 9-2-2008 by xpert11]

[edit on 9-2-2008 by xpert11]