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

For the record I am picking a narrow win for Hillary in Texas. My reasoning is that Hillary political connections will finally pay off for her either that or she will owe people favours.

Owning favours is a part of politics what makes it stand out quiet a bit in the US is that the presidents cabinet is appointed and not elected.

Cheers xpert11.

reply to post by xpert11

Owning favours is a part of politics what makes it stand out quiet a bit in the US is that the presidents cabinet is appointed and not elected.

In the year 2000, I heard reliably that the White House has 3,000 appointees. I also heard Congressional employees were 38,000. I'm pretty sure both numbers have grown over the last 8 years. Ask J/O about that.


[edit on 3/4/2008 by donwhite]

You might be looking for this:

The Office of Personnel Management's Plum Book, published at the start of each presidential Administration, shows that there are more than 3,000 positions a President can fill without consideration for civil service rules. And Bush has gone further than most Presidents to put political stalwarts in some of the most important government jobs you've never heard of, and to give them genuine power over the bureaucracy.

SOURCE.

I found an Australian point of view that I think is worth sharing.

But now Australian political leaders have a better reason to be concerned about the prospect of an Obama Administration in Washington.

The Democrat hoping to become the first African American US president is shaping as a strident protectionist, and that is bad news for a country like Australia which relies on free trade.

As Foreign Minister Stephen Smith said on the SUNDAY program last weekend: "It is of concern to us that the United States might move to a more protectionist position.

Source

Note that Aust already has a free trade agreement with the US so if elected Obama wouldn't have a lot of room to move . Going by memory sugar was excluded from the agreement. Behind closed doors the Helen Clark and other NZ politicians must be thinking along similar lines.

If Obama is elected and stays true to his stance the low chance NZ has of getting a free trade agreement with the US will disappear . So I certainly don't like Obama protectionist stance which is another good reason why I'm not sold on the guy.

On another note according CNN Hillary has won Ohio and Obama has won Vermont. Results for the key state of Texas are not yet in.

Source

[edit on 4-3-2008 by xpert11]

And, the resultsare in. John McCain has a lock on his party's nomination, and Hillary Clinton is still in the game. She wins Texas, Ohio, and Rhode Island. What are your thoughts?

Hillary was never going to let Obama steam roll her . Superdelegates will break the deadlock and the dems convention may well just be just campaign platform it could where the nomination is decided . Hillary pulled a few strings her political connections were going to work in her favour . Bill will also be wheeling and dealing behind the scenes. In terms of McCain this thread has just come back to life.

I am also pondering if the Republicans can win back Congress see this thread for more on this matter.

Between the pending election on home front and events in the US its going to be a very interesting year.

[edit on 5-3-2008 by xpert11]

[edit on 5-3-2008 by xpert11]

It's possible that the Texas win will signal a shift in the Hispanic vote that could make Senator Clinton a force to be reckoned with. It's not being widely talked about, but the media is slowly turning on Senator Obama. Several ATS members have correctly surmised that Obama doesn't do well when expose to the press for long periods of time . Hillary knows this, which is why she'll stay in the race.

Xpert11 is right. This will be brokered convention. I will stand by my prediciton made mroe than six months ago. The official ticket will be these two, if the Dems really mean to avoid a meltdown. I do think Hillar ywould accept being Vice President. I don't think Obama would like having her knife at his back, but he'd put up with it if it got him the big chair.

Time for a Rethink

Hillary winning Texas and capturing the South American voting block in the process has upset my thinking and Richards will be sitting unease. Richards best bet for the VP slot now seems to be to drop out and endorse Obama . Richards should then actively campaign for Obama which might be enough to get him over the line.

I could be reading this wrong Hillary may regard McCain as a big enough threat to the South American voter block to bring Richards on board.

[edit on 5-3-2008 by xpert11]

posted by Justin Oldham
It's possible that the Texas win will signal a shift in the Hispanic vote that could make Senator Clinton a force . . Obama doesn't do well when exposed to the press for long periods of time . Hillary knows this, which is why she'll stay in the race. Xpert11 is right. This will be a brokered convention. I will stand by my predication made more than six months ago. The official ticket will be these two, if the Dems really mean to avoid a meltdown. I do think Hillary would accept being Vice President. I don't think Obama would like having her knife at his back, but he'd put up with it if it got him the big chair.

I cannot see the Dem PROs going for Obama. He’s an outsider as far as they are concerned. Few if any “know” him well. He has not been well vetted for a national race. Hillary OTOH, is well oiled material. She is both known by them and she knows them too. With Obama it could b a surprise a minute, with Hillary it may be a YAWN but you know what is coming! Predictable. Reliable. IF you are a pro, you don’t put your bets on the newby, you go with your tested candidate. Experience really does count.

reply to post by xpert11

posted by xpert11
Hillary winning Texas and capturing the South American voting block in the process has upset my thinking and Richards will be sitting unease. I could be reading this wrong Hillary may regard McCain as a big enough threat to the South American voter block to bring Richards on board.

Up here we refer to people who live south of the US Mexican border - which I often describe as south of the Rio Grande - as Latin or Latino meaning the people I just mentioned. Although the term Latin America covers all the land mass south from Juarez to Tierra del Fuego. Hispanics OTOH which would include Spanish speaking people from the Caribbean, Puerto Rico, the Philippines and other Spanish settled places around the globe.

Like too many words in American-speak, we use them interchangeably so it is made hard for others to know what we are saying due to our careless use of the language. I prefer to think of Latinos as Mexicans and people of the Central American republics. Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rico, El Salvador and Panama. Belize excluded because America never controlled it and consequently, its people are not impoverished as those who are under American hegemony.

Yes, Hillary “connected” with Hispanics in Texas. If she wins, I am satisfied she would do best with Obama as her No.2. In reverse however, that will not work because it would be a bad move for her. She has more power as a junior senator from New York than she wold as VP. Cheney as an exception.

[edit on 3/5/2008 by donwhite]

Originally posted by donwhite
I cannot see the Dem PROs going for Obama. He’s an outsider as far as they are concerned. Few if any “know” him well. He has not been well vetted for a national race.

Earlier in this thread, and in others, you doubted me when I said that America was ready to vote for a black man. Now, here we are. Your experience argument rings true, but I still sense a little bit of the old school stuff going on here.

If Obama was going to be beaten on race, he never would have made it this far. I don't care for his politics, but I am willing to admit that America is ready to vote for a black man. We have come that far.

Obama does benefit from Political Correctness. So does Hillary, but to a much lesser extent. I think she's ready to be number two on the ticket. I think she wants it that badly. I also think that the media is turning on Obama, and so is the mood of the country.

Anyone with a pulse has already measured Obama up against McCain, and they've had to admit that the young Senator is...lacking. The voters have had just long enough to get used to Obama, and they're starting to question his credentials. Hillary knows that emotions are cooling. Even she can sense that disturbance in the force. THAT is why she's still in the race.

posted by donwhite
I cannot see the Dem PROs going for Obama. He’s an outsider as far as they are concerned. Few if any “know” him well. He has not been well vetted for a national race.

reply to post by Justin Oldham

Earlier, you doubted me when I said that America was ready to vote for a black man. Now, here we are. Your experience argument rings true, but I still sense a little bit of the old school stuff going on here.

No J/O, I deny that “old school stuff” thinking still dominates my arguments. I admit I was wrong - at least on the Dems side of the voter rolls - that Americans were ready to vote black. It’s only 2 years since Tennessee’s Ford-Corker race went down on color for the GOPs. Maybe that revulsed many voters into Obama’s column? OTOH, even with race now finally put behind us, we must still come next to experience. Being president is no job for an amateur as Bush43 has proven all too many times. A "faith based" presidency we cannot survive more of. This one is a shambles in anyone's honest estimation. But I digress.

Obama indeed “caught a wave.” No doubt about that. If the wave had still been running in Ohio and Texas, I’d have said “What the blankety blank blank, let’s go for it!” But the wave did not run to Ohio and Texas. And worse, I do not see Obama catching another wave and it running to November.

On that day, November 4, if the Dems are to win, they will have to deal with the LAST Vietnam War regurgitation. Running a light-weight in the No. 1 slot would risk foregoing the best opportunity an opposition party has had to gain the WH since Herbert Hoover ran the veterans out of W-DC.

I don't care for his politics, but I am willing to admit that America is ready to vote for a black man. We have come that far. Obama does benefit from Political Correctness. So does Hillary, but to a much lesser extent.

I agree with that observation in the case of both candidates and I wonder will that PC balm still work to each candidate’s benefit on November 4? To put it bluntly, can Obama carry Tennessee? What do you think? About Tennessee. Yes ____ No ____ .

Anyone with a pulse has already measured Obama up against McCain, and they've had to admit that the young Senator is ... lacking. Hillary knows that [pro Obama] emotions are cooling. Even she can sense that disturbance in the force. THAT is why she's still in the race. I think she's ready to be number two on the ticket. I think she wants it that badly.

Badly? How about “badly” enough to work 24/7 for 2 years? Can you imagine how physically demanding that must be not to speak or the emotional drain? Only the Huck was in the race for the fun of it (and the next Bridal Shower). He was as surprised as anyone that his “message” resonated outside the Bible Belt.

I am still of the mind that he and McCain have struck a deal and that he will be No. 2 on the GOP ticket. It’s the same logic I rely on to put Obama as No.2 on the Dem ticket. Both Huck’s and Obama’s followers are unswervingly “devoted” and will stay behind each man come Hell or High Water. And without regard as to which spot on the ticket either man occupies. Being on the ticket is the crucial element. Especially for Obama.

[edit on 3/6/2008 by donwhite]

reply to post by Justin Oldham

OTTAWA (Reuters) - A major controversy over the sincerity of U.S. Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama's attacks on NAFTA was triggered by a leaked memo on Thursday in which Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper's chief of staff Ian Brodie had implied the [Obama] criticism of the free trade agreement was "primarily political [posturing]."

Harper has promised an investigation into the leak of the memo. Obama's team denied he was being insincere but rival Hillary Clinton said the memo showed her opponent could not be trusted. The affair is an embarrassment for Harper's right-leaning Conservative government, which won power in 2006 by promising to restore more morality to politics. Critics have accused Harper of being too close to U.S. President George W. Bush. The chances of Brodie losing his job [for the leak] appear to be remote. Harper, who does little to hide his contempt for the media, is fiercely loyal to his staff Harper said that the leak was "blatantly unfair" to Obama's campaign.

CBC quoted an unnamed Obama advisor as saying the leak was "really, really stupid." A Clinton advisor told reporters that the furor had helped her win the Democratic primary contests in Texas and Ohio on Tuesday.

This NAFTA controversy will not go away. It will be heard again. Especially in PA which like Ohio is part of the RUST Belt. NAFTA has done no good in this part of America. Obviously this does not advance Obama’s “Ride the Wave” theme which is becoming crucial to his nomination. Experience counts with these Rust Belt voters and Hillary is the one with the experience. Between Labor Day and Election Day, she can chop McCain and the Huck into little pieces!

[edit on 3/6/2008 by donwhite]

Oh its been killing me to have been unable to get on here and voice an opinion for the last couple of weeks! Thankfully I"ve been able to read up. Seeker Mom -- don't give up so easily. Don and Justin I so value your perspectives.

You all seem to be open to what you may begin hearing about -- something called CC2 -- a call for re-evalution of our Constitution. Could voting process and true representation in government be the issues that push us into it? Ca

Can this primary season and presidential run up be the catalysts for change -- bringing many more people into the discussion?

I'm so excited with Hillary's recent wins. I would have said anyway as J/O did -- she should definitely stay in through Denver. And by the way I know someone who is going to Denver and was pledged as a delegate for Edwards. She wasn't keen on either Obama or Clinton when I last spoke with her. Can't wait to run into her again Friday night!

Oh -- have you seen John McCain making his opportunistic remarks about this morning's explosion in Time Square? Fox is running it practically non stop -- and BTW Bloomberg is adimately saying there is no evidence of connection to any groups and "Let's not get ahead of the story."

And here's a prediction -- watch for McCain to host SNL soon...

Don W thanks for bringing up the role of the Florida legislature (largely Republican) in having set the date for the disallowed Dem primary. Howard Dean is towing a hard line.

There's so much more to come!

www.cc2.com... is the Constitional Convention Two site with YouTube link to a documentary about the item before the Supreme Court.

reply to post by peace82670

You may begin hearing about something called CC2 a call for re-evaluation of our Constitution. Could voting process and true representation in government be the issues that push us into it? Can this primary season and presidential run up be the catalysts for change - bringing many more people into the discussion?

In 1993 New Zealanders voted to change their voting system from the traditional first-past-the-post (FPP) method or plurality system [also used in the USA] to the Mixed Member Proportional representation (MMP). How, and why, did this dramatic change come about?

The origins of electoral reform lay in the gradual breakdown of public trust and confidence in politicians, Parliament [Congress], and the simple certainties of the old two-party system. As critics pointed out, the FPP system tended to create legislatures quite different in composition to those that the voters appeared to want. The answer was a system of proportional representation - in which each party's share of the seats in Parliament [Congress] would be close to its share of the overall vote. See following web site for more info. www.elections.org.nz...

Don W thanks for bringing up the role of the Florida legislature (largely Republican) in having set the date for the disallowed Dem primary. Howard Dean is towing a hard line. There's so much more to come!

You can pretty much be sure that in politics on the big scale, nothing important happens by accident. For the Republicans it was a “freebie” as the GOP National Committee indicated it would probably do nothing if FL and MI moved their primary dates. That’s why I have posted elsewhere that Howard Dean should hurry up and declare, "Half of FL and Mi delegates go to each of the 2 leading candidates. It’s OVER and DONE. Let’s move on to real issues."

[edit on 3/6/2008 by donwhite]

Senator Obama won yesterday’s Wyoming primary (60 % to 40%). Even with the very slight increae in his delegate count, he still can’t shake Senator Clinton, who is in a very close second place just now.

Clinton and Obama are so closely match that it’s hard to tell the difference between them on policy matters. They’re both ambitious, with different personalities. Obama comes off like a happy fellow with few cares, while Clinton has an edge to her that can some times frighten small children.

The mainstream media has certain taken a step back from Obama, which isn’t good for him. Last week was hard for him, mostly because he got dinged by a series of small things that he didn’t answer for very well. At one point, his campaign’s unpaid foreign policy advisor (Samantha Powers) had to resign after a moment of weakness, in which she called Hillary Clinton “a monster” during an interview with an overseas newspaper.

Barack Obama is about to have a knock-down-drag-out fight with the Democratic party. In the same way that John McCain fights with his party, Obama must now “wrestle” with the people who control his party. Why? Both of these men have defied party expectations. They have done what nobody thought they could do. They are winning, which has upset the Old Guys who run the Democrat and Republican parties.

Obama needs to pay close attention to what John McCain is doing. McCain’s success is predicated on just two things. He’s being himself, and he’s being stubborn. In the weeks ahead, Obama is going to be tempted to make concessions that could ease tensions in his party. It’s all about nerve at this point. If he loses his confidence, he risks being done in by party politics that would end his career.

Let’s be clear about one thing. You won’t hear this from anyone else except me. Hillary Clinton is not out of moves just yet. She knows that the party is ready to turn on Barack Obama. All he’s got to do is make one (1) mistake, and he’s done. Anything worth knowing about the Clintons is already out in the open. Obama himself is still potentially full of surprises. As the pressure mounts, his famous judgment could fail him at any moment. All of that is what Hillary is gambling on.

It’s ironic to me that both John McCain and Barack Obama face more opposition from their own parties than they do from the American people.

reply to post by Justin Oldham

Senator Obama won [the] Wyoming primary (60 % to 40%). [H]e still can’t shake Senator Clinton, who is in a very close second. Clinton and Obama are closely match . . it’s hard to tell the difference between them . . They’re both ambitious . . Obama comes off like a happy fellow with few cares, while Clinton has an edge to her that can some times frighten small children. Last week was hard for him . . At one point, his campaign’s unpaid foreign policy advisor (Samantha Powers) had to resign after she called Hillary Clinton “a monster” during an interview with an overseas newspaper. [See my Note 1.]

MS votes tomorrow. I expect everyone agrees Obama will win there. I am not sure Hillary has been to MS this year. If I was her, I’d drop in sort of casually, to let the voters know we’re still here but we understand your wish to back an African American for once in your lifetime. No hard feelings here.

The next one is the BIG one. PA is to vote on April 22. This one, like Ohio and Texas, is a must win for Hillary but she has the advantage in PA. It is a Rust Belt state and shares its needs with Ohio where Hillary did very well. I look for her to repeat in PA.

Indiana and NC vote on May 6, and West “By God” Virginia on May 13. Hawaii’s convention - the only one? - on Sunday, May 18. KY and OR vote on May 20. Montana, the Big Sky state, votes LAST on June 3. Note: I have purposely neglected to include GOP primaries as that race has been decided.

McCain’s success is predicated on just two things. 1) He’s being himself, and 2) he’s being stubborn. Obama is going to be tempted to make concessions that could ease tensions in his party. It’s all about nerve at this point. If he loses his confidence, he risks being done in by party politics that would end his career.

I agree. We’ll see how well Obama can take advice. This is a crucial time in HIS campaign. How he handles it will go far to endear him or to disenchant him with the Powers That Be. A fact of American life we do not like to remind ourselves of, as it is very much contra-democratic which we so much want to be.

Let’s be clear about one thing. You won’t hear this from anyone else except me. Hillary Clinton is not out of moves just yet. She knows that the party is ready to turn on Barack Obama. All he’s got to do is make one (1) mistake, and he’s done. Anything worth knowing about the Clinton is already out in the open. Obama himself is still potentially full of surprises. As the pressure mounts, his famous judgment could fail him at any moment. All of that is what Hillary is gambling on. It’s ironic to me that both McCain and Obama face more opposition from their own parties than they do from the American people.

Again, Mr J/O, I believe you are RIGHT ON!

Note 1. Samantha Power (born 1970 in Ireland) is an Irish American journalist, writer, and academic. She is currently affiliated with the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government. Power has been a winner of the Pulitzer Prize and was a senior adviser to U.S. Democratic Party presidential candidate Barack Obama until resigning for controversial remarks she made about Hillary Clinton. en.wikipedia.org...

Affiliated is the operative word.

[edit on 3/10/2008 by donwhite]

Can Clinton Buy Florida and Michigan?

The Clinton camp has finally come around to the notion of a do-over in Michigan and Florida. As you know, those States had their primary results nullified because the Democratic party wanted to punish them for holding early elections. Now, Hillary is on board wit hteh idea of a do-over…and…her surrogates are making the rounds. They’re hinting at the idea that they can raise the money to pay for those new elections.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. I am offended that a political party could or would even consider nullifying the election results in any State. The DNC doesn’t hav that kind of power…yet.

If Hillary’s people pay for new elections in Florida nad Michigan, you can bet that DNC troops will be heavily involved. Not only would the Democratic party be setting new and harmful legal precedents, but…Clinton would be in a position to rig those elections. If she gets favorable results, detractors will claim she rigged the totals…even if she did not.

You'd think that the Obama camp would not agree to this turn of events. He should know the risks. If he does go along, you can bet that some fix will be in that he approves of...or...cannot prevent.

It bothers me deeply that nobody sees this potential power grab for what it is. The Democrats can kill two birds with one stone. If they gain the power to make elections turn out how they want, the rest of us will suffer in ways we haven’t even thought of…yet.

reply to post by Justin Oldham


Well I for cant argue with your logic in the post I am replying to.

On to other matters .

As for the Michigan and Florida problem Hillary has shown her true colours not having those states vote or delegates count suited her when it looked like they race wouldn't be as tight as it is.

There is certainly something out of whack when peoples votes can be discounted on the basis of what date a primary is held on . I don't claim to have any answers to this one just yet anyway. I don't even know why such a rule should be in effect.

My initial gut feeling does point towards Don thinking about the Republicans pulling a fast one. Its not a good thing no matter what the reasoning behind it is. All of this serves to re enforce the impression that the US political system was designed for minority control long before the days 24 hour news networks and special interest groups.



[edit on 10-3-2008 by xpert11]

reply to post by Justin Oldham

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. I am offended that a political party could or would even consider nullifying the election results in any State. The DNC doesn’t have that kind of power … yet.

J/O, you’re driving me to madness. Take back your offense. It’s misdirected. We have next to no national government. Everything is done at the state level. We have 50 laws on this and 50 laws on that and 50 laws on the other thing. Can you imagine how much extra legal work that creates? How much confusion. How much misunderstanding?

Forever each state has been permitted to control the primary elections. That’s federal law. One more I’d change. This was the basis down south for denying blacks the RIGHT to vote in primaries. It has been this way in the US of A since the memory of man runneth not to the contrary.

In Florida, the Republicans intended from the get-go to work mischief on the Democrats. They knew the DNC - representing all state parties - had agreed in mid 2007 to stagger the primaries. Each state was assigned its date. After that, the Republicans under Jeb Bush and now Charlie Crist in a totally Republican dominated legislature, gerrymandered to a 2 to 1 majority despite having barely 50% of the registered voters, changed the state primary date to befuddle the Dems. Which they have succeeded in doing.

The penalty was part of the schedule agreed on in 2007, well before FL and MI moved their primaries. I am not aware how or why Mi moved its. I know exactly how and why FL moved its.

If Hillary’s people pay for new elections in Florida and Michigan, you can bet that DNC troops will be heavily involved. Not only would the Democratic party be setting new and harmful legal precedents, but … Clinton would be in a position to rig those elections. You'd think that the Obama camp would not agree to this turn of events. He should know the risks. If he does go along, you can bet that some fix will be in that he approves of ... or ... cannot prevent.

Surely IF there is a GOD in Heaven HE will not allow one candidate to pay for the election, especially since its going to cost $20 million. That’s outrageous. I can’t believe Hillary would have proposed that. Or anyone. It’s a state expense. Or the DNC expense. But not a candidate’s expense.

I wish Howard Dean would allot the delegates 50/50 and move on! The Dems are looking more and more like incompetent fools.

It bothers me deeply that nobody sees this potential power grab for what it is. The Democrats can kill two birds with one stone. If they gain the power to make elections turn out how they want, the rest of us will suffer in ways we haven’t even thought of … yet ..

I think most people do not understand what you are talking about. That’s because 99.44% of the people think the Federal government regulates elections. All elections. Hey, did not the Congress pass the Voter’s Rights Act in 1965? Did not the Attorney General of the US go down South and register voters?

[edit on 3/10/2008 by donwhite]