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: 18
12
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2008 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by xpert11
 


Unlike the High Seas fleet Obama isn’t afraid to leave port and face action again having faced the big guns . Now that the big guns have to resolve things tactics at different locations will become important again like they were in places like Iowa.


When this race started a year ago, Obama was not highly regarded. In fact, he was seen as an “early out” by most observers who thought Edwards posed the only real threat to what the pollsters said was a shoo-in for Hillary.

Two events coalesced to change Obama from a polite fellow from Illinois to a genuine contender for the crown. 1) Hillary’s faux pas when she endorsed NY’s former Gov. Pataki’s offer to renew drivers licenses of undocumented persons and 2) Oprah Winfery. Unlike Hitler's order to the German High Seas Fleet after losing the Bismark, Obama was not held back, held safely out of harms way, but instead, Barack was pushed out on the stage and Oprah said, “Sink or swim but whichever make some waves!”

The Dems race is now HOPE versus CHANGE.

Already people are speculating that neither candidate will gain the 2025 delegates needed for the nomination which will put the choice in the hands of the 763 SUPER delegates. Note: Those SUPER delegates are “ex officio.” All the members of the Democratic National Committee - over 200 - all Democratic Members of Congress and all Democratic state governors. In those states not having a Dem governor, the Committee may choose an alternate delegate. This group is alluded to in a somewhat denigrating way as the Professionals.

I am pleased to see so many young whites voting for Barack, but I am more than a little concerned that A) they will stay home on November 4, having done their duty earlier, and B) latent turned patent racism will not let white America choose a black president. Not yet. Yes, maybe in 2016, but not in 2008. So I look to the Professional to SAVE the Party and spare the country a Vietnam forgetting McCain promised 100 years war with Islam and MORE Clarence Thomas John Roberts and Alito type appointments to the US Supreme Court.

[edit on 2/10/2008 by donwhite]




posted on Feb, 10 2008 @ 04:58 PM
link   
The Democrats now risk an implosion as "nasty" as the one we are now seeing from the Republicans.

If Hillary Clinton wins her party's nomination, supporters of Obama will claim that the election was rigged.

If Barack Obama wins his party's nomination, supporters of Clinton will claim that the eleciton was rigged.

There is only way the Dems can tamp down the ferocity of this fire storm. they must weld together a Clinton-Obama ticket, or an Obama-Clinton ticket. If the party nominee picks anyone else to run as their Vice President, the accusations will fly with much greater venom. and hte Democratic party will suffer the same division as the Republicans now struggle with.

There would be a temptation for Hillary or Obama to choose Bill Richardson as their running mate. Richardson would bring Hispanic voters in to the Dem's tent by the millions. He'd be good for either candidate (individually).

There is just one large angry fly in this ointment. The divisions we now see in the Republican party will heal much faster than those wounds which could bleed the Democrats.

The irony remains bitter and bold that Obama might win his party's nomination by a landslide and then lose the White House in the general electon that follows the convention. If that happened, he'd be derided and persecuted for the rest of his (short) political career.

The voters in America don't fully appreciate the fact that the primaries are their one best chance to make Washington "feel" their preferences. For just a few short months, we have their complete and undivided attention. they hate it, and we know it. That's one more reason why we should enjoy it.

From a purely political standpoint, the Democrats are on the cusp of achieving near total power in the House and in the Senate. The anti-Bush backlash is just that strong. Taking the White House means they hold on to that power for a generation...or more.

You can look at this from two different directions.

If we, as voters, want change, we need to vote for change. You can't get new unless you vote for new. This change that we want will tear apart both political parties. That's good for us and bad for them because the re-formulated parties will have new blood and new ideas in them that we might actually benefit from.

The equation is much different, if we look at this from the point of view of the party bosses.

The Democrats are poised to gain domination over the Republicans for the rest of this century, if they can keep their existing power structure in tact. As they crush the GOP, they also gain near total power that could also last them through to the end of this century.

The Republicans can come back from defeat if they can keep their existing power structure held together just long enough to exploit the divisions that now plague the Democrats. They will not rule supreme as the Dems might or could, but they will put off two decades of misery in the wilderness...for a while. For the Republicans, some victory is better than none.

The Shape of Things to Come has been predicted for some time now. The fact that we (as the voters) have a chance to change our fate is no small thing. I hope we will make the most of it. Centralized power can only be defeated by change that the voters force. It's that, or armed rebellion (which might not happened at all).



posted on Feb, 11 2008 @ 09:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Justin Oldham
 


The Democrats now risk an implosion as "nasty" as the one we are now seeing from the Republicans. If Hillary Clinton wins her party's nomination, supporters of Obama will claim that the election was rigged. If Barrack Obama wins his party's nomination, supporters of Clinton will claim that the eleciton was rigged.


Part 1
I am pretty sure no one including the political major dromo Bill Clinton foresaw this! On either side of the aisle. I noted that Hillary has replaced her top echelon of advisers. This is a belated response to trouble that has loomed large on the scene since Obama’s surprising (to the Clinton camp) upwelling in Iowa. It is too late for her to WIN in the primaries. Now she must manage to avoid alienating her large reservoir of Black voters who are torn between gratitude to the Clintons and their LOVE of seeing a black man - any black man - making trouble for whitey! Like those rigged bait cars so many black youths steal - on camera calculated to reenforce white prejudices - they know they are “had” but it is still a good ride! “So what’s a couple months in jail? I ain’t doin’ nuthin’ anyway.’

You have described the end of the journey well, Mr J/O, but the hard part is HOW do the Dems get there from here?



posted on Feb, 11 2008 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Justin Oldham
 


[Part 1] There is only [ONE] way the Dems can tamp down the ferocity of this fire storm. they must weld together a Clinton-Obama ticket, or an Obama-Clinton ticket. If the party nominee picks anyone else to run as their Vice President, the accusations will fly with much greater venom. and hte Democratic party will suffer the same division as the Republicans now struggle with . . [Part 2] The Democrats are poised to gain domination over the Republicans for the rest of this century, if they can keep their existing power structure in tact.


Part 1. Right you are, J/O! It looks as if the very well placed Gov. Bill Richardson will not be “available” for Clinton to pick for VP. That would be interpreted as an insult to blacks who have for so long formed the BASE of Dems calculations. Sorry Mr X11, I know you really do like him. Perhaps you could write to Santa Fe NM for an absentee ballot so you can vote for him next time he runs? Note: Santa Fe is located at 7,000 feet (2134 m) above sea level, making it the highest state capital in the United States.

The Dems desperately need the Hispanic vote which will swing CA into either the Dem or GOP column. And also to put Texas into play! The final decision will be based on electoral votes and not on sentimental reasons. I do not see Hillary accepting the Number Two slot on anybody’s ticket. As I have already written too many times before, this is HER year. Or it’s no year at all. Older women support her by a large margin. So it may come down to a state by state calculation how many old white women are there versus how many young - born after 1970 - black voters? Wow, who taking Political Science 101, would have guessed this is how presidents are made?

Part 2. I do not see any party being dominate for that long, J/O. The world is too fluid. Asymmetric warfare negates one colossus versus another colossus warfare. The closest we ever came to that was the Republicans from 1860 to 1932. Grover Cleveland’s two interrupted terms don’t’ count as he was MORE a modern GOP than the GOPs were then. Both ANTI labor and PRO business. And we all admit Woodrow Wilson was a fluke brought on by the enmity that had arisen between TR and Taft when Taft (hand picked by TR) failed to continue TR’s socio-economic reforms. The ONLY time a 3rd party had a real impact on the outcome in the 20th century. Note: Maybe the ONLY time ever, if you do not count the 1860 Republicans as a THIRD party.

Historically, there was always a solid GOP anti-New Deal core, and they prevailed in 1946 with the election of the 80th Congress made famous by Harry Truman. Which I always cite as the FIRST nail in Labor’s casket, the infamous Taft-Hartley Act. Robert Taft was the son of William Howard Taft. Aside: I allege Richard Nixon gave labor pneumonia when he made the infamous bargain with the incarcerated Teamster's rx-president Jimmy Hoffa, to split the AFL-CIO union movement. Nixoin promosed Hoffa to release him if the Teamsers would "jump ship" and support him in 1968. Theydid. And he did.

Then Ronald Reagan dealt labor the coup de grace when he fired the PATCO workers. Unions today are mainly social clubs. The Secretary of Labor, Elaine Chao has drivin in the last nail. She is the wife of Mitch McConnell, the Senate Minoirty Leader and Majority Leader in waiting. She has systematically DESTROYED the Department. It no longer protects the workers of America. Republilcans have written Labor's Epitaph:"Of all the words of tongue or pen, no sadder words are these ... "It might have been." Omar Khayyam

[edit on 2/11/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Feb, 11 2008 @ 12:27 PM
link   
OK so I'm having my fill of mainstream media -- TIME this week with photo essays behind the scenes with Clinton and Obama. Interesting they chose to put her study in black and white, his in color. Also, his alone has a shot with spouse. Michelle Obama can play a role that Bill Clinton cannot -- that of visible support. Its a shame for Hillary that its required to see her "alone" in this -- and what is our cultural support for marriage?

Did anyone see the 60 Minutes interviews? Nothing new in Obama's -- but I will confess I didn't get to pay close attention. Hillary was as impressive as ever, relaxed, competent, prepared. J/O you mentioned she has been preparing since 1998 -- and I hope I'm not taking that too far out of context to point out that she must have been planning this since her youth. As children consider eventual adult roles as doctors, firemen, sports figures, rock stars -- young Hillary must have dreamt this dream of the Presidency. But now its not about personal power, not popularity -- she's in it for the good of the country and have no doubt, she will make decisions and take action where it is best in that cause. As she has done in every cause, popular or not, that she has backed in her life (including support for Barry Goldwater)....

Bill Richardson has no chance as VP with Clinton -- or Obama. I think that either of them will have to choose someone fresh in the way of "change." And agree with DonW that Hillary will not take the #2 spot -- that's something she did only for Bill in terms of their marriage. HAVE NO DOUBT THIS IS ALL ABOUT HILLARY. Its a coincidence that two people who would rise to the potential of Commander in Chief would meet and marry. Perhaps this dream is what they most had in common. They've clearly each helped each other. It adds to her qualification.

I'm not sure whether Obama's swell in popularity will be able to be supported. Where are his specifics on issues? Until he starts talking details the "popularity" factor will ring hollow. I actually think latent racism is less his possible undoing than perhaps his doing -- was it J/O who said its nice to see young whites voting for Barak? -- I've heard it said that whites see possible absolution from the guilt of racism in voting for Obama.

The problems facing America at home are truly akin to the challenges any mother faces in raising her children. Our challenges are at the heart of raising future generations of American's -- preserving as it were our nation. What happens now directly impacts our future.

I don't know who will emerge as a viable VP for the dems -- regardless of the nominee I don't think we'll know until just before or even at the convention. It will be the last possible minute for most possible impact.

But I've heard some people talking about something intriguing. Consider -- what are the full implications of Joe Lieberman's moving to be Independent? He makes a very interesting possible running mate for JOHN MCAIN. Would McCain forsake the Christian right to gain Jewish voters and perhaps malcontent dems? Would the RNC allow it?

And on the subject of change -- if we are to consider who holds the presidency alone as our measure of change we risk too superficial a solution. Real change requires hard choices and tough action on our most pressing issues -- Health care, the economy, education, foriegn affiairs. America needs a leader who can set the standard for really making change, taking action on these issues. Hillary is that candidate.



[edit on 11-2-2008 by peace82670]



posted on Feb, 11 2008 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite
You have described the end of the journey well, Mr J/O, but the hard part is HOW do the Dems get there from here?


The Democratic party's leadership has two real choices when it comes to avoiding ruin.

The bosses can force a Clinton-Obama ticket, or they can force an Obama-Clinton ticket. If they do this, the disappointed factions will at least get some of what they want. Some is better than none.

If the bosses allow the convention leader to choose anyone else, they will light the fuse on a bomb that will sunder the party for the next 10-15 years.

Bear in mind that Senator Clinton can still get a lot of pay-backs as Vice President. Imagine a scenario in which the youthful Obama makes a few too many mistakes, which limits him to one term in office. Imagine the intrigues that could go on to set him up for failure?

It's worth noting that Jimmy Carter was a decent man, who made a lot of mistakes that left him vulnerable to his enemies. The resulting backlash had a lot to do with Reagan's roll to victory. Imagine Hillary cast in the role of the wise old dame who loves her country so much that she's willing to let its well-intended leaders mess up...until they are willing to seek and act on her wise counsel. Eek.



posted on Feb, 11 2008 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by peace82670
OK so I'm having my fill of mainstream media --


Welcome to this discussion peace82670. This is the place to be is you are tired of hte mainstream media's torrent of titilation.



Originally posted by peace82670
TIME this week with photo essays behind the scenes with Clinton and Obama. Interesting they chose to put her study in black and white, his in color.


Two years ago, on ATS, I said that the media was likely to turn on Hillary Clinton. I had no way of knowing that it would be due to Obama's rise, I did detect a certain animus between the Clintons and the press.


Originally posted by peace82670
Also, his alone has a shot with spouse. Michelle Obama can play a role that Bill Clinton cannot -- that of visible support. Its a shame for Hillary that its required to see her "alone" in this -- and what is our cultural support for marriage?


Never forget that people like to come to the aid of lonely women.


Originally posted by peace82670
Did anyone see the 60 Minutes interviews? Nothing new in Obama's -- but I will confess I didn't get to pay close attention. Hillary was as impressive as ever, relaxed, competent, prepared. J/O you mentioned she has been preparing since 1998 -- and I hope I'm not taking that too far out of context to point out that she must have been planning this since her youth.


We can fool ourselves in to thinking that people wanted to be President since they were five years old. How many of us knew what politics was when we were five? I didn't know I was going to be what I am now until just a few years ago.


Originally posted by peace82670
But now its not about personal power, not popularity -- she's in it for the good of the country and have no doubt, she will make decisions and take action where it is best in that cause. As she has done in every cause, popular or not, that she has backed in her life (including support for Barry Goldwater)....


Anybody who wants to be President has more ambition than you and me put together. Pols will fulfill their civic duty only when they have to, and not a moment sooner. I object to her agenda. I object to it strenuously, but I can't fault her for having a spine.



Originally posted by peace82670
Bill Richardson has no chance as VP with Clinton -- or Obama. I think that either of them will have to choose someone fresh in the way of "change."


Okay, I'll roll with that. Who is your pick? I'm not available. My work is too contraversial.


Originally posted by peace82670
Its a coincidence that two people who would rise to the potential of Commander in Chief would meet and marry. Perhaps this dream is what they most had in common. They've clearly each helped each other. It adds to her qualification.


That qualification you're refering to is still called "ambition." I like a go-getter just as much as the next guy, but I don't like political dynasties.



Originally posted by peace82670
I'm not sure whether Obama's swell in popularity will be able to be supported. Where are his specifics on issues? Until he starts talking details the "popularity" factor will ring hollow.


In our current political climate, optimism is like a glass of cold water to a thirsty man. Refreshing. Americans don't look too closely at candidates during our primaries. We scrutinize them much more closely in the general elections.

I'd bet money that Joe Lieberman will NOT go beyond the Senate. He has made far too many enemies to even think about the Vice Presidency...again.



posted on Feb, 12 2008 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Justin Oldham
 


In our current political climate, optimism is like a glass of cold water to a thirsty man. Refreshing. Americans don't look too closely at candidates during our primaries. We scrutinize them much more closely in the general elections. I'd bet money that Joe Lieberman will NOT go beyond the Senate. He has made far too many enemies to even think about the Vice Presidency...again.


I’m not privy to the Connecticut voters' thinking when they denied Joe the Dems nomination. He showed he was still popular with local GOPs and Independents sufficient to gain a majority for his re-election. For his own interests he consented to vote Dem to organize, as he would have been a junior member of any committee he sat on if the GOP organized the Senate. Joe’s motive was entirely self-serving whereas the Senator from VT who is also an Independent, is cheerfully welcomed into the Dems committee structure. A bona-fide independent.


The Democratic party's leadership has two real choices when it comes to avoiding ruin. The bosses can force a Clinton-Obama ticket, or they can force an Obama-Clinton ticket. If they do this, the disappointed factions will at least get some of what they want. Some is better than none. If the bosses allow the convention leader to choose anyone else, they will light the fuse on a bomb that will sunder the party for the next 10-15 years.


Everyone agrees what is happening now was not foreseen by any of the Dem planners who were striving to make the Dem’s convention more democratic. Proportional representation. Just ask Mr X11 how that works in NZ over the winner take all scheme 90% of America runs on. Even worse, in 90% of the American states, a plurality wins which becomes less and less democratic when you have a super heterogenous society versus the instances of a nearly homogeneous society.

It seems now that the Super Delegates will be called on to resolve the nomination. Hillary, at age 60, versus Barack at age 46, is not likely to want to cap off her career sitting in a chair which John Nance Garner said was NOT worth "a bucket of warm spit." She can be much more active and have a greater effect on the American Way of Life as a NY senator. If Obama is the one to be “crowned” then I predict Mr X11's favorite candidate, Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico, will get the VP NOD.

Obama & Richardson versus McCain & Huckabee. GOD Save America!

Election Synopsis. A HOPE-inspiring if short on particulars African American allied with a mature and well accomplished Hispanic American on the Dems ticket.

Running against a

grandfather, old enough to TRIPLE dip, A) collect his social security, B) his military retirement and C) his congressional retirement! WOW! I’d wager that comes to $200K! Or more. (I wonder what his net worth is?)

P L U S an Ordained SBC (Southern Baptist Convention) preacher
who was neither personally constrained nor unabashedly ashamed to spew forth spiteful if not hateful anti Mormon propaganda so popular in his semi-literate SOUTHLAND. “Ha ha ha, my religion is better than your religion . . ha ha ha.” Excusable and even laughable if heard on an elementary school playground but not funny at all when heard at the highest levels of our government by one who is just a heartbeat away from the presidency.


[edit on 2/12/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Feb, 12 2008 @ 11:33 AM
link   
So, Don...are you as a Democrat ready for the firestorm that could result from complaints about the super delegate conspiracy?



posted on Feb, 12 2008 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Justin Oldham
 


. . are you as a Democrat ready for the firestorm that could result from complaints about the super delegate conspiracy?


No. It is up to Obama whether to "bring it on" or to avoid it. If he (and Michele) adopt a "take no prisoners" policy, then it will be messy. The S/Ds were meant to provide interference should some wild card - a Huckabee type - gain the largest number of primary votes. Hmm?

President Barack H. Obama. How does that sound? It just might work! On both sides of the Atlantic.



posted on Feb, 12 2008 @ 01:04 PM
link   


We can fool ourselves in to thinking that people wanted to be President since they were five years old. How many of us knew what politics was when we were five? I didn't know I was going to be what I am now until just a few years ago...


J/O -- I wanted to be president of the U.S. when I was 5. I kept that idea till I was 14 when I decided there was more truth in journalism than politics. I was a journalist beginning at age 16 reporting for a local radio station and later working in newspaper, radio and TV -- the latter in both the U.S. and England. I chose in 1994 to swap journalism for PR at a firm in NYC where I promoted health campaigns for big pharma -- I theorized I would get more of the information people need to them in a way they could use it by influencing journalists who could reach more than I could on my own. I then worked for one of the top five healthcare companies in the world then distinctly chose to stay home with my children. Perhaps my time will come to choose to exercise my civic duty.

So the short answer is that ambition isn't the only driver for those who seek our presidency. I can appreciate the choices and sacrifices that those who have made themselves candidates for our consideration have made. What intrigues me in each candidate is the individual sense of purpose that they feel can be served by holding the office of the President. That's why for me Barack Obama's lack of a strong, specific vision is disconcerting. And why John McCain and Mike Huckabee alone or together are currently even more disconcerting.



posted on Feb, 12 2008 @ 04:09 PM
link   
It seems to me that the Democrats have only one viable choice, which is to choose whichever candidate comes into the convention with the most delegates; even if it is only one more. To do anything else they greatly increase the risk of splitting their party and giving the Republicans a giant size 13 boot in the door. I'm sure their are many secretive meetings taking place as I post this to determine who the candidate will be.

I'd have to agree that I cannot imagine Her Highness Hillary playing second fiddle while occupying a meaningless office. I don't think she is the type to "take one for the Gipper". I can see our old friend Gore slipping back into that seat even though none of the pundits seem to be looking for that. An Obama / Gore ticket may be seen as a way to heal the wounds by giving the masses a Clinton puppet to soothe their misery.



posted on Feb, 12 2008 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by peace82670
 


So the short answer is that ambition isn't the only driver for those who seek our presidency.


Ms P70, you have a varied and interesting background. You’ve done a wide variety of work. You have a compelling resume. I hope you have as many years ahead of you as you have had behind you.

I’m reading a book about Social Security. It relates how in 1934, an off year election, Alf Landon won the governorship in Kansas, when most GOPs were losing. He was immediately touted in the weekly news magazines - Time Newsweek US News and World Report - as a potential GOP candidate to run against FDR in 1936. The idea appealed to him and as you saw in your American history, he ran in 1936. Another wanna-be was the Dems William Jennings Bryan. A populist Democrat, he ran in 1896, 1900 and 1908. He was later appointed Secretary of State by Woodrow Wilson in 1913.

Bryan is best remembered for 2 things - his Cross of Gold speech - see below - and the 1925 job of Special Prosecutor of John Scopes in the Dayton TN “Monkey Trial.” He died shortly thereafter. The speech gets its popular name from its ending, with its biblical allusions:

". . behind us the producing masses of this nation and the world, supported by the commercial interests, the laboring interests and the toilers everywhere, we will answer their demand for a gold standard by saying to them: You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns, you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold."

[edit on 2/12/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Feb, 12 2008 @ 11:28 PM
link   
As I write this, Obama has won the Potomac Primaries for the Democrats. McCain has won for the Republicans.

In his victory speech, Obama made it clear that he was going in to general election mode. In his victory speech, McCain made it clear that he intends to keep on making compromises when and where necessary.

Conservatives are in a real bind just now. They aren't completely happy with their ront runner, while Dems will be thrilled to have either one of theirs as their party's nominee.

The irony is that Obama's short resume will be pitted agaisnt McCain's very long resume. Funny how the candidate that the hard right doesn't want might beat the candidate that the hard left can't get enough of.

Stop and think before you reach for that keyboard. Even Don White knows that general elections don't go down like primaries. They have a palce and a flavor all their own.

[edit on 12-2-2008 by Justin Oldham]



posted on Feb, 13 2008 @ 12:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Justin Oldham
 


It is possible that the Republican party could spend time in the wildness like it did after FDR was elected. However if the dems win the White House in November Iraq is going to be a political problem for them. Elements of there supporters want a withdrawl from Iraq and they wanted it yesterday.

Nixon coped flax for continuing the Vietnam war but he would have had support from right wing anti communist crusaders . Its worth noting for current and future reference that Nixon won a second term.


If the BBC website is correct Hillary supports putting a cap on the amount of troops in Iraq . I would have thought that between LBJ and Rumsfeld some lessons would have sunk in but this appears not to be the case.

Be careful no to expect to much people power in country that is not a democracy.



posted on Feb, 13 2008 @ 06:46 AM
link   
reply to post by xpert11
 


Be careful no to expect to much people power in country that is not a democracy.


Them thar's fightn' words, my lad! Doncha know we hold elections over here all the time? And it's elections that makes a democracy! Haven't you been listening to our Maximum Leader, Herr Bush43, Commander in Chief for Life? I'll come back to you later, Mr X11

[edit on 2/13/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Feb, 13 2008 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Justin Oldham
 


J/O, let me add this latest insight into the problem Mr Obama faces in the real world, November 4, 2008. I’m listening to a book, “Rednecks and Bluenecks: The Politics of Country Music,.” by Chris Willman and on RC62224. It recounts the much ballyhooed episode which took place in London, on March 8, 2003. Dixie Chicks lead vocalist Natalie Maines remarked that she was SORRY to be from the same state as Bush43. Texas. She lamented the inexorable move to war in Iraq by Bush43.

The Right Wing rebelled against the Dixie Chicks. They boycotted them. They arranged for cd crushing events around the country. They got death threats. They got trash dumped in front of their houses. The father of Emily Robinson was shunned in the nursing home where he is confined. The father of Marti Maguire who is a Lubbock music promoter and small scale record maker, got ALL the records he ever produced - about 50 - banned from Clear Channel and Cox. Guilt by association. A GOP staple.

Then Natalie offered a conditional apology for what she had said about Bush43. That did nothing to allay the enmity of the Right Wing but it did disappoint her supporters. Then she reneged on the apology, making everyone mad at her. She was known on right wing talk radio as “Hanoi Natalie.”

Foot Note. The Dixie Chicks won in all 5 categories they were nominated in at the 2007 Grammy Awards.

I bring this to your attention merely to document my earlier expressed concerns - fears - that the GOP - even with McCain - who expressed cautious support for the Dixie Chicks at a Senate hearing - at the top of the ticket, will play the race card. The 527s are gearing up for the race-baiting 20 second ads that is their speciality. There are many websites that allege Obama is a Muslim trojan horse. You cannot "raise hope" when you have to spend too much time defendimg your parentage or your religon.

There is no way any white person - redneck - over 35 and in the south of America below the Mason-Dixon Line nor those white voters elsewhere who share their racial - racist - outlook, are going to vote for a black man at the top of any ticket. Yes, he’ll carry 99.44% of the black vote, but that will win him ONLY W-DC. 3 electoral votes. It takes 270 votes to win.

All McCain has to do is SOFT PEDAL the immigration issue and he will catch 50% of the Hispanic vote. I see dark days for the Dems.

[edit on 2/13/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Feb, 13 2008 @ 02:51 PM
link   
the anti-bush backlash is still alive and well, but it may be blunted to some extent by the fears that Don has just mentioned. I'll be the first one to admit that I didn't forsee Obama catching fire the way he has. I did make the case that he would have enough mojo to get the Vice Prsidency, but I didn't anticipate the wave that might now carry him to his party's nomination.

If I were a GOP strategist, I might be pulling a few strings to make it all the more possible for Obama to beat Clinton. If she is too proud to take the Vice Presidency, Obama's had vs. the Republicans would be weakened.

Bear in mind that I stil expect a turn-around for Mrs. Clinton. She's invested too much and prepared for too long to be aced out by the new guy. The convention is coming, and there are deals to be made. Thare are also many States left to hold their primaries. Not all of them wil be so willing to embrace Obama.

These are the realities of the situation.



posted on Feb, 13 2008 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Justin Oldham
 


You cannot blame Obama. Perhaps like Edwards, or even Romney, Obama meant to “test the waters” and to make a name for himself to help gain clout in the Dem’s inner circles and to make a larger mark for himself in the Senate. Now that he has smelled “blood” it will be like asking the Great White Shark to back off. Ain’t gonna happen. Here is where I fault him. He ought to know better than I that he cannot be elected in America in 2008. If he sat as VP until 2016, then the time would be ripe.

I am sorry to see this happen. The US Supreme Court is up for grabs in the next 4 years. The Dems control of the Senate can prevent more Thomas, Roberts, Alito and Scalia types. But PREVENT is not good enough. We need to UNDO this court and the preceding Rehnquist court’s largely successful efforts to RUIN America. Roe will be gone. Brown will be gone.

And all the protections Americans came to expect will be gone. Agencies that make life civil. Like mortgage regulations. Things like Food and Drug and Consumer Product Safety, Environment and Occupational safety, wage and hours, and etc. The Reagan Revolution must be UN-revolted.

[edit on 2/13/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Feb, 13 2008 @ 05:24 PM
link   
I disagree with Obama's politics, but I will not fault him for seeking the Presidency. I don't think he is uppity. I don't think he has forgotten his place. For that matter, I DO think that America has evolved enough to elect a black man to our highest office.

From the standpoint of party strategy, I find it ironic that he could lose to a handicapped Republican who is persecuted inside the ranks of his own party. There's arole reversal there that just tickles my funny bone.

I still say that he will be out-maneuvered, and Hillary will get the Presidency. From a purely Machievellian standpoint, that would be the ideal outcome for the Democrats. Why? Because they'd have a lock on hte White House for the next 16 years.

I'd rather not see that, but I can't always have my way.




new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join