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

I watched Clinton and Obama debate in Texas. It's true that Mrs. Clinton was more specfic than usual, but she failed to build up any momentum. She was positive, but she didn't highlight enough of her accomplishments to really sway the audience.

CNN has been nortorious, in my opinion, for its blatant pro-Clinton behavior. The moderators went out of their way...again...to make sure she got favorable questions. In many cases, she got to speak first, which turend out to be no real advantage.

How do you 'debate' somebody whom you don't really disagree with? Time and time again, she treid to make distinctions where there were none. She wasted a lot of valuable time that couldhave been used to greater effect by cataloging her achievements.

The pundits are reading a lot in to her closing remarks. CNN analysts, after the fact, suggested strongly that she was subliminally signalling her acceptance of defeat. I think she was just trying to go out on a gracious note because that's what most people will remember.

As long as she stays within 350 delegates of Obama's lead, she can go to the convention and negotiate from a strong position. Would she dare tempt the super delegates to over-rule the popular vote? I think she would. Then again, she might surprise me and actually accept the Vice Presidential nod, if offered.

Originally posted by donwhite
The Democrat's Convention is to be held in St. Paul, MN, August 25 to August 28.

Im not sure if anyone has pointed this out but the democrats convention is held in Denver the GOP is in Saint Paul! Wow.

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
Would she dare tempt the super delegates to over-rule the popular vote? .

IMO the only answer to that question is yes. Hillary has invested to much and made plans for to long to back down now. If she does win the nomination in this manner she is certainly going to owe a lot of favours . It would be well worthwhile keeping an eye out for how the favours get returned .

reply to post by bakednutz

Originally posted by donwhite
The Democrat's Convention is to be held in St. Paul, MN, August 25 to August 28.

I'm not sure if anyone has pointed this out but the democrats convention is held in Denver the GOP is in Saint Paul! Wow.

Thank you TWO times. 1) For actually reading my posts, and 2) for bringing this error to my attention. My dates for the Dems is correct. The GOP follows in St Paul as you pointed out, on September 1 to 4.

Note: Minneapolis-St. Paul-St. Cloud, MN-WI with an estimated population of 3.5 million people in 2006, ranked the 13th most populous in the U.S.

reply to post by xpert11

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
Would she dare tempt the super delegates to over-rule the popular vote?

IMO the only answer to that question is yes. Hillary has invested too much and made plans for too long to back down now. If she does win the nomination in this manner she is certainly going to owe a lot of favors. It would be well worthwhile keeping an eye out for how the favors get returned.

Once upon a time she would have been happy to do that. Inveigle the super delegates. But no one including me anticipated the resonance that Obama would make with the voting public. If the Dems race had played out like the GOP race, that is, between 3 candidates for a long time, then she would have had COVER to work behind the scenes. Now, the Dems race is out in the open and she cannot use the undoubted clout she holds in her hands.

Obama has proved to be the irresistible force and he has demonstrated THE FORCE overcomes the immovable object. It is still 256 days until November 4. If he holds his current wave of popularity - he was not injured in last nights debate - then he will SWEEP into office and carry 5-10 Senate seats and 25-40 House seats. Hello FDR!

Of course, the downside to gaining stronger control over the levers of power puts MORE responsibility on the Dems to right the wrongs of the past 8 years quickly and throughly. Like declaring the War on Terror over! Like repealing the Patriot Act. Like closing Guantanamo Bay. Like calling a Middle East Peace Conference including Hezbollah and Hamas, Iraq, Russia, China, France, Germany, Italy, Turkey, Iran, Pakistan, Egypt, Syria, as well as the oil rich Gulf States and Israel.

Then we must get a list of judicial appointments ready that will restore the golden era of the Warren-Burger Court. There is a lot of work to be done. Contracts to be un-done. Criminal laws to enforce. The economy will take car of itself. And etc.

It could happen!

[edit on 2/22/2008 by donwhite]

In my opinion, the Democrats blew this election cycle by not running Al Gore, (whom I detest) who would have won in a landslide. I suspect a deal was made many years ago for Al not to run in opposition to Hillary. As it is, the Democrats have two candidates running neck to neck which will only cause division of the party in the long run. If this horse race is decided by super-delegates and for Clinton, there will be an Obama backlash that may cause riots and even some Obama supporters to either vote for McCain as revenge or to not vote at all. A year ago everyone said Hillary was a certainty for the nomination, now they say Obama is. We'll just have to see how this plays out. The unfortunate thing is that we lose no matter who wins the election in November. This is the absolute worst field of candidates (in both parties) that I have ever seen in my life.

reply to post by TheAvenger

A year ago everyone said Hillary was a certainty for the nomination, now they say Obama is. We'll just have to see how this plays out. The unfortunate thing is that we lose no matter who wins the election in November.

Get on the bandwagon! Like a steamroller, it took time for it to gain speed, but it is now rolling and will prove impossible to stop. Bill Clinton said as much 2 days ago.

The '08 elections will be decided by people of color - brown and black AND white! Let's get onboard while the train is still standing in the station!

reply to post by xpert11

If she does win the nomination in this manner she is certainly going to owe a lot of favours.

On Florida's "Early" primary.

The Florida Constitution creates a bicameral state legislature with an upper house Senate of 40 members and a lower House of Representatives of 120 members. Due to term limits, House members may be elected for up to four terms (eight years), while State Senators can be elected for up to two terms (eight years).

Currently, the Florida Legislature breaks down as follows:
Senate, 26 GOP and 14 Dems.
House, 78 GOP and 42 Dems.
GOP 2008 statewide registered voters 3,825,727 (3,586,944 in ‘04)
Dem 2008 statewide registered voters 4,137,067 (3,916,207 in ‘04)

Florida’s Presidential Primary was held on March 9, in year 2004

Who sets the date for Florida’s Primary?

The state-run Presidential Preference Primary date is set by the Florida Legislature. In Florida, the Legislature is controlled by Republicans. In the 2007 legislative session, the Republican Speaker of the House made it a priority to move up the Primary to January 29, in violation of both Democratic and Republican National Committee Rules.

The Legislature passed the bill . . Republican Governor Charlie Crist signed the bill into law in May. Senate Democratic Leaders House Democratic Leaders introduced amendments to CS/HB 537 to hold the Presidential Preference Primary on the first Tuesday in February, instead of January 29th. These were defeated by the overwhelming Republican majority in each house.

Florida has 210 delegates. The DNC found Florida to be in non-compliance with DNC Rules because our Primary date does not comply with the schedule ordered by the DNC’s rules. Therefore, they have issued a 100% reduction of our delegates to the national convention.

In addition to the presidential primary vote, the Republican-controlled Legislature scheduled a ballot question on a constitutional amendment that will force drastic cuts in 2008-09 to local budgets that are already being cut in the upcoming budget. The amendment raised property tax exemptions from $250,000 to $500,000. Local services like libraries and community centers will be forced to cut literally thousands of jobs at the municipal level including firefighters, police, teachers, and others.
www.fladems.com...

The GOP does not anticipate winning the ‘08 election. Any mischief they can cause the Democrats must inure to their benefit. And it won’t hurt them anyway. Hence, Florida’s Republican legislature moved the primary up to January 29 to confuse and bumfuzzle the Democrats. A Republican dirty trick!

[edit on 2/22/2008 by donwhite]

Question for Don:

How did you rate Hillary's performance during the Texas debate, hosted by CNN?

reply to post by Justin Oldham

How did you rate Hillary's performance during the Texas debate, hosted by CNN?

On style, Hillary, 85 out of 100. Obama, 95 out of 100. Hillary lost here due to her "xerox" retort.

On content, Hillary, 80 out of 100 and Obama, 60. BUT Obama is riding a wave that does not require him to be very specific. It's 8 months until November 4, so I don't know if he can ride that wave that long or not. If he can, he's a shoo-in.

It's a tough thing to be the front runner in a general election. Even so, a lot can change between now and the nominating convention. John McCain is proof of that. Now that Obama is his party's front runner, you can expect him to get a taste of what Hillary got.

High minded idealism doesn't get you that far in a general election. Even so, Obama is up against a handicapped candidate. McCain does have a better chance of winning if he faces off against Brack Obama. I'm sure that Hillary must know that.

If she withdrew (gracefully) from the race, she could be well positioned for 2012, if Obama loses to McCain. It's likely that McCain would be a one term President, which would serve her purposes. She would never have to say, "I told you so." The media would do that for her.

By all rights Justin logic is correct McCain should stand a better chance of beating Obama rather then Hillary . However I don't think McCain could defeat a monkey because his party core supporters look set to skip the polls.

The GOP race has become boring so that leaves the Hillary - Obama race which is of interest. One simple lesson is not read to much into mid term polls . After all mid term polls had Rudy and Hillary with healthy leads.

The real scary thing is that last time the Republicans were out of office they dreamed up the Iraq war. I wonder what they cook up this time.

[edit on 23-2-2008 by xpert11]

J/O posted: Obama is up against a handicapped candidate. McCain does have a better chance of winning if he faces off against Barack Obama. If she [Hillary] withdrew gracefully from the race, she could be well positioned for 2012, if Obama loses to McCain. It's likely that McCain would be a one term President, which would serve her purposes. She would never have to say, "I told you so." The media would do that for her. End.

reply to post by xpert11

Justin logic is correct McCain should stand a better chance of beating Obama rather then Hillary. However I don't think McCain could defeat a monkey because his party core supporters look set to skip the polls. The GOP race has become boring so that leaves the Hillary-Obama race which is of interest. One simple lesson is not read too much into mid term polls . After all mid term polls had Rudy and Hillary with healthy leads. The real scary thing is that last time the Republicans were out of office they dreamed up the Iraq war. I wonder what they cook up this time.

Justin has predicted the GOP is due a long penance “wandering in the electoral wilderness” as in Moses and the Hebrew people out of Egypt. Forty years it says in Exodus. Actually, looking back at the more recent past, the Dems held sway only from 1933 to 1953, a mere twenty years. As J/O has pointed out in other threads, the opportunity for corruption afflicts both parties in equal amounts, and the public has only one remedy available, to change horses periodically.

Since both sides profit from the shenanigans in W-DC, neither side will stop it even if it has the needed majorities in the Congress to put it to rest. For them - W-DC regulars - its “inside the beltway” versus all of us who are “outside the beltway” and you know who wins that one. See J/O’s thread on Radicalization of America.

[edit on 2/24/2008 by donwhite]

A very interesting monkey wrench has just been thrown in to the works. Ralph Nader announced on "Meet the Press" that he is going to run for President. ATS members will recall that Nader cost Al Gore the 2000 election, and he may have played some small role in the defeat of John Kerry in 2004.

If you just gotta have yourself a conspiracy theory, consider the following:

It's possible that a Clinton surrogate has nudged Nader in to the campaign to do a hatchet job on Obama.

During his half hour appearance on MTP, Nader spent most of his time talking about Obama, and he did make a number of striking pointsthat the Obama camp will need to react to some time today. It's owrth noting that Nader is prone to saying what's on his mind because he can afford to do so. He can say things against almost anyone, and get away with it.

We can put this little theory of mine to th test. Let's watch what Nader says and does,a nd take notes. If he goes after Obama more than Clinton, you'll know what his mission is.

"A party that presided over a war in which our troops did not get the body armor they needed, or were sending troops over who were untrained because of poor planning, or are not fulfilling the veterans' benefits that these troops need when they come home, or are undermining our Constitution with warrantless wiretaps that are unnecessary?

Source

I must admit that Obama had a good response to the routine attacks on his patriotism. Next will come the routine claims that he is weak on national security which will be dealt with just as easily. Obama reminds of the leader of opposition John Key a lot of style but very little substance.

Nader had his moment in the sun in 2000 now other people who want to run on a third party ticket should take notes and try and do better.

[edit on 25-2-2008 by xpert11]

posted by Justin Oldham
A very interesting monkey wrench has just been thrown in to the works. Ralph Nader announced on "Meet the Press" that he is going to run for President. ATS members will recall that Nader cost Al Gore the 2000 election, and he may have played some small role in the defeat of John Kerry in 2004.

If you just gotta have yourself a conspiracy theory, consider the following: It's possible that a Clinton surrogate has nudged Nader in to the campaign to do a hatchet job on Obama. Watch what Nader says and does, and take notes. If he goes after Obama more than Clinton, you'll know what his mission is.

I recall well when lawyer Ralph Nader became the darling of consumer reform sector. He was something of a car buff, writing his first book, “Unsafe At Any Speed” prompted by the dangerously deficient 1958 Buick and 1960 Chevrolet Corvair cars. See Foot Note.

GM hired a private detective agency to follow him and to search his personal background for any dirt. They were caught. Nader sued GM and won an undisclosed settlement for several millions which was real money in the 1960s. He used it to support his CRUSADE against poor quality and shoddy retail goods and then he morphed into a GREEN person. That has been his primary mission since the 1970s.

Nader warned the Dems in 2000 that unless they adopted a platform in real support of the environment, he would run. They did not and he did. Yes, Nader cost the Dems the 2000 election, polling 3 million votes that 90% of which would have voted Dem. Thereby giving us Bush43 and all that group that goes with him. For that I’m sad. I too support the environment but I know those in power must make compromises those out of power enjoy the luxury of not having to make. IMO, Nader had no impact on ‘04, and I predict he will have little or no impact in ‘08. Green-leaning Dems learned one hard lesson in ‘00 not to be soon forgotten.

reply to post by xpert11

"A party that presided over a war in which our troops did not get the body armor they needed, or were sending troops over who were untrained because of poor planning, or are not fulfilling the veterans' benefits that these troops need when they come home, or are undermining our Constitution with warrantless wiretaps that are unnecessary?

I must admit that Obama had a good response to the routine attacks on his patriotism. Next will come the routine claims that he is weak on national security which will be dealt with just as easily. Obama reminds of the leader of opposition John Key a lot of style but very little substance. Nader had his moment in the sun in 2000 now other people who want to run on a third party ticket should take notes and try and do better.

America has a built-in bias for a two party system. Ins and Outs. For and Against. We have never had to make compromises as those in Europe have learned to make and live with. We plainly do not have any incentive for a multi-party system. Some people say the new in 1856 Republican Party was a third party. If that be so, then you could say it won in 1860. I have forgotten what Lincoln called the Party in 1864, but his VP candidate was a War Democrat. Sort of like a coalition party put together for the purpose of the war.

The 1912 election included the only third party that determined the outcome of the election*. Former president Theodore Roosevelt, angered by his hand picked successor, William Howard Taft for not pursuing his governmental and social reforms. TR formed the Progressive Party and polled more electoral votes than the GOP candidate, Taft. TR was shot while speaking during the campaign. He continued his speech to its conclusion then sought medical care. For that heroic act he was said to be as strong as a “Bull Moose” and hence, his Party was thereafter called the Bull Moose Party.

You know that Ross Perot polled 19% of the votes in 1992, but gained not one electoral vote. I have argued he appealed equally to Dems and GOPS so that he made no difference but not everyone agrees with me. In 2000, Ralph Nader polled 67,000 votes in Florida, but for those votes, Gore would have won Florida handily. Recall the Supreme Court stopped the vote count when Bush43 was ahead by 537 votes. 15,000 votes remain uncounted to this day. There was another 3rd party effort of note in 1948. Truman handily beat Dewey, despite those 3rd (and a 4th party, too) efforts.

*The Supreme Court determined the outcome in 2000.

Foot Note. In 1958 Buick’s top of the line was the Roadmaster Limited. It weighed nearly 5,000 pounds in the 4 door sedan version. Powered by a 300 hp V8, the car was inadequately supplied with brakes. The car was so heavy and the brakes so bad that it could not be brought to a complete stop from 70 mph - the speed limit on interstates - 1 time without severe brake fade. Buick had not improved its brakes for years but kept adding to the weight and horsepower of its cars.

The 1960 Chevrolet Corvair was a new entry into the compact car field to compete with the rising number of imports mainly from Europe and a few from Japan. The Corvair was a rear engine car. GM chose to use “swing axles” at the rear, to save a U-joint on each of the 2 half-shafts that took the power from the engine to the rear wheels. A very rudimentary design, it had the serious flaw that the car could not be braked hard in a fast turn without the inside rear wheel “tucking under” the car, thereby flipping it. This effect is known as "oversteer" and very dangerous in unskilled hands. Front engine cars have an "understeer" effect which is easier to cope with. The addition of a second set of U-joints to the rear assembly negates that problem, but at a cost of $1.50 each, GM opted to go for the bad design because of the cost savings!

Volkswagen Beetles also suffered from this same design fault but a different breed of owners drove VWs as compared to those who owned and drove Chevrolets. After 2,000 people had died in Corvairs, GM fixed the fault in the second generation Corvair, but the damage was done and the car was soon dropped. VW also suffered perhaps 1,000 deaths due to its design and fixed its very poor rear suspension which in VWs case, was at least matched by its very poor front suspension. (With 2 U-joints on each half shaft, the rear suspension is called an "articulated" independent suspension).

[edit on 2/25/2008 by donwhite]

Is it possible that the Clintons urged Nader in to the race? Is Ralph Nader being paid to take down Barack Obama? It's altogether possible that he might have an understand of some sorts with the Mr. and Mrs. Clinton.

reply to post by Justin Oldham

Is it possible that the Clintons urged Nader in to the race? Is Ralph Nader being paid to take down Barack Obama? It's altogether possible that he might have an understand of some sorts with the Mr. and Mrs. Clinton.

Like if Hillary wins Ralph could be the Sec of Interior or EPA Administrator? Or the head of a reinvigorated Consumer Product Safety Commission? I doubt that. You may recall what happens when kids put a penny on a rail for the train to pass over? The penny is flattened. The train roars on! Nader is the penny, Obama is the train. It takes a lot to stop a juggernaut. Not a do-good plea.

Ralph Nader despite his age, is still an idealistic advocate for the impossible. Like Norman Thomas who ran 6 times for the presidency, Ralph is a perennial candidate at heart.

I say impossible because we are already past the tipping point. IMO. We are not about to ban vehicles over 3,000 pounds and over 3 liters from our roads. We are not about to phase out those remaining vehicles to be replaced by hybrids by 2015. We are not about to tax gasoline $1.00 a gallon, a Green tax.

And to tax CO2 emissions. Thereby raising the price of everything and taking America OFF the consumer binge it has been on since 1945. No, we are doomed to suffer what consequences of mucking with nature has in store for us. The poor will die off by the millions and the R&Fs will continue the good life behind the gated community guardhouse posting NO TRESPASSING free fire zone warning signs. The guards will be armed with M16s and shoot to kill authority.

God Bless America, Land of the Free and Home of the Brave.

[edit on 2/25/2008 by donwhite]

I may be giving Senator Clinton more credit than she s due, but it occurs to me that Nader could be good for her, if he goes after Obama. If the race between Clinton and Obama remains tights, Nader would only need to nibble at Obama's lead just enough to ensure a brokered convention.

reply to post by Justin Oldham

I may be giving Senator Clinton more credit than she s due, but it occurs to me that Nader could be good for her, if he goes after Obama. If the race between Clinton and Obama remains tights, Nader would only need to nibble at Obama's lead just enough to ensure a brokered convention.

I perceive there is disenchantment in the Clinton camp. I don't know about the Somalia photo, where it came from, who put it out there, but Obama is blaming Hillary. That may be a deflection tactic. It is the kind of thing Obama ought to ignore, as it will not reduce the enthusiasm his followers are displaying. If you can recall a disheki was popular for a while. Heck, there may be some pics of Obama wearing a DIAPER! What could you make of that?

It's like a field and track meet. You see your fast number 4 man on the relay team being overtaken by his opponent. You know by the rate of overtake that the race is all over but the shouting.

We’re a GOOD second. Let’s keep it that way.

[edit on 2/26/2008 by donwhite]