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

reply to post by Justin Oldham

The Clinton-Obama debate in Philly. What did either of them get out of that? I thought Obama was off his game, like he didn't prep for the event. I also got the impression that they were really not on good terms with each other. Tone and body language suggest that things were quite frosty on that stage.

Technical point: If Hillary does NOT stay in the race, she risks losing out on the chance to be VP. If she stays in, she can force Obama to take her as VP at the convention. What says the rest of you?

posted by xpert11
Following your line of thinking to be the VP pick Hillary would have to convince the right people that she could bring the Latino vote to the ticket . I still maintain that Richardson is the wild card for the dems VP slot.

I concur with X11, Mr J/O. At least on Bill Richardson. For Obama despite his unlikely name, Richardson (change to Ricardo?) is said to be Hispanic. He has the administrative experience that would help the ticket. I have never seen Hillary as anyone’s VP. She is not essential to wining NY for Obama. I love Hillary but it's clear as No. 2 she would be a DRAG on anyone’s ticket. She can defend herself adequately if at the top slot but she cannot counter adverse criticism when running as No. 2.

Philadelphia Debate. Yes J/O, on “bad body language” plus DUMB and DUMBER questions aimed only at Nielsen Ratings. Those questions were designed to agitate not to elucidate. Very disappointing.

Three superdelegates, former (right lean) Senator David Boren of Oklahoma and that highly regarded and always astute Southerner former (right lean) Senator Sam Nunn, of Georgia, along with former (left leaning) Labor Secretary Robert Reich have all endorsed Barack Obama!

Yes, Barack, you are right! Debate time is over. Let’s shred that script. Let Obama be Obama and let Hillary do her best until June 3. Then, on the morning of June 4, all S/Ds please let us ordinary mortals know who will be the Dems choice in Denver. And thereby giving the chosen person the party's imprimatur to begin KICKING BUTT against John McCain the Elder. Some EIGHTY-TWO extra days to make it happen on November 4!

The Dems heir-presumptive can pull a 'McCain' claiming to be looking at 20 possible nominees but holding his (or her) counsel until the August 25 Convention. If McCain has TWO (white men) who want the job, I'd be surprised! God lov'em, the GOP are still fighting the ERA and Racial Equality with all white men candidates and tickets.

On the other hand, if you think the Hispanic vote really has no where to go but to the Dems - they can live with amnesty - then you might figure who could best put the south into play. VA’s Tim Kaine for one. NC’s Mike Easley for another. Or, if you figure the election might turn in Ohio or Pennsylvania, then you could put OH’s Ted Strickland or PA’s E.G. Randell in the No. 2 slot. Let it be known Bill Richardson would be Obama’s choice for Homeland Security.

[edit on 4/19/2008 by donwhite]

Let's assume for the sake of discussion that it plays out as you say. Hillary is known to be vindictive. What does Obama do to neutralize her threat potential? And,how does his Richardson choice prevent the party from falling apart as the Republicans have under similar circumstances?

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
What does Obama do to neutralize her threat potential?

IMO you have to seperate the issue of selling an Obama - Richardson ticket to voters from the issue of Hillary dealing with losing the nomination. In terms of dealing with Hillary she or Bill could be promised a cabinet position . The job of secretary of state would look good on Hillary CV . Obama could keep the enemy's within his own party close to him . This would allow for a situation to be constructed (Nixon would be proud) where Hillary and Bill could finally be out to the pasture .

As for selling an Obama - Richardson ticket to dems core supporter base the promise of hope and change combined with the last eight years of Republican rule ought to do the trick. People bemoan Carter presidency and he was only in office for one term.

Of course if large elements of the population have lost faith in the two party system the whole US political system becomes mute.

posted by Justin Oldham
Let's assume for the sake of discussion that it plays out as you say. Hillary is known to be vindictive. What does Obama do to neutralize her threat potential? Anyhow does his Richardson choice prevent the party from falling apart as the Republicans have under similar circumstances?

To which Mr X11 replied

reply to post by xpert11

IMO you have to separate the issue of selling an Obama - Richardson ticket to voters from the issue of Hillary dealing with losing the nomination. In terms of dealing with Hillary she or Bill could be promised a cabinet position. The job of secretary of state would look good on Hillary CV.

And to which I rejoin as follows.
1) I’ve already expressed myself on the Richardson VP slot. Where once I was thinking it’s IN, now I’m thinking that’s OUT. See my list of governors who would serve the same function Richardson would serve - experience - but which also bring into play southern or border states all the time counting to 270 electoral votes.

2) It is not in either of the Clinton’s best interest to look like sore losers. Bill gets $200 K a year pension, 4 secret service men and a half mil to run an office to answer mail. He is a FREE spirit and I don’t see him bogging down in a 24/7 job. Keep him at the ready as a trouble shooter!

IMO Hillary is best suited at her current job, the junior senator from NY where she has a lifetime sinecure. She connects to New Yorkers and they love her. There she can be herself, sipping champagne and stop hustling shots and beer in the local tavern.

Mr X11 continued

As for selling an Obama - Richardson ticket to Dems core supporter base the promise of hope and change combined with the last eight years of Republican rule ought to do the trick. People bemoan Carter presidency and he was only in office for one term. Of course if large elements of the population have lost faith in the two party system the whole US political system becomes mute.

Last first. Presidential voting patterns are pretty consistent. About 55-60% of the eligible voters turn out. I’m not sure it has ever been higher by any significant numbers. I suspect that many people - 40-45% - a) don’t think their vote counts, and b) have no horse in that race. For them, life goes on regardless who is in power in far off W-DC. I noticed long ago when living in KY that it made no perceptible difference whether it was Dem or GOP in the capital. The only visible difference was the names of the contractors changed. Grand strategy is not performed at the state level; at least not in the smaller population states. CA and NY excepted of course.

On the “last 8 years” of GOP rule doing the trick to put Dems into office, J/O has bee warning of that for a couple years now. Other than tax cuts shifting the current fiscal obligations of the R&Fs to later generations, I know of nothing Bush43 can point to with pride. He opened a can of worms in the Middle East on false premises, then despite losing 4,000 good men and counting he is leaving a quagmire for the next president to solve. And Bush43 is trying HARD to muck up the next administration by making deals as a lame duck Command in Chief today with the Maliki proto-government. He does love his L E G A C Y! Above all else.

Bush43 quit too soon in Afghan and he’s stretched the US Armed Forces beyond stretching! He’s counting on NATO to put Afghan back together. He will have to watch Git-mo closed ASAP after the new president takes office. J/O and I live in trepidation the Dems will not instantly REPEAL the Patriot Act. And for GOD’s sake if not my own, I hope to see the Homeland Security Act repealed. And that major dromo of intelligence, the so-called CZAR of our 16 publicly revealed intelligence agencies, abandoned ASAP. Not to return to business as usual, but to put the CIA back into its original function and to re-align the others to be more effective. Like by dramatically increasing our HUMINT assets around the world. And etc.

[edit on 4/20/2008 by donwhite]

Don it is hard to go past Justin logic concerning the Republicans coming downfall . You are correct in saying that if Hillary loses out she shouldn't be a sore loser. What remains to be seen is if can lose gracefully behind closed doors and in public . The notion that someone who is as liberal with the truth as Hillary is would be a graceful loser doesn't quiet add up to me. Although being a bad loser and plotting against Obama are two differnt things I admit. I am really just throwing in some new ideas with the old ones that have been discussed .


See your inbox for my reply concerning off topic matters .



[edit on 20-4-2008 by xpert11]

As I write this, we’re just one day out from the Pennsylvania Presidential Primary. Senators Clinton and Obama are locked in a twisted “celebrity death match” for the Democratic party’s nomination. Nobody saw this coming, not even me. Most of us assumed that Hillary Clinton was smarter than she turned out to be. The Clinton genius for politics is gone.

To be sure, Barack Obama has made his share of mistakes. When he responded to the Reverend Wright controversy, he raised the bar on political discourse. Unfortunately for him, he raised it too high. From that point on, he’s being sticking his foot in his mouth at least once every other week. The media acts like they’re totally shocked each time he does it. What do they want. He’s new to Federal level politics, so of course he going to make the rookie mistakes.

The Clintons have had their own run-ins with foot-in-mouth disease. Every time Hillary has managed some headway in this campaign, Bill has come along to take it away from her. As a political analyst, I’d have to say that this campaign has simply gone on for far too long. Both of these people have emptied their respective bag of tricks. The fiasco of the 21st debate in Philly proved that.

Having said all that, I’ve got to admit that this prolonged debate is good for us and bad for them. Since I don’t think John McCain will be our next President, I think we owe it to ourselves to have an extra good look at these two…while we still can. We know they can perform well in staged events. We are now seeing just how well they perform under the worst kind of pressure.

High-level leadership often means working with people that you just can’t stand. Natioanl leaders do this al lthe time. The American President should be no different. I can appreciate the fact that hese people don’t like each other. Not any more. I am disappointed to see that they are losing their ability to be civil.

reply to post by Justin Oldham

As I write we’re one day out from the Pennsylvania Presidential Primary. Senators Clinton and Obama are locked in a twisted “celebrity death match” for the Democratic party’s nomination.

And neither did I foresee the SURGE personified by Barack Obama! He has mesmerized the YUPPIE voters! Young, upwardly mobile well educated voters. A lot are white voters who want to WASH away the stigmata of slavery that has haunted America since 1619. It makes you want to sing Onward Christian Soldiers but then that’s probably Bush43's favorite tune?

Barack Obama has made his share of mistakes. When he responded to the Reverend Wright controversy, he raised the bar on political discourse. Unfortunately for him, he raised it too high. From that point on, he’s being sticking his foot in his mouth at least once every other week.

Penetrating analysis, Mr. J/O. If PA voters will overlook the “guns and God” remark in SF, Barack may pull the upset of the campaign. If not, then this campaign will go on and on until June 3.

Then, if there is a GOD in Heaven, the superdelegates will ALL announce their choices on June 4, and this overlong race is OVER! I’ll betcha the Dems do a lot of changes for 2012. Including LETTING the states set their primary election dates. Regulate only that which you can regulate.

Every time Hillary has managed some headway in this campaign, Bill has come along to take it away from her. As a political analyst, I’d have to say that this campaign has simply gone on for far too long. Both of these people have emptied their respective bag of tricks. The fiasco of the 21st debate in Philly proved that.

Of course, no self-respecting journalist would dare hold discussions with his interviewees. But it seems to me that most of the interviewers questions were better calculated to re-hash old news or to rile the candidate into making some dramatic slip of the lip response! The candidates can do no better than the questions they are presented with. First Amendment.

Since I don’t think John McCain will be our next President, I think we owe it to ourselves to have an extra good look at these two … while we still can. We know they can perform well in staged events. We are now seeing just how well they perform under the worst kind of pressure. High-level leadership means working with people you just can’t stand. National leaders do this all the time. The President should be no different. I can appreciate the fact that those people don’t like each other. Not any more. I am disappointed to see that they are losing their ability to be civil.

Well, how long has it been? The official campaign kicked off shortly after New Year’s Day in 2007. I attribute that to the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act. Well intended but one of the unforeseen consequences was the candidates not only had to report donations from 2007 onward, they were FREE to go out and solicit money openly. Money being the milk of politics, how could you “stay home” when all around you are at the dairy barn before daylight? Mayor for a Day Giuliani tried that and he STARTED and STOPPED in Florida on the SAME day.

I’m watching re-runs of Andy Griffith tonight instead of yet one more commentary on Pennsylvania. My brain is filled to overflowing!

Hillary latest slip up will probably go unnoticed in the US because to few Americans are aware of the fact that Helen Clark is still the Prime Minster of New Zealand . While telling a joke during an interview for Newsweek Hillary referred to Clark as the former PM of New Zealand . What makes Hillary mistake odd is that not so long before hand Clark had spoken to Bill in London .

Here is a thread that deals with this matter.

This election is being setup masterfully.
Think about it, if Obama takes it there will be many "disenfranshized" gay and lesbian voters that will cry foul and probably switch their vote to McDaddyCain in protest.
If Hillary gets it their will be even greater number of "disenfranchized" Black voters crying FOUL and even rioting in every major city in America. You know for sure they will also switch their vote to McCain.
With these scenarios alone there may still be enough votes to get McCain elected.
And ofcourse if this happens you know many people will call this another stolen election, so damned if you do and damned if you don't.

I myself predict it will be an ObamaNation.

I see your point, but I'm not sure that McCain can overcome the bad economy. By the time we go to the polls in November, things will be much worse than they are now.

reply to post by Justin Oldham


Regardless of who gets the Democrat nomination, if McCain chooses Condi Rice as his running mate, you can bet the "disenfranchized" lefties will leave their party and vote Red.
After all, Rice is both Black and female.

Hm. I just know Don is going to have something say on this, so I'll het him do his thing when he gets here.

reply to post by Justin Oldham


It is 8:25 PM EDT.

Eleven percent of those voting in the Democratic race said they would vote for John McCain, the Republicans' presumptive nominee, over Clinton. Another 6 percent said they would stay home in a race between McCain and Clinton, the New York senator and former first lady.

Ten percent of Democrats said they would sit on their hands in a McCain-Obama race, and 15 percent said they would vote for McCain over the Illinois senator. www.cnn.com...

Posted 9 PM EDT

"According to the exit poll for the TV networks and the Associated Press, 54 percent said Obama, who is ahead in delegates and popular vote, will be the nominee and 43 percent said Hillary Clinton will win the nomination. The exit poll also found that 38 percent would be satisfied with either as the nominee, but a majority would only be satisfied if their candidate wins -- 32 percent for Clinton and 25 percent for Obama." www.post-gazette.com...

I have warned that white racism is just below the surface of the skin and the skin is not very thick and is mostly white.

Condi Rice for McCain's VP? you're kidding! Republicans do not like blacks except on election day. Ain't no way no self-respecting GOP white man would run with a black woman for anything. Scratch any McCain-Rice ticket. DOA!

As much as you Reagan-ites and Bush-ites hate to admit it, the DEMS have put their money were their mouth is! As a Dem, and admitting as bad as DEMS are, they have a black man and a white woman seriously running for the presidency! That makes me proud!

[edit on 4/22/2008 by donwhite]

reply to post by Justin Oldham


I keep saying the same old say over and over. . . the only way dinosaur McCain can win the elections is if he pull another Bush 2000 again and have the Supreme court making him the president.

I tell you when the gas hit 5 to 7 dollars before the elections is not way in hell that another Republican will make it to the white house.

[edit on 22-4-2008 by marg6043]

I'm watching the Pennsylvania returns now, and they've already called the State for Hillary. Now, it remains to be seen how large her margin of victory really is.

Marge is right about McCain in one very important respect. Nobody will want the Republicans in office when gas hits $5-7 per gallon. We could see $5 before the end of June, which would be very hard on the economy and the American summer.

Now, back to my t.v.

As I write this, the MSM is calling Pennsylvania for Senator Hillary Clinton, 54% to 46% for Senator Barack Obama.

I've got a new book coming out at the end of May, so I'll be very busy for the rst of this week. I wanted to get my comments in now. If you don't see me on ATS very much between now and Friday, you will at least know why.

Senator Clinton's win is going to be the subject of much analysis for the next wo weeks, until we undergo the Indiana and North Carolina primaries.

It's worth noting that her campaign is essential out of money. It took the last of everything they had for the Clinton team to pull off this win. In certain repsects, I'd have to say that Mrs. Clinton has been poorly served by her political advisors. She's gotten a lot of bad advice for a long time.

Having said that, I would like to point out that Senator Obama has made his share of mistakes. In the wake of his race speech, two things have happened. a) He raised the bar too high, out of his own grasp. b) He raised expectations too high, and now he can't meet them...which has disappointed many potential voters.

Since I won't be on ATS much this week, I'd like to point out a few things now.

Is Hillary staying in this race so that she is sure to get the Vice Presidency?

Or, is she staying in the race to make sure that Obama loses, knowing that she can beat John McCain or his successor in 2012?

These are the two most real questions that need to be asked.

reply to post by Justin Oldham



It’s 11 PM in Jacksonville.

CNNPoltics dot com say Hillary polled 1,110,000 (55%) to Barack’s 904,000 (45%) votes. That’s the 10 point spread Hillary said she needed to stay viable.

John McCain polled 496,000 with Ron Paul getting 92,000 to Huckabee who is still on the PA ballot, polled 81,000.

May 6,
IN votes. Race will play a role. Remember from history that it was in IN that the KKK gained its strongest position the 1920s.
xx INDIANA FOR HILLARY
and NC votes also. It is a long-time red neck with small Black population.
xx NORTH CAROLINA FOR HILLARY
May 13
xx Wva Highly anti-black. WEST VIRGINA FOR HILLARY
May 18,
xy HA convention HAWAII FOR BARACK
May 20,
xx KY Only state to “join” the Confederacy AFTER the Civil Ear, FOR HILLARY
and
xy OR very liberal state, FOR BARACK
June 3,
xx MT Big Sky Country. FOR HILLARY
and
SD Amongst the poorest state north of the Mason-Dixon line.
xx FOR HILLARY.

Six out of the last 8 states will go for Hillary.

That performance - if it happens as I see it - will keep the superdelegates busy watching. Regardless how it comes out at the polls, LET’S HOPE THE S/D VOTE ON JUNE 4.

[edit on 4/23/2008 by donwhite]

reply to post by Alxandro


IMO the notion that Condi is seeking to be McCain VP spot is a poor ploy designed to keep the democrat strategists guessing . I am sure the democrat strategists have seen thou this ploy . If McCain was to bring an outsider on board there speciality would be economics and other domestic issues .

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
Is Hillary staying in this race so that she is sure to get the Vice Presidency?

Hillary is still after first place I maintain other then the possibility that the dems are only running the race to keep the Republicans guessing Hillary aim is to bring the Superdelegates to her side . I for didn't expect Obama to have all the best political advisor's sewn up I expected Hillary to have done this .

In between the time Obama church leaders comments became public and Obama speech Hillary failed to gain any mileage out of the issue.

Pennsylvania merely continued the stale mate the democratic race has become much like the Western Front .

reply to post by Justin Oldham


Justin do not get fooled by the so call mistakes of Obama, like DonWhite posted on the states that has been for Hillary, it seems that bigotry has played a big role on how she won those states.

The only mistakes that Obama has made and can never get away from is that he is too black in America the land of opportunity and free people, this nation is and will ever have an issue with black and white..

reply to post by marg6043

. . America the land of opportunity and free people, this nation is and will ever have an issue with black and white..

It's odd, isn't it, that America's blacks are a steady 14% - 1/7th - of the population but yet have never had a viable candidate for the presidency until now? OTOH, who can deny that the black white Issue has decided so many electoral contests in the past? See paragraph following on Jesse Helms and NC.

Truman demanded and got a civil rights plank in the Dem’s 1948 Campaign Platform. That prompted J Strom Thurmond then Dem governor of SC, to walk out and form his State’s Rights Party, a/k/a Dixie-crats. He managed to win 39 electoral votes from MS, AL and SC. That is the high water mark for 3rd parties. As we know, that effort had NO effect on the outcome of the 1948 election.

Pres. Eisenhower reluctantly came to support civil rights. He could have spared the country a re-run of the Plessey v. Ferguson mind-set but he chose not to endorse, not to approve of and not to demand full support of the Brown v. Topeka (1954) decision of the Supreme Court rejecting the “separate but equal” doctrine. Finally, after 3 years of procrastination and quietude, Ike sent the soldiers into Little Rock. An opportunity MISSED! Ike helped mightily to perpetuate the racial divide in America.

Nixon. For all the wrong reasons, the 11 states of the Old Confederacy had uniformly and predictably voted Democratic after 1876. FL, SC, NC, VA, AL, MS, GA, TN, AR, LA and TX. Nixon realized that the south was as conservative economically and socially as any Republican state and more militaristic than any other region of the US. So he asks, why let those potential Republican voters be wasted on Democrats? Was born the Southern Strategy.

Nixon appealed across the South using CODE words to let his audience know he was NO civil rights demagogue about to shove Brown down those good White Folk’s throats! He chose the vehicle of ANTI SCHOOL BUSING to bring his racist campaign to full fruition and his election in 1968. To his credit Nixon was not nearly as much anti-black as the above might infer, but he was willing to ENERGIZE the white people’s anti-black sentiments to his own advantage.

Gerald Ford. He, along with Jimmy Carter, were the two NICEST and most DECENT men to hold the presidency since James Monroe (or Abraham Lincoln). Actually, Rutherford B. Hayes (1876) turned out to be TOO honest, and in 1880 the GOP took him OFF the ticket for re-election and replaced him with a more compliant nominee, James A Garfield. The Party bosses ruled in those olden days.

Ronald Reagan rode to the governorship in CA on his anti-black racist story of the Welfare Queen and her Cadillac. Yes, there were other issues too, but that is the one he is most famous for in my Evil Politics Playbook. He did a re-run in 1980 and with the surprising but welcome help from the Ayatollah Khomeini and the “October Surprise” he defeated the last nice guy to hold that high office. Reagan completed the transformation of the South from a Democratic bastion into a Republican base initiated by Nixon. He instigated the move of the Dems voting GOP - nicknamed boll weevils - into the GOP! To which I say Be Gone and Good Riddance!

Aside: This move shoved along the ever present tendency to polarize the county into Red states and Blue states. Purification is not always unaccompanied with undesirable outcomes. Hmm? Is that a grammatical tour de force?

Bush41 used the racist Willie Horton ad to his advantage in 1988. Bush43 has always HATED the POOR and BLACKS with equal enthusiasm, so blacks knew going in that they were in for 8 more years of hard times.

On the upcoming NC primary. Jesse Helms - a very strident racist - two times ran against Charlotte’s black mayor Harvey Gant. He used the infamous tv ad showing a white man getting his pink slip and a black man waiting in the background for his job, as the voice over said "Affirmative action at work." Two times Helms beat Gant, once by a heartbeat. Of course, that was in the General Election and we’re talking primary, but I’m telling you, once a red neck, always a red neck! Or, if you’re saying you’re not, tell me about your Damascus Road conversion.

My Racism in America commentary in brief.

[edit on 4/23/2008 by donwhite]