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: 22
12
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 27 2008 @ 01:00 AM
link   
Earlier today, Senators Clinton and obama met in Ohio for their 20th debate. This event was hosted by MSNBC, moderated by Tim Russert. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. Hillary functions better when she’s mad. She’s much more precise when she’s cranky, which is what she needs to beat Obama.

This evening, she was mission specific and specific about her credentials. It’s what she should have been doing all along. She didn’t have to jab with racial stuff, or even resort to nit-picky remarks that could’ve been taken the wrong way. The only way she beats Obama is on specifics.

Having said that, I think the debate was a draw. Mrs. Clinton held her own and maintained a strong image through to the very end. She did make Obama stammer a few times, which told me that he was trying a little too hard to parse his words. As I read his body language, I think that Senator Obama was a little peeved at having to work so hard.

Now, it’s time to wait and see what the fallout is from this debate. It may have helped Senator Clinton in Ohio, but I’m doubtful that she got any boost from it in Texas. We should know if it helped her within 48 hours.

It’s possible that the new campaign manager, Maggie Willians, is responsible for this tuned up Hillary. If that’s true, we can expect to see more fire in the future. If not, then we have to accept the fact that this debate performance may have been a fluke.




posted on Feb, 27 2008 @ 06:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Justin Oldham
 


Earlier today, Senators Clinton and obama met in Ohio for their 20th debate. This event was hosted by MSNBC, moderated by Tim Russet. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. Hillary functions better when she’s mad. She’s much more precise when she’s cranky, which is what she needs to beat Obama. The only way she beats Obama is on specifics.

Having said that, I think the debate was a draw. Mrs. Clinton held her own and maintained a strong image through to the very end. She did make Obama stammer a few times, which told me that he was trying a little too hard to parse his words. As I read his body language, I think that Senator Obama was a little peeved at having to work so hard. It may have helped Senator Clinton in Ohio, but I’m doubtful that she got any boost from it in Texas. We should know if it helped her within 48 hours. It’s possible that the new campaign manager, Maggie Williams, is responsible for this tuned up Hillary.


1) Thanks for the good evaluation, Mr J/O. I’ve been watching the Dems debates - mostly out of the corner of my eye - and I’ve noticed your posts afterwards are “right on.” You are not bashful about your ability to parse the politicos, but I never complain when a men is telling the truth. See, I was able to use that good word “parse” too. And it was the best word to describe Obama. He’s got to stay LOOSE if he is to keep his bobby-soxer crowd cheering! They want to hear a “Give’m Hell, Harry” type speech! Not a lecture on good government. Style over substance.

2) Are you willing to go out on the limb and say when you think it will best serve the Dems for Hillary to “thrown in the towel?” Or do you think she should stay in until the bitter end at Denver.

3) Now what’s all this hullabaloo over McCain dropping in and out of the Federal election finance scheme? Was he IN when he was broke but now that he’s riding high, he wants OUT? Is that what is called a “safety net” in other circumstances? “Hey guy, we’re here when you need us?” Sort of a politicians homeless shelter? Does this point to McCain as maybe a "closet" socialist? Let me know your take here, please.



posted on Feb, 27 2008 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite
1) Thanks for the good evaluation, Mr J/O. I’ve been watching the Dems debates - mostly out of the corner of my eye - and I’ve noticed your posts afterwards are “right on.” You are not bashful about your ability to parse the politicos, but I never complain when a men is telling the truth. See, I was able to use that good word “parse” too. And it was the best word to describe Obama. He’s got to stay LOOSE if he is to keep his bobby-soxer crowd cheering! They want to hear a “Give’m Hell, Harry” type speech! Not a lecture on good government. Style over substance.


I call 'em like I see 'em.



Originally posted by donwhite
2) Are you willing to go out on the limb and say when you think it will best serve the Dems for Hillary to “thrown in the towel?” Or do you think she should stay in until the bitter end at Denver.


If I was on the Clinton payroll right now...which I am not...I would say 'stay in,' for the following reasons. a) The MSM is turning on Obama faster than it turned on Hillary. b) by his own hand, Obama is undoing some of his mojo. Mistakes count. If she can stay in long enough, he'll hang himself with his own rope.


Originally posted by donwhite
3) Now what’s all this hullabaloo over McCain dropping in and out of the Federal election finance scheme? Was he IN when he was broke but now that he’s riding high, he wants OUT? Is that what is called a “safety net” in other circumstances? “Hey guy, we’re here when you need us?” Sort of a politicians homeless shelter? Does this point to McCain as maybe a "closet" socialist? Let me know your take here, please.


Last year, the up and coming Obama did challenge a broke and busted John McCain to go public finance IF they are they nominees of their respective parties.

The lawyers are still wrestling, but it looks like McCain may have used his public finance option for loan collateral. If this turns out to be true, he'll have to go public finance whether he wants to or not.

Obama has been backing off on his challenge to McCain because he's sitting on a huge pile of cash.

My advice to McCain? Republican doners aren't going to be generous to him. Take the public finance option and run as the People's Candidate. Stick it hard to Obama if he does reneg on that challenge, which he will most certainly do.



posted on Feb, 28 2008 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Justin Oldham
 


I have argued that Americans will not vote for a black man for president. I said that because I believed it. But now, I am SO HAPPY to report that I was DEAD WRONG!

Look here:

Colorado cast 80,000 votes for Barack which was 67% of the Dems total vote.
Connecticut cast 180,000 votes for Barack, 57% of the Dem total.
Delaware cast 51,000 votes for Barack, 53% of the Dem total.
Hawaii cast 28,000 votes for Barack, 76% of the total Dem votes cast.
Iowa gave Barack 30% of its delegates. Blacks make up less than 2% of the Iowa population.
Kansas cast 27,000 votes for Barack, 74% of the total Dem vote.
Idaho cast 16,000 votes for Barack, 79% of the total Dem votes cast.
Maine cast 2,000 votes for Barack, 59% of the Dem total.
Massachusetts cast 511,000 votes to put Barack in 2ns place, with 41% of the vote.
Michigan cast 237,000 votes for Barack which gave him 2nd place, with 40% of the vote.
Minnesota cast 142,000 votes for Barack, 66% of the Dems total vote.
Nebraska cast 26,000 votes for Barack, 68% of the Dem vote.
Losing in New Hampshire, Barack nevertheless polled 104,000 votes or 37% of the total Dem vote.
North Dakota cast 11,600 votes for Barack, 61% of the total Dem votes cast.
Barack finished 2nd in New Mexico with 71,000 votes, 48% of the total cast.
Wisconsin gave Barack 646,000 votes, 58% of the total Dem votes.

And California gave Barack 1,200,000 votes and second place, with 43% of the Dem vote. By the bye, Obama came within 90,000 votes of equaling both McCain and Romney combined!

So I was WRONG. Americans will vote for a black man for president if they believe he has what it takes to do the job! For that, I am very pleasantly surprised! Where there are votes, there is hope!
www.cnn.com...

[edit on 2/28/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Feb, 28 2008 @ 05:36 PM
link   
I would not feel bad at all to be wrong about the ascendancy of Hillary Clinton. the fact that certain African American super delegates are now abandonning her would seem to indicate that she's losing support faster than we may realize.

Although, can you imagine...the paybacks...if she does win her party's nomination? The Clintons are known for their paybacks. Ouch.



posted on Feb, 28 2008 @ 07:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Justin Oldham
 


I would not feel bad at all to be wrong about the ascendancy of Hillary Clinton. the fact that certain African American super delegates are now abandoning her would seem to indicate that she's losing support faster than we may realize. can you imagine ... the pay backs ... if she does win her party's nomination? The Clintons are known for their pay backs. Ouch.


Remember the 1st and 2nd rules of politics? 1) Never forget your friends. 2) Never forget your enemies.

Hillary is “damaged goods.” Wolf Blitzer was trying to make a story out of a non-story by asking the talking heads “WHAT IF” Hillary barely wins Texas and Ohio? No one said what came instantly to me, she LOSES. A near miss will be no better than a missed shot! Another adage, close only counts in horseshoes.

It’s over. I’m sorry. I wanted to see America get a female president. I did once believe that Obama would be better placed in ‘16 after 8 years as VP. But why wait? Remember what I said Oprah told Barack? She pushed him out onto the stage and said, “Sink or swim, but make some waves!” He did and he’s swimming! (She might have said, "Boy" but I wasn't there).

[edit on 2/28/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Feb, 28 2008 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by donwhite
 


I suggest that you read up on the "Bradley ( or Wilder) Effect". Do you think it will be a factor in the general election, assuming that Obama is the Democratic nominee? I haven't a clue myself; none of the events so far have gone down as I expected just a few months ago.



[edit on 2/28/2008 by TheAvenger]



posted on Feb, 29 2008 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by TheAvenger
 


My earlier thinking was sharply influenced by the Bradley Effect. I have suspected that was the case and became convinced it was in “Effect” in both Iowa and NH.

But after Oprah got involved in his campaign, we are seeing a different Obama. He has scored 10 or 11 straight wins, which regardless of the number of delegates, is TOO much for Hillary to slow, stop or overcome. He’s riding the perfect wave!



The researchers noted opinion polls taken just prior to an election tended to overestimate Obama in states with a black population below eight percent; to track him within the polls' margins of error in states with a black population between ten and twenty percent, and to underestimate him in states with a black population exceeding twenty-five percent.

The first finding suggested the possibility of the Bradley effect, while the last finding suggested the possibility of a "reverse" Bradley effect in which black voters might have been reluctant to declare to pollsters their support for Obama . . in each state with inaccurate opinion polls for the Democratic contest involving Obama, those same polls accurately predicted the outcome of that state's Republican contest, featuring only white candidates.

While their cause continues to be debated, the pollsters' errors have raised expectations that as the presidential primary season progresses, Obama's polling numbers will be widely scrutinized as analysts try to definitively determine whether the Bradley effect has become a significant factor in the race. en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Feb, 29 2008 @ 03:46 PM
link   
Obama's popularity is driven by several things. The simple truth is that "new" is "new." I think some people have gotten wise to the fact that if you want new blood in politics, you have to vote for people who have no experience in politics. I also think that some degree of Political Correctness does shiled Mr. Obama from his critics.

Even so, the fact remains that Hillary is just not htat friendly, or telegenic. Her oratory is not that polished, and she does not score highly in the fashion department. Don will recall the Kennedy-Nixon dichotomy in which the younger handsomer more polished man beat the grizzled veteran and all around 'experienced' candidate.

Even so, we've got to remember that people vote with their hearts in a primary. They vote more pragmatically during a general election. when its time to make the comparison, Obama may be all sizzle and no steak when compared to McCain. Let's also remember that McCain has a different debate style than Hillary does.

I don't rate McCain's chances to win as being very high, but I do think that he will scrap like Hillary does not do at this time.



posted on Feb, 29 2008 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Justin Oldham
 


Obama's popularity is driven by several things. The simple truth is that "new" is "new." I also think that some degree of Political Correctness does shield Mr. Obama from his critics . . the fact remains that Hillary is just not that friendly . . Her oratory is not that polished . . Don will recall the Kennedy-Nixon dichotomy in which the younger handsomer more polished man beat the grizzled veteran and all around 'experienced' candidate.

Even so, we've got to remember that people vote with their hearts in a primary. They vote more pragmatically during a general election. when its time to make the comparison, Obama may be all sizzle and no steak when compared to McCain. Let's also remember that McCain has a different debate style than Hillary does. I don't rate McCain's chances to win as being very high, but I do think that he will scrap like Hillary does not do at this time.


Yes, I do recall the sharp contrast between JFK and Nixon. I also heard that Nixon’s make-up people were still new to tv. But JFK also had to overcome the Protestant’s latent anti-Catholic feelings. And, recall too that this was the election in which it was said ONE vote made the difference. One vote in each precinct! JFK’s margin was slightly less than 1 vote per precinct in the US although the electoral college was not that close. JFK carried 23 states, while Nixon carried the remainder but for the State Rights ticket. California voted GOP. Popular vote Dems, 34,220,984 GOP, 34,108,157. Electoral vote, Dems 303, GOP 219, States Rights 15.



posted on Mar, 1 2008 @ 02:29 PM
link   
Many members have speculated in other threads that Senator Obama benefits from his image more than Senator benefits from hers. How likely is it that voters will have "buyer's remorse" when we get to the general election?

This is one reason why I've said that the Democrats need to field an Obama-Clinton ticket, or a Clinton-Obama ticket. If eitehr one of these people does NOT end up on the President-VP menu, the Democratic Party will be torn apart. Having both means the party's wounds would heal faster.



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Justin Oldham
 


How likely is it that voters will have "buyer's remorse" when we get to the general election? This is one reason I've said that the Democrats need to field an Obama-Clinton ticket, or a Clinton-Obama ticket. If either one of these people does NOT end up on the President-VP menu, the Democratic Party will be torn apart. Having both means the party's wounds would heal faster.


1) Keeping my fingers crossed on possible 'buyer’s remorse.'

2) Add my reason that no Dem winner who is not Obama can afford to NOT publicly offer him the VP slot. To do otherwise would imperil the long reliable and steadfast black vote for the Dems. And rightly so.

3) Referring to my 2) above, I do not see the Dems splitting in Denver. I hope my limited vision is not extending over into political observations!



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 03:05 PM
link   
If the Democrats can handle their convention, they stand to be an unbeatable force for the next 16 years. I make no secret of the fact that I think that the Democratic "wave" that overtakes us will make us look back on W, and think he was mild by comparison.



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Justin Oldham
 


If the Democrats can handle their convention, they stand to be an unbeatable force for the next 16 years. I make no secret of the fact that I think that the Democratic "wave" that overtakes us will make us look back on W, and think he was mild by comparison.


OK Mr J/O, but what if? What if the Iraqi government reaches an accommodation on the oil revenues? What if the accommodation greatly reduces the impetus of the insurgents so that violence is nearly passe? What if around July-August, the President begins withdrawing American forces from Iraq in brigade numbers? What if by November 4, our troop level in Iraq is below 50,000?

What if Israel makes an offer the PA cannot refuse? What if the Iranians made acceptable overtures including re-admitting the IAEA into Iran? What if Kim Jong Il does not KIDNAP the NY Philharmonic Orchestra and instead, invites the NY Yankees to do an exhibition game? What if all those good things happen BEFORE November 4?

Would that alter your gloomy forecast?



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 07:32 PM
link   
Now, you're just pullin' my leg.


Originally posted by donwhite
OK Mr J/O, but what if? What if the Iraqi government reaches an accommodation on the oil revenues? What if the accommodation greatly reduces the impetus of the insurgents so that violence is nearly passe?


Insurgent sentiment doesn't turn entirely on the matter of oil revenue sharing. It also turns on representation in government, and in civil service. Your hypothetical oil deal is possible, but that by itself wouldn't be enough . Recent legislation passed and signed in to law that would allow some low-level Bathists back in to civil service would also make it easier for Shiites to persecute Sunnis. the political scientist in me says THEY have a long decade ahead of them before these things can be worked out. They'll do it, eventually. Just not in this calendar year.


Originally posted by donwhite
What if around July-August, the President begins withdrawing American forces from Iraq in brigade numbers? What if by November 4, our troop level in Iraq is below 50,000?


That WOULD by a lot of good will, but it would still be too little too late. The Democratic nomiee would easily be able to paint the GOP as "waking up too late to what what the rest of us have known for the last three years." today's old guys who run the GOP aren't capable of making hay out of this political boon, even if it should occur.


Originally posted by donwhite
What if Israel makes an offer the PA cannot refuse?


That would only become a real world possibility if the IDf were to blitz Gaza, forcing the Hamas faction in to Egypt. Then, they could turn to the Abbas regime (with smoking gun in hand),and make their offer. If Fatah could negotiate out in the open without fear of immediate Hamas reprisal, I think that Abbas himself might risk assassination to make that deal.


Originally posted by donwhite
What if the Iranians made acceptable overtures including re-admitting the IAEA into Iran?


The Iranians have nothing to gain and everything to lose by giving in on the nuclear question at this point. Even if all the ydo is re-admit U.S. inspectors, there would be no advantage or reward in it for them that would justify the backstep.



Originally posted by donwhite
What if Kim Jong Il does not KIDNAP the NY Philharmonic Orchestra and instead, invites the NY Yankees to do an exhibition game?


The North Koreans are getting more than they are losing by "dealing" with the West just now. So far as I know, the NYC orchestra is home safe and sound. If he could get something for nothing by inviting the Yankees, you can bet that Dear Leader would do so in hot minute.



Originally posted by donwhite
What if all those good things happen BEFORE November 4? Would that alter your gloomy forecast?


I'd have to check my meds, and then think about giving up my tinfoil hat.



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 09:09 PM
link   
The chances of peace coming to Iraq before November are nil . There is no way the Tab would bother to take bets on the matter. Federalism and Iraq don't mix . All the successes against the enemy have come at the local level with the likes of tribal leaders turning against the insurgency.

Centralized power arguable help led to Saddam rise in power . Also Iraq has it share of of minority's such as Christians who may lack representation in government and protection from the slaughter .



posted on Mar, 3 2008 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by xpert11
 


The chances of peace coming to Iraq before November are nil . There is no way the Tab would bother to take bets on the matter. Federalism and Iraq don't mix. All the successes against the enemy have come at the local level with the likes of tribal leaders turning against the insurgency. Centralized power arguably helped Saddam’s rise in power. Also Iraq has its share of minority's such as Christians who may lack representation in government and protection from the slaughter.


Iraq. Borders established in 1920 by Great Britain and France. Accepted by the League of Nations which designated GB to exercise the mandate which was to bring the country up to western standards then to turn them free. This was accomplished on 3 October 1932. Note: on 28 June 2004 the CPA transferred power to an Iraqi provisional government.

Area: 164,000 square miles. (California is 156,000 sq miles). Population: 27,500,000. (2007 est). Median age: 20 years.
Religions: Muslim 97% (Shi'a 60%-65%, Sunni 32%-37%), Christian or other 3%
Ethnicity: Arab 75%-80%, Kurdish 15%-20%, Turkoman, Assyrian, or other 5%

The inhabitants of what we - white Euro-types - first called Iraq have now got 88 years invested in the new borders. Perhaps 2-3 million of them have been killed since 1980 in one way or another arguing - fighting - over borders. I offer that the cultural heritages of the three major groups point AWAY FROM and not TOWARDS a strong Federal state.

Shucks, we have not stopped arguing over that here in the US of A since 1789. Presently, the ANTI Federalist are in the dominant mode. Historically, America was PRO Federalist from 1789 to 1801. Then from 1861 to 1865. And last, from 1933 to 1953 with a slight PRO recovery from 1964-1968. All the rest of our history has been under ANTI Federalist forces.

Some scholars - non Republicans - have urged the 3 autonomous regions approach to Iraq, and call it what you want if that will help make it work. As the Turks just illustrated, they will NOT allow an independent Kurdistan. While that lesson is fresh in the minds of the Kurds and while the Sunni are in a talking mode, this would be the time to have a sit-down and get these arraignments worked out. But alas, Bush43 is not interested in any heavy lifting beyond a good photo op like Annapolis, for his legacy scrapbook. IF God ever Designates another AWOL MBA as our president, I’m outta here! Say Hello, Ottawa.

[edit on 3/3/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Mar, 3 2008 @ 04:50 PM
link   
I still hold that in the long term spiting up Iraq into three autonomous regions or interdependent states is the only way to go . Don has pretty much made the case for me Iraq was never a country instead it was the creation of post WW1 backstabbing that still haunts us today. I don't doubt that military the US could continue to put pressure on the insurgency but the problem is in ten years the Iraqi government could well be just as ineffective .

As for Turkey not supporting a Kurdish state that just shows what a bad idea this whole venture has been . Here is a map showing how the borders should have been drawn up post war WW1.



posted on Mar, 3 2008 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by xpert11
 


I still hold that in the long term splitting up Iraq into three autonomous regions or interdependent states is the only way to go. Don has pretty much made the case for me Iraq was never a country instead it was the creation of post WW1 backstabbing that still haunts us today. I don't doubt that militarily the US could continue to put pressure on the insurgency but the problem is in ten years the Iraqi government could well be just as ineffective. As for Turkey not supporting a Kurdish state that just shows what a bad idea this whole venture has been. Here is a map showing how the borders should have been drawn up post war WW1.


Very good map. I’m sorry to say all I know about Lawrence of Arabia is what I saw in the movie. I do know he spoke fluent Arabic. That he had high respect for Arab culture. I don’t know how his religion played out but it did not seem to bother either side. I know he got killed in a motorcycle accident. No conspiracy, just too much fog. Perhaps we are making more out or our religious differences that deserves. Maybe the War Mongers are doing that on both sides?

Turkey does not want a Kurdistan. Armenians do not want a Kurdistan. Iran does not want a Kurdistan. Syria and Iraq do not want a Kurdistan. It is not “time” for a Kurdistan.

I assume you saw newscasts on BBC about Ahmadinejad being very well received on his visit to Iraq? He is the second president to visit Iraq. He was able to travel about while our own Maximum Leader George Bush had to HIDE at secure military bases. Bush43's “guests” had to come to him inside our multi-billion dollar Green Zone, but Ahmadinejad was able to travel about the country. What does that tell you?



posted on Mar, 4 2008 @ 03:25 PM
link   
I don't know about the rest of you, but I've got my popcorn and drinks. Ready for the returns.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join