Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 3
12
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by duster
Personally I think that the best thing the Dems. could do for the GOP is to nominate Hillary as the Dem candidate. I could be wrong but I just don't see her as electable. I think a lot of people already have her number.


If the Dems are fool enough to go with Hillary they will have to accept responsiblity for what will happen. She will win if she survives because bush minor has so evicerated the republican party I don't think that there is a GOP candidate who can win, certainly not clueless Guillani or fading McCain. Thompson won't get the nod, its obvious he doesn't want it bad enough and Romney, we won't elect a Mormon anytime soon. A Jew or a black will get the presidency before a Mormon. If the GOP had any brains left they would draft Colin Powell, just like if the Dems had any brains left they would draft Al Gore. We would as a nation wold benefit far more from having those two running against each other as opposed to the current crop of midgets running.

What will happen if Hillary gets the nomination? It will split us liberals while uniting the right wing; it will be a bloodbath that will make the swift boating of John Kerry seem like a small razor nick. Every right wing whacko will come out of the wood work to take pot shots at her and perhaps real shot as well. If Hillary gets the nod, it would not surprise me one bit if there was an assassination attempt against her.

No matter it is not going to be a pretty election season and for the good of the country the last thing we need is another clinton or another bush.

[edit on 27-7-2007 by grover]




posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 08:27 PM
link   

posted by grover
If the Dems are fool enough to go with Hillary they will have to accept responsibility for what will happen. She will win if she survives because Bush Minor has so eviscerated the Republican party I don't think that there is a GOP candidate who can win, certainly not clueless Giuliani or fading McCain. Thompson won't get the nod, its obvious he doesn't want it bad enough and (1) Romney, we won't elect a Mormon anytime soon. A Jew or a black will get the presidency before a Mormon. If the GOP had any brains left they would draft (2) Colin Powell, just like if the Dems had any brains left they would draft (3) Al Gore. We would as a nation would benefit far more from having those two running against each other as opposed to the current crop of midgets running. What will happen if Hillary gets the nomination? It will (4) split us liberals while uniting the right wing; it will be a bloodbath that will make the (5) Swift boating of John Kerry seem like a small razor nick. Every right wing whacko will come out of the woodwork to take pot shots at her and perhaps (6) a real shot as well. If Hillary gets the nod, it would not surprise me one bit if there was an assassination attempt against her. No matter it is not going to be a pretty election season and for the good of the country the (7) last thing we need is another Clinton or another Bush.


1) I disagree. I believe that Romney should do what JFK did when he ran for president. He confronted the anti-Catholic issue in WVa and in TX. He faced down the complainers. They accepted his statements and we have had no more debating whether the president or the pope would run the country. People are unfamiliar with Mormonism. Romney must do the same thing. The Mormon Church has its Twelve Apostles and one of them is the designated leader. Romney needs to make clear that in religious matters he will defer to the Church leaders but in all other matters, he will be his own man.

2) Powell has made 2 mistakes. The first was to be snookered by Scooter Libby and VP Cheney on February 5, 2003, when he made the infamous Niger yellow cake uranium speech before the UN. The Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame debacle. The second mistake was to apologize to the American people for being snookered. Successful politicians cannot admit to being snookered.

3) Although Al Gore won the popular vote by 500,000 in 2000, he has since changed to a Green man and environmentalist. That baggage is too heavy to carry into a presidential race. It is too narrow a constituency to be of much help. Ralph Nader polled 3,000,000 votes in 2000 but only a small fraction of that in 2004. Green has lost its traction.

4) Like African Americans - the Dems base - the liberals have no place to go if they don’t go Democratic. They can pretty much be taken for granted in the 2008 election. They will vote, however reluctantly, for the Dems. Or they will stay home.

5) From the moment Bill Clinton announced for the presidency in 1992, he and Hillary have been under a microscope. The GOP fought her big time in NY in 2000 and outspent her about 2.5 to 1, but failed to derail her. They made only a puny effort in 2006, running a lackluster candidate, but if they had any bad news about her, they would have used it. I’m saying she is squeaky clean.

Yes, our reactionary anti-American Supreme Court has given the go-ahead to any vilifying, slanderous lie the GOP can conjure in the 2008 race. But Hillary unlike Kerry will be ready to come back! Hillary will be America’s response to England’s “Iron Lady” Margaret Thatcher now Lady Thatcher.

6) I don’t know about America. Beginning with Abraham Lincoln we have had Presidents Garfield, McKinley, and Kennedy assassinated. Theodore Roosevelt was shot in 1912, but continued on to finish his speech and became known as the “Bull Moose.” FDR was nearly killed in Miami after wining the 1932 election but before he was sworn in. A guard was killed when assassins tried to kill Harry Truman. Gerald Ford escaped unharmed 2 times and Ronald Reagan was shot in his first year in office. Is it any wonder we ordinary citizens cannot get in 1000 meters of our president now?

7) I’d say 2008 looks like a Giuliani and Romney ticket for the GOP against a Chiton and Obama ticket for the Dems. I see the ‘04 vote reversed, this time the Dems carrying Ohio and wining the Big Apple. The Dems should post a net gain of 4-5 seats in the Senate and about 5-10 additional seats in the House. Still not enough to stop a filibuster in the Senate, that requiring 60 votes.

[edit on 7/27/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 06:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite

(1) I disagree. I believe that Romney should do what JFK did when he ran for president. He confronted the anti-Catholic issue in WVa and in TX. He faced down the complainers. They accepted his statements and we have had no more debating whether the president or the pope would run the country. People are unfamiliar with Mormonism. Romney must do the same thing. The Mormon Church has its Twelve Apostles and one of them is the designated leader. Romney needs to make clear that in religious matters he will defer to the Church leaders but in all other matters, he will be his own man.

(2) Powell has made 2 mistakes. The first was to be snookered by Scooter Libby and VP Cheney on February 5, 2003, when he made the infamous Niger yellow cake uranium speech before the UN. The Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame debacle. The second mistake was to apologize to the American people for being snookered. Successful politicians cannot admit to being snookered.

(3) Although Al Gore won the popular vote by 500,000 in 2000, he has since changed to a Green man and environmentalist. That baggage is too heavy to carry into a presidential race. It is too narrow a constituency to be of much help. Ralph Nader polled 3,000,000 votes in 2000 but only a small fraction of that in 2004. Green has lost its traction.

(4) Like African Americans - the Dems base - the liberals have no place to go if they don’t go Democratic. They can pretty much be taken for granted in the 2008 election. They will vote, however reluctantly, for the Dems. Or they will stay home.

(5) From the moment Bill Clinton announced for the presidency in 1992, he and Hillary have been under a microscope. The GOP fought her big time in NY in 2000 and outspent her about 2.5 to 1, but failed to derail her. They made only a puny effort in 2006, running a lackluster candidate, but if they had any bad news about her, they would have used it. I’m saying she is squeaky clean.

Yes, our reactionary anti-American Supreme Court has given the go-ahead to any vilifying, slanderous lie the GOP can conjure in the 2008 race. But Hillary unlike Kerry will be ready to come back! Hillary will be America’s response to England’s “Iron Lady” Margaret Thatcher now Lady Thatcher.

(6) I don’t know about America. Beginning with Abraham Lincoln we have had Presidents Garfield, McKinley, and Kennedy assassinated. Theodore Roosevelt was shot in 1912, but continued on to finish his speech and became known as the “Bull Moose.” FDR was nearly killed in Miami after wining the 1932 election but before he was sworn in. A guard was killed when assassins tried to kill Harry Truman. Gerald Ford escaped unharmed 2 times and Ronald Reagan was shot in his first year in office. Is it any wonder we ordinary citizens cannot get in 1000 meters of our president now?

(7) I’d say 2008 looks like a Giuliani and Romney ticket for the GOP against a Chiton and Obama ticket for the Dems. I see the ‘04 vote reversed, this time the Dems carrying Ohio and wining the Big Apple. The Dems should post a net gain of 4-5 seats in the Senate and about 5-10 additional seats in the House. Still not enough to stop a filibuster in the Senate, that requiring 60 votes.

[edit on 7/27/2007 by donwhite]



We always disagree donwhite but thats OK. point by point.

(a) Romney: He is no Jack Kennedy. The liberals are, well more liberal than conservatives; we will take a risk with a Catholic or a Jew, or maybe with a Muslim or Buddhist but the conservatives and especially the religious conservatives are not going to put up with a Mormon and since the Republican party sold its soul to the Christian conservatives... the party is going to have to dance with who brought them and that will probably rule Romney out.

(b) Powell made a mistake and more important he admitted that he made a mistake and after a president who thinks that he is incapable of making mistakes, Powell's mea culpa is a breath of fresh air. People, after being bull hooeyed by bush minor for 8 years may very well be far more sympathetic about Powell than you think.

(c) You are totally wrong about green losing its traction, in fact it is the exact opposite, it is gaining traction, all you have to do is look at some of the car commercials that fuel efficiency and concern for the environment have become selling points. It might not catapult Gore to the White House but it certainly won't hurt, and like Powell, after bush minor and especially in regards to 2000, there will be a lot of sympathy for him as well.

(d) If Ron Paul decides to run as an independent, that would give a lot more traction for a viable third party than anything else. I would even consider voting for him. Both the Dems and the Republicans have so discredited themselves that if a serious third party attempt was made, and I am not talking about Ross Parrot or Ralph Nader, but a serious attempt with serious candidates, especially if the Prez and VP hailed from different parties, they may not win but they would do enough to make an impact BUT what they would really need to do is run a slate of third party candidates across the country as well.

(e) Clinton; Now I liked Bill and was not offended by his indiscretions. Hell if any pretty young woman flashed me her thong, I would be asking her for a closer inspection as well...I don't expect our leaders to be more moral or hold them to a higher standard and all that bull hooey; for Christs sake they are already compromised; they are politicians. But at the same time I personally think that the last thing this country needs is to see saw back and forth from the bushes to the Clinton's and back. Personally I would suggest a law making both families wait out the century before fielding another candidate.
I jest but not by much. The same sort of thing happened in Rome during the dying days of the republic. Dynasty's are dangerous.

(f) As for Hillary, it doesn't matter she could be squeaky clean, sainted and virginal and it would not stop the Rovian slander machine from going to town on her, and no matter the truths, half truths and lies there will be those who unconditionally believe them. The thing is it only takes one crack pot with a gun and she has already been so demonized, it would not take much to send a loose screw off. I am no betting man but I would be willing to put a quarter down (
) on the odds of an assassination attempt against her from someone on the right, if she gets the nomination.

(g) As for the Supreme court, personally I feel a law should be passed banning them on the pain of impeachment and imprisonment from ever meddling in an election again unless specifically asked within very narrow limits, and certainly not to appoint a winner. I dislike electronic voting and have no problem counting hands one by one if that is what it takes instead.

(h) I would love to see dark horse candidates on both sides emerge and force the conventions into something that neither have been since the early 70's, and that is an actual nominating convention... at this stage of the game we as a country could only benefit by overthrowing this coronation system that has become established.

We should have ALL the primaries and caucuses over 1 weekend with absolutely no reporting on it by the media until they are done; the same is true with the general election... have it over one weekend and have a news blackout on the whole process until the last polling station is closed. We should also limit the length of the election cycle... this one is obscene.



posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 12:09 PM
link   

posted by grover
We always disagree donwhite but that’s OK. point by point.


On (a), Romney and Mormons. We had very few Mormons in Ky or in FL. I may not know them well or much about them. Within the Rules of ATS, can you elaborate on why you have reservations the public would not accept a Mormon as president?

On (b) Powell. I like him. He is the only African American who could run a credible race for the presidency today. Yet, for various reason, he could not gain the nomination of any party. PLUS, he does not have the “Fire in the Belly” a genuine candidate must have to win.

On (d) Ron Paul. He is a Libertarian turned GOP as a political expedient. Adherents to Libertarianism are in denial. And I don’t mean skinny-dipping in Egypt. IMO, the only valid issue is whether the Federal government needs 1.5 million, 2.5 million or 3.5 million employees. Aside: the “flat tax” favors the rich. The “fair tax” is a value-added tax which also favors the rich. Let’s face it, the graduated income tax is the only FAIR tax!

On (f) Hillary. Lincoln’s assassin was an egotistical patriot of a lost cause. Garfield’s and McKinley’s were both disgruntled office seekers. JFK’s assassin was a leftist. I’m not sure what motivated him. I’d guess it was the Bay of Pigs or Oswald’s admiration for Fidel.

On (g) Voting. Ky has used the opti-scan system for decades. I like it because it is fast, accurate and the actual ballot is preserved indefinitely for re-counts and fraud investigations. Today OTOH, I lean strongly towards voting on the internet. That would require a national identity card. A lot of people oppose that idea in principle. Maybe we could make it optional.

On (h-1) Conventions. I’m reading the ‘05 best seller, “Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln” by Doris Kearns Goodwin. In 1860 the 4 years old Republican Party’s convention was held in Chicago, chosen by the committee over St. Louis by 1 vote. Many people agree that if the convention had been held in St. Louis, Lincoln would not have won the nomination.

The leading candidate, William Seward of NY, brought in 2,000 supporters to PACK the convention hall. While they were in the streets celebrating prematurely what they regarded as the inevitable outcoime, Lincoln who had also brought in over 1,000 of his own supporters, had tickets of admission to the convention hall counterfeited so his people were seated before Seward’s people arrived to find it nearly full!

On (h-2) Primaries. We tried that one time, back in the 1960s, when California complained the people failed to vote when the projection from the East indicated one or the other candidate had already won. A mis-call by Dan Rather contributed greatly to the Florida debacle of 2000. With every person carrying a camera equipped cell phone, there is NO WAY we can prevent the immediate transmission of any newsworthy event. In seconds!


Here follows:
The Grover Amendment #28. “Family dynasties, whether by blood or marriage, being disharmonious to the health of the Republic, it is forthwith forbidden that any person of closer kin by blood or marriage than the 3rd degree of consanguinity, shall not be eligible to serve as president or in the line of succession thereto for fifty years.”

(Consanguinity. Parent to child is 1st degree, to grand-child is 2nd degree of consanguinity. A great grandchild - 3rd degree - would be eligible to the office. Brothers and sisters are 1st degree, their children would be 2nd degree and etc.)

[edit on 7/28/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 01:04 PM
link   
I do think that the current push for early primaries is a reaction to the domestic political situation. If we did not have such an unpopular President, there would be no 'drive' for early elections. There is no dbout in my mind that the Dems will benefit mightily fre 2008 early primaries. A lot of voters will use their ballot to signal displeasure wit hteh present state of affairs.



posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite

(a), Romney and Mormons. We had very few Mormons in Ky or in FL. I may not know them well or much about them. Within the Rules of ATS, can you elaborate on why you have reservations the public would not accept a Mormon as president?

(b) Powell. I like him. He is the only African American who could run a credible race for the presidency today. Yet, for various reason, he could not gain the nomination of any party. PLUS, he does not have the “Fire in the Belly” a genuine candidate must have to win.

(c) Ron Paul. He is a Libertarian turned GOP as a political expedient. Adherents to Libertarianism are in denial. And I don’t mean skinny-dipping in Egypt. IMO, the only valid issue is whether the Federal government needs 1.5 million, 2.5 million or 3.5 million employees. Aside: the “flat tax” favors the rich. The “fair tax” is a value-added tax which also favors the rich. Let’s face it, the graduated income tax is the only FAIR tax!

(d) Hillary.Lincoln’s assassin was an egotistical patriot of a lost cause. Garfield’s and McKinley’s were both disgruntled office seekers. JFK’s assassin was a leftist. I’m not sure what motivated him. I’d guess it was the Bay of Pigs or Oswald’s admiration for Fidel.

[e]On Voting. Ky has used the opti-scan system for decades. I like it because it is fast, accurate and the actual ballot is preserved indefinitely for re-counts and fraud investigations. Today OTOH, I lean strongly towards voting on the internet. That would require a national identity card. A lot of people oppose that idea in principle. Maybe we could make it optional.

On Conventions.[f] I’m reading the ‘05 best seller, “Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln” by Doris Kearns Goodwin. In 1860 the 4 years old Republican Party’s convention was held in Chicago, chosen by the committee over St. Louis by 1 vote. Many people agree that if the convention had been held in St. Louis, Lincoln would not have won the nomination.

The leading candidate, William Seward of NY, brought in 2,000 supporters to PACK the convention hall. While they were in the streets celebrating prematurely what they regarded as the inevitable outcoime, Lincoln who had also brought in over 1,000 of his own supporters, had tickets of admission to the convention hall counterfeited so his people were seated before Seward’s people arrived to find it nearly full!

On Primaries.[g] We tried that one time, back in the 1960s, when California complained the people failed to vote when the projection from the East indicated one or the other candidate had already won. A mis-call by Dan Rather contributed greatly to the Florida debacle of 2000. With every person carrying a camera equipped cell phone, there is NO WAY we can prevent the immediate transmission of any newsworthy event. In seconds!


Here follows:
The Grover Amendment #28. “Family dynasties, whether by blood or marriage, being disharmonious to the health of the Republic, it is forthwith forbidden that any person of closer kin by blood or marriage than the 3rd degree of consanguinity, shall not be eligible to serve as president or in the line of succession thereto for fifty years.”

[edit on 7/28/2007 by donwhite]



First off I know what Consanguinity means and I do indeed agree with the amendment # 28 whole heartedly though you would have to educate people about the historical problems with dynasties to get them to get it.

As for Romney I am personally open minded about the Mormons, a late uncle and his family are converts and generally they are good people. HOWEVER it is not people like me that Romney has to worry about. It is the religious funnymentalists and conservatives who will undoubtedly point out that Mormons are not exactly Christian, and in that they would be generally correct; at least not in the typical form of Christianity. They are far closer to some of the gnostic forms of the 2nd and 3rd centuries than some would consider seemly. Then there is the matter of Romney changing so many of his political positions from the time he was governor to his running.

I agree with you on Powell... the very thing that makes him a great team player is the very thing that keeps him from the nomination and that is simply put a raging case of ego. I would rather him than Rice any day though; that woman has a dark soul and is in my opinion, dangerous.

I know very little about Ron Paul but the few positions I have heard him take remind me of a true conservative, which I could accept; just not these fanatical neo-con ideologues. and I agree about the taxes as well; like it or not what we have does work better than the current options, I would add just close all the damned loopholes.

Oswald was not a leftist per say he was a mentally confused (and possibly sexually confused) man adrift. The Russians didn't want anything to do with him, nor did Castro.

I know nothing about the opt scan system.

No politician is free of charges of crookedness or corruptions; especially icons... we just chose to forget them in favor of the good that they did. None of them ever play fair though Lincoln solution to keep his rivals in check by giving them a place in his administration was a stroke of genius.

As for the primaries; you are probably right but i still think its worth a try.



[edit on 28-7-2007 by grover]



posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 05:57 PM
link   
On J/O’s early primary observation. I thought this year's ridiculously early start of the November 4, 2008, election campaign was due to a newly passed campaign finance reform law that required disclosure beginning in January of the year prior to the year of the election. Before that change in the law, public reports wee not required until the year of the election. The really big boys - the R&Fs - could donate before reports were required and more or less remain anonymous. Which gives the candidates much needed money and the donors much wanted power. There is no true CFR until the public pays 100% of the cost of elections and electioneering. Private money must be banned! Will that ever happen? Whoever pays, owns. Do we care?

From Grover on Mormons. I have never read the Book of Mormon. Others say it claims Native Americans are descended from the 10 Lost Tribes of Israel. After the finds of old artifacts at Folsom and Clovis NM, we know that is not true. The Western Hemisphere was inhabited between 15 and 30,000 years ago. Popular ideas acceptable in the 1820s will not fly in 2007. More: 20th century biblical archaeology says there never were 12 tribes or 10 Lost Tribes. A legend or story the old-timers enjoyed retelling. Until modern scientific method debunked it. Because the story was endowed with Divine Authority, it is now a bone of contention. Faith versus reality. God versus Darwin.

On Ron Paul. Libertarians - who I regard as anarchists in drag - are “conservative” to the extent they oppose government. Less is better. But they never reply to my inquiry: how many does it take to man Hoover Dam, Grand Coulee Dam, Bonneville Dam and 100s of others? Or how many men does it take to oversee the more than 500,000,000 acres the US Government owns? Or how many ICE agents does it take to inspect 25,000 cargo containers that come into the US everyday? How many inspectors for our food, drugs and etc? These are the kind of questions the answers to which small government advocates ignore.

On tax law loopholes. That is more than a cottage industry. The last time I bought a copy of the Internal Revenue Code from CCH - Commerce Clearing House, it came in 2 thick volumes. About 45 pages were needed to spell out every tax in the Federal system. All of them. But over 2,000 pages were needed to spell out the exceptions or exemptions. What you and I call loopholes. What the R&Fs pay millions to get and keep. This gives employment to 1000s of lawyers, CPAs, lobbyists, tax advisers and probably 5,000 of the 38,000 employees of Congress. There will be more loopholes, not fewer.

Consanguinity? Because it is not an everyday word I thought others might find a definition helpful.

[edit on 7/28/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 06:55 PM
link   
The problem with dynasties are that they build a machine around them dedicated to doing the family bidding; think the godfather. We have saw the bush machine in full force during the 2000 election when attaches like James Baker were sent to Florida to promote the families business during the recount. indeed we have seen if throughout this administration with the likes of Roberto Gonzales and Harriet Miers putting loyalty to bush minor above loyalty to country. Indeed Ms Miers is on record as saying that she swore allegency to the president as opposed to the constituition.

Historically great dynasties like the Colonno and the Farnese (who traded the Papacy back and forth between themselves for almost a thousand years) and the Medici who joined them, by the political machine that they built, were trans national and laws unto themselves amassing far more power than the actual political dynasties like the Bourbons and Hapsburgs.

So far, not counting the Clinton's and the Bushes the United States has had three great political dynasties... the Adams (who as a family were the Cincinnatus of early America; Cincinatus was a Roman farmer who was called upon to help defend early Rome against the Celts. After he was done he was offered the dictatorship and he refused returning to the plow) and still they are the ideal of of the citizen patriots who do their duty and then return to civilian life. There were the Roosevelts and there were the Kennedy's. All of those 3 great families were motivated by a sense of noblesse oblige but not so the bushes or the Clinton's. Both of them are after nothing short of raw political power. Remember bush minor's grandfather Prescott Bush was a fascist (literally) who was one of the conspirators who tried to stage a right wing coup against FDR... they fell short however when they tried to draft General Smedley Butler into joining them and he promptly turned them in.

Most people who have little schooling in history would understand why these dynasties are a threat... but then the same thing happened during the late Republic... the Sully's and Ceasar's amassed power to themselves and brought down the republic in the process.



posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 08:15 PM
link   
The question for me is when is Obama going to make his move ?
Now I understand that the race for nomination is a long distance race but same point Obama is going to have to make his move. IF Obama was to come from behind and win the nomination things could get interesting in terms of his choice of an running mate.



posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 09:38 PM
link   

posted by xpert11
The question for me is when is Obama going to make his move ? Now I understand that the race for nomination is a long distance race but same point Obama is going to have to make his move. IF Obama was to come from behind and win the nomination things could get interesting in terms of his choice of an running mate.


1) Obama has “made his move.” Remember 6-8 weeks ago we were complaining he is not specific enough? Now he is being much more specific. Obama could not afford to sit by running in the lower 20s to Hillary’s higher 30s. Week end, week out. Now I just heard that Edwards is #1 in Iowa, January 14, 2008 caucus, to Hillary. Obama is #3 there now.

His money will “dry up” if he cannot improve his standing in the polls.

2) February 5, 2008, is the SUPER Tuesday. California, New York and a number of other states vote that day. I’ve posted it elsewhere, but the nomination can be “sewed up” on that day. Hillary has not only the experience - and it shows - but she’s got the nerve to “gut him” when he slips. Obama is playing Mr Nice Guy to Hillary playing Ms. Smart Gal. I’d guess Smart beats Nice anytime.

[edit on 7/28/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 01:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
The question for me is when is Obama going to make his move ?
Now I understand that the race for nomination is a long distance race but same point Obama is going to have to make his move. IF Obama was to come from behind and win the nomination things could get interesting in terms of his choice of an running mate.


I have to agreee with Don on this one. The good Senator hath th-owed his best punch. It's worth remembering that he is in part so fab only becuse the media says that he is. The rest is all populism. While I do like da populism, it does have its limitations.



posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 07:59 AM
link   
I’m from the old school, Mr J/O. I grew up in a city that had one of the top 10 newspapers in America. The Louisville Courier-Journal. Where I now live has a lousy paper and it always was. The Jacksonville Florida Times Union. People who read the Courier-Journal are so much better informed than those who read the Times-Union. Most of America’s papers more nearly resemble the Times-Union than the Courier-Journal.

Like it or not, the NY Times is still America’s “paper of record.” The Washington Post is not far behind. Followed by The LA Times. The St. Louis Post Dispatch. The Miami Herald. Cleveland Plain Dealer. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer. The KC Star. Maybe the Baltimore Sun and Detroit Free Press. But this was in the 1950s and 1960s, when these papers were all family owned. I’d say the great newspaper era in America ran from 1875 to 1975. The slope is downward. The Q. Is how fast?

The C-J is still as good as you can get outside a megalopolis. Bought by Gannett some 25 years ago I feared it would become a re-print of USA Today but it has not. Other top ranked papers were the Boston Globe, Hartford Currant, Philadelphia Inquirer, Atlanta Journal Constitution, Memphis Commercial Appeal, New Orleans Times Picayune, Houston Post, Denver’s Rocky Mountain News, Phoenix Daily Arizonian, San Diego Mercury, Sacramento Bee, Portland Oregonian and maybe the Oklahoma City Daily Oklahoman and Cincinnati Enquirer. No, I do NOT include the Manchester Union-Leader of Ed Muskie notoriety! But alas, I digress.

Xpert11 asked “Q. When will Obama make his move?” A. He has. It is not easy to see. I think that is because everything is running in slow-motion. A campaign season that prior to 2007 would have lasted from January to the conventions in August - about 8 months - has been stretched from January of the preceding year to January of the election year, adding 12 extra months! So how do you keep the public’s attention? First tier candidates - measured by money collected - could not just lay back and wait out a whole year. (By “tier” level it seems to have worked out to who polls in double digits and who does not).

You and I agree J/O, that Obama has begun to put forth his ideas in more detail and he is campaigning with greater exuberance. I’m thinking especially about the “exchange” on the debate platform then the back and forth in the days following. First Hillary slammed Obama and then he slammed Hillary. Hillary said "halt" and Obama has stopped. Could this tete a tete have been scripted? It surely looked spontaneous. I am just not able to admit this race is an OPEN slugfest type campaign. On the Dems side I mean. The GOP side is definitely open.

I’m thinking of Bill Clinton and the Congressional Black Caucus. America’s leading black politicians like Danny Davis and Jesse Jackson, Jr., of Illinois, Alcee Hastings and Kenneth Meek of Florida, Eleanor Norton, Delegate from W-DC, Maxine Waters of California, Charles Rangel of NY, John Lewis of Georgia, John Conyers of Michigan, and several others. I imagine Bill Cosby and Oprah Winfry have a “representative” nearby. You can be sure there are no white persons more welcome into this Band of Brothers (and Sisters) than the TWO Clintons. When those folks break bread, it is from the same loaf.

I ask again, J/O, does it make any sense the Caucus and Clintons are going to WASTE the best chance the Dems have had since 1992 to gain the White House? Over trivialities? So who is to say Hillary has not been “assigned” the MIDDLE ground? That Obama has been “assigned” the ANTI IRAQ WAR and minority voters, and that Edwards has not been “assigned” the POOR and the old line New Deal voters? So, until 2008 comes, the Dems will offer someone for every definable voter group that would be in the Dems camp. Second tier candidates are NOT invited into the inner circle. They are however, assured of high cabinet posts and foreign ambassadorships or one of the 2 top jobs at the UN. Stay cool! Stay loyal! Stay in the race! We need you and we know it!

The real challenge to this “Illuminati-type” group is not to script the proceedings too tightly. That might reveal itself to the Dems great disadvantage. Yet to be able to inject sparkle and a bit of repartee to keep up the public interest and ratings. But to at least stay ahead of the GOP menagerie. What say you, Xpert11? Mr J/O?

[edit on 7/29/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 09:32 AM
link   
I have said it once and I will say it again; the best thing that the Democratic party could do is disband the DLC and its mealy mouthed playing to the middle crap and become the loyal opposition once more. There is so little difference between say Hillary and Liberman that they could switch parties without much fuss.... as it is they both sound like bush lite, and leave the same watered down horse piss taste in the mouth. Why should people vote for the conservative lite of the DLC? Time and poll again has highlighted that the electorate wants clearly articulated choices not the conservative and "Oh I am really a conservative too just not so much so" nonsense we have had foisted upon us.

The Republicans should stand for a clearly articulated vision and enunciate it clearly without resorting to Rovian attack politics and dis-ingenious slights of hand to get their message across.

The Democrats should then clearly present an alternative that is distinctly different enough from the Republicans that the average voter can articulate the differences, and stop this middle of the road nonsense. If voters want a middle road between the two, cultivate 3rd parties and back them; but for God's sake give us real choices... this bullhooey of voting for the evil of two lessors is destroying the political process in this country.

Stand for something damnit.



posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 02:19 PM
link   
It has been said that politicians are like sailing ships. They go wherew thw wind takes them. Whilethe REpublicans have lost their way, the Dems have understood that the country is tacking right, every so slightly. In her case, Hillary ahs been slowly shuffling in that direction for the last seven years. The rest of the Dems have been copying and doing the "me too" dance.

I won't blame any politicians for t-t-tacking left or right as the social trend goes. to some small extent, they are acknowledging the sociaty's change in priorities when they do this. Because their is now too much power close at hand, and the chance to 'rule' is so-o very close that they can taste it...We are seeing the current crop of leaders fighting for it with all of their might.

I would agree with Grover in that it would be nice if the parties did clearly define themselves. I don't see this trend in political vagery coming to an end any time soon. I do, however, see it as a justification for third parties.

[edit on 29-7-2007 by Justin Oldham]



posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 07:28 PM
link   
Mr Grover, Mr J/O, here is my approximation of how society breaks down across the social and political spectrum. Far Right, >10%; Right: 20%; Middle of the Road: 50%-55%; Left, 10%; Far Left,



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 08:45 AM
link   
Maybe I have approached Obama campaign from the wrong angle. Obama problem could well be with the fact that he is a new face and I'm not referring to populism well not directly anyway. The problem is that Obama is using his campaign to define himself and his vision of the USA. I think that a candidate needs to define themselves as well as crafting there vision of the future before they make a bid for there party nomination.

Reagan is a good example of someone defining themselves before they making there bid for the highest office. Don I know your no fan of Reagan but it would be argue against my point in this case.



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 10:14 AM
link   

posted by xpert11
Maybe I have approached Obama campaign from the wrong angle. Obama problem could well be with the fact that he is a new face and I'm not referring to populism well not directly anyway. The problem is that Obama is using his campaign to define himself and his vision of the USA. I think that a candidate needs to define themselves as well as crafting there vision of the future before they make a bid for there party nomination. Reagan is a good example of someone defining themselves before they making there bid for the highest office. Don I know your no fan of Reagan but it would be argue against my point in this case.


1) Obama. He may be the product of several factors at play, social and political. A perfect storm phenomenon as in a convergence of interests with a ready to fit personality. Frankly, and I may be on shaky grounds, I suspect one unspoken reason Obama is so popular is that he is almost white. You have to look closely to discern the ordinary African American physical traits. And, he 'talks' white. These same physical characteristics are possessed by Colin Powell. The only really black man to reach national prominence I know of is Clarence Thomas and you know what I think of him. A cannibal. Obama does not have his hands on the levels of power as we say it, so I cannot see him winning the top spot in St. Paul, but neither can I see the Dems denying him the VP slot.

2) Reagan. I never liked Reagan. I refuse to watch any of his movies to my own chagrin as he acted with Errol Flynn in one movie I liked. I dislike him for several reason. A) he tried to wreck the University of California System, the largest and arguably the best in America, and FREE to all residents of California. He almost succeeded. It has never recovered. B) He was a consummate racist. He disdained the poor. He rode into the governorship of CA on the Welfare Cadillac story and then into the American presidency on the same broken record to the endless joy of Republicans. C) He was one of the two least well informed men to ever occupy the White House, Bush43 claiming the undisputed first place on that Roll of Dishonor. He knew only 3 things without a cue card, 1) the rich should not pay taxes, 2) the USSR was the evil empire and 3) that Star Wars would save America. His supporters now arm-wrestle with those of John Paul II which it was that single handedly defeated the USSR. I attribute any decent and worthwhile act of his rulership directly to Nancy Reagan.

[edit on 7/30/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 02:36 PM
link   
I was never a fan of Ronald Reagan, nor was I ever snookered into voting for him; and was both grateful and surprised that we as a nation and as a planet survived his tenure.

I guess he was OK if you were (or wanted to be) a wealthy, white, conservative heterosexual male (all of which I am except wealthy and conservative) but if you were poor, gay, a woman or anything browner than a pale suntan out of a tube you were out of luck; much less if you were actually concerned about anything other than your own selfish needs such as a lower tax rate for your millions.

I blame the Reagan years for the dumbing down, the viciousness and the tackiness evident in the conservative wing of the GOP today.

He is responsible for the Alfred E. Nueman what me worry grin of bush minor especially when it comes to social and environmental issues today. Thanks to Reagan an alternative symbol for the GOP could be the ass end of an ostrich with its head buried in the sand.

And what could be more mean spirited and vicious than the political hardball played by the likes of Lee Atwater and his understudy Karl Rove? I know that politics is a contact sport but they added a level of hatefulness to it that poisons the well of our national discourse to this day. And, is anything more hateful than right wing talk radio that began turd blossoming under Reagan and Bush Senior? I am no fan of daddy Bush either but compared to his son.... (whom I refer to in lower case as bush minor)... he was a true diplomat.

You have to wonder about a party that seems incapable of running on actual issues as opposed to wrapping itself in the flag and impinging both the loyalty and patriotism of its opponents. Who has never seen an attack ad that it didn't embrace, just so long as it couldn't be traced. Who has a history of spying and evesdropping on its opponent (like they did here in Virginia) or a party that has embraced suppressing the vote as a viable tactic in elections (especially of minorities and blacks). And, in recent years actually stealing elections outright.... and yes I know the Democrats are not innocents in such tactics either, they haven't done it to the extent as the Republican have in a very long time, if ever.

And as for tacky... what could be more tacky and feting Katherine Harris during bush minor's first inaugural ball's as "Our movement's Joan of Arc... Mother Teresa... etc" (and other highly questionable comparisons... there have been many other instances of spastic tackiness in the GOP but that one always comes to mind first)... or a party that has all but made a poster boy out of the president for idol worship that would make Nero blush.

All these traits have their source in the Reagan years... and what do you expect? Is there anything more tacky, vicious and delusional than a B grade Hollywood matinee idol?

[edit on 30-7-2007 by grover]



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 04:25 PM
link   
Speaking purely for myself, I think that a large part of any U.S. President's job is image. The President, whoever they are, can have a profound effect on the nation's morale. All of our Presidents will make mistakes, but not all will do justice to their duties as morale officer. In truth, some people do a better job of looking Presidential than others. To paraphrase Machievelli, before you can be strong you must first look strong.

Today's Republicans are neither strong in fact or in image. Giuliani can't improve on his Iron Man image, and he leads the pack among GOP contenders at the moment. Were he to enter, Fred Thompson's image would trump Rudy's. the slick hot media mix of both men might (might) be enough to avoid embarrassment at the polls, though I doubt it.

I don't look at what's happening in Washington through a partisan lense. I look at the overall trend, as contributed to by both parties. They are both fighting for dominion, and neither cares how they achieve it. To be honest, their options for success are limited. In this respect, they are both forced to trave lthe same road. History will show that the anti-Federalist small government advocacy that I prefer was killed in battle during he second term of George W. Bush.

The only thing left to the Republicans now is to take their upcoming medicine and regroup. they are no longer going to be capable of making that smaller is beter case, so they'll have to re-invent and re-discover the merits of efficiency and ethicacy. Republicanism as I knew it is gone. I can only hopethat whatever it reincarnates as will be more to my liking. If not, I am prepared to fish in other waters.

This takes me back toath trend which is so much a part of my pet conspiracy theory. Now that they are set to rule supreme, I'm concerned that the Democrats will be swayed by the temptations that seduced the Republicans in to ruin. Because there will be no effective opposition, the next President and their Congress stand to make very large gains, indded. I'm thinking that we may not like what we see during Hillary's first term. If anything, she's likely to build on what Bush43 leaves behind in a way that could unsettle me even further.



posted on Jul, 31 2007 @ 07:58 PM
link   
Your right, be very afraid of Bill & Hillary they will destroy this country even more than Bush can..Women will vote for Hillary, not men. John Edwards is a pansy, period..he'll never be president. Al Gore will never be reelected as president and he knows it...he's making too much money scaring people and young children anyway. Obama is the only one with secret service around the clock, he'll never be president. Vice president , maybe...someday when he grows up.
Colin Powell is the only man to save this country and head us into the next 5-6 years of hell we are all about to face.
My husband says he's not running...guess I'll look at the republicans again.





new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join