It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 38
12
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 03:08 PM
link   
Don makes a valid point regarding Tim Kaine, but....Kaine lacks name recognition that he would need to balance out his short resume.

There is one thing we have not mentioned here. None of us have mentioned the possibility that McCain may be putting pressure on Obama to 'force' a VP pick. Whoever picks a running mate first can be potentially be out-foxed. Both of these candidates have a motive to wait and see who the other guy picks.

[edit on 8-6-2008 by Justin Oldham]




posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Justin Oldham
 



Tim Kaine, but Kaine lacks name recognition that he would need to balance out his short resume. There is one thing we have not mentioned here. None of us have mentioned the possibility that McCain may be putting pressure on Obama to 'force' a VP pick. Both of these candidates have a motive to wait and see who the other guy picks.


Right! He’s speaking directly to Obama on issues despite neither yet having the imprimatur of his party. And McCain is trying to LURE Obama into Town Meetings. His forte. Why should Obama GIVE away his best feature - his knack of speaking from a podium in MLKJr's rhythm or cadence to an audience. If I were Obama’s manager, we’d talk about Town Meetings a little but we’d never do it.

I think Obama might offer to let the really talented Women’s Club resume hosting the debates. They ran the debates until the politicos wanted to sell them to commercial networks. If you liked those we have had so far, then you re TOO young to remember when debates could be both informative and conducted with civility.


PS. From Heading: Lloyd Bentsen, 1988; Sargent Shriver, 1972; William Miller, 1964. Losing vice presidential candidates. Do you think any of them made a difference in the outcome?

[edit on 6/8/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 06:09 PM
link   
Actually...I think McCain is making a mistake by choosing the town hall style of meeting. He like sthem becuase they are generally viewed as being "relaxed" and not quite for "formal." Troublei s, McCain is not verbally nimble, and the age contrast (vitality) would count heavily agaisnt him. If I were on the Obama payroll, I'd advise him to take McCains challenge.

If you will recall, teh wise Bob dole was made to look feeble next ot a young and verbally vital Bill Clinton. Mark my words, they call it "the Bob Dole effect" when McCain loses to Obama in the town hall environment.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 06:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Justin Oldham
 



Actually... I think McCain is making a mistake by choosing the town hall style of meeting. He likes them because they are generally viewed as being "relaxed" and not quite for "formal."


And also, are they not “vetted” to keep out possible hard questions? Like “What was your role in the Keating Five?” Are they not “stacked” with pre-screened questions?

Which makes those Town Meetings no more than staged campaign ads like those pharmaceutical ads.



Trouble is, McCain is not verbally nimble, and the age contrast (vitality) would count heavily against him. I'd advise him to take the McCain challenge. If you will recall, the wise Bob dole was made to look feeble next ot a young and verbally vital Bill Clinton. Mark my words, they will call it "the Bob Dole effect" when McCain loses to Obama in the town hall environment.


Well, why do they say, “Play to your strength” when the going is tough and the outcome is in doubt?



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 10:46 PM
link   
There's one thing that McCain's handlers know about Barack Obama that makes them believe that the town hall is good for their candidate. Obama needs a teleprompter to be 'brilliant.' He's good in a set piee battle, wehre he cna pre arrange his remarks. He tends to mess up when he is forced to speak off the cuff.

For McCain, the town hall LOOKS like a tacticaly smart move. In the long run, it will be a strategic mistake because of the aformentioned "Bob Dole Effect." I'm not thrilled to admit this about he standard bearer for my prefered political party, , but it is the truth.



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 05:39 PM
link   
It's being reported in the news today that the Obama campaign is saying good bye to Jim Johnson, the man who was brought on board to vette VP candidates. Seems that Mr. Johnson had too many close ties to D.C. lobbyists. Mr. Johnson resigned on his own initiative earlier today.

This causes me to bring up an issue that I've discussed in this thread before. It's possible that Senator Obama has raised the bar on morality and ethics just a little bit too high. In his quest to have no lobbyists or insiders on his payroll, he's not firing ALL of the D.C. "crew." He does fire them when they are discovered, but...

This "problem" is going to plague Obama until the last vote is counted in early November. As a matter of fact, I can tell you what his next big idealist obstacle is going to be. Some time during the next two week, Senator Obama will have to make a final decision on the matter of publicly financed campaigns.

Quite some time ago, Senator Obama insisted that he'd prefer a publicly financed genral election. He stated clearly and without hesitation that he'd lean on Senator McCain to accept public financing so they could both run a more honest and open race. Now, Obama is faced with the prospect of having to honor that promise.

Senators McCain and Obama each have no incentive to accept public monies for their general election bids. They're both pulling in more money through private donations than they could ever hope to receive from the Federal government. It's worth noting that BOTH candidates have stayed away from this question. Neither wants to be the first to answer.

I bring this to your attention because it doesn't take a conspiracy theorist to see that Obama is headed for a "crisis moment" that might cost him the election. If you go back to the earliest days of this thread, you'll see that several of us have speculated that Obama's idealism contrasts poorly with his lack of substance. He's been long on proclamations of grand vision, and too short on the specifics of how we achieve those goals.

He's not the first presidential candidate to make this mistake, and he won't be the last. Voters like to be hopeful, and they do gravitate towards a more positive portrat of the future. Himmy Carter and Ronald Reagan each came to office on high-minded rhetoric. FDR, Eisenhower, and JFK each appealed to our better natures.

It's true that the Republicans will take chances with the issue of race. They won't have to be so daring when it comes to the matter of Obama's idealism. The charges they make will be founded on non-racial appeals to emotion and logic. Long resume versus short resume. "Witty" versus "Worldly." Realism versus idealism.

Even if the GOP can successfully wield such a devasting weapon, they've still got the war and the failing economy to contend with. Terrorist action on U.S. soil might very well tip things in McCain's favor.

Voters under the age of 30 have driven the primaries. Voters over the age of 30 will decide the outcome of the general election. Future historians may very well say that this eleciton was Barack Obama's to win, or to lose.



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Justin Oldham
 


Undue lobbyist influence. Ethics in collecting money - what is the quid pro qu? Up to now, Obama has been the visionary, idealistic, bearer of hope, but now we are asking Barack “where’s the beef?”

He will have to convince the voters there is some real substance behind his winsome facade. Because the young people of American show so much disdain for the old time politics of racism, it is very likely this will be the first election since 1968 that the GOP gives up on it. For every half million 'Good ole Boy' red neck voters each thinly veiled race based attack would gain, it is likely to bring out another million Millennium voters.

But what if ObL manages to pull off a terrorist attack on the American mainland again? Suppose sometime somewhere in the first 2 weeks of October, ObL manages another spectacular event, a high profile attack. Will the voters disregard the failed Iraq war and the failed economic policies of the Republicans to vote for an ex POW who managed to survive? I mean what do you learn as a POW that makes you a BETTER choice for president?

It is 2 months to the conventions. Then 2 more months to the election. If there is a GOD in Heaven, I beseech HIM to NEVER let this happen again. A 23 months long campaign.



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 02:01 PM
link   
I agree that it was a mistake to begin campaigning so early. "Campaign fatigue" has affected a lot of people. If I wren't a political junkie, I'd be worn out too.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 09:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Justin Oldham
 



I agree that it was a mistake to begin campaigning so early. "Campaign fatigue" has affected a lot of people. If I weren't a political junkie, I'd be worn out too.


We are on the horns of a dilemma. We have the old NYTimes v. Sullivan case which was the first to say that public figures were fair game. That case held the First Amendment’s “Free Speech” clause gave anyone the right to utter false statements even if the speaker knows the statements are false unless the injured party can prove the utterance was done with the conscious intent to cause harm. Maliciously. In other words, I can repeat a bad joke about a public figure which disparages his or her character which if I had done that to a private citizen would be actionable, but provided I did not intend harm to that public figure, I would escape liability.

You can see the difficulty of crossing that legal hurdle. It is not easy (or is it even possible?) to prove anyone’s intentions. The end result is that public figures must accept abuse without any ability to slow or halt it. Add to that the 2-3 year backlog in our court system so even it you sued, it would be too long to be of value. As they have always said, “Justice delayed is justice denied.”

Next you have the series of cases which equate money and campaign donations with “Free Speech.” Anyone with money can engage in politics without restrictions. Say hello Ross Perot. Say ALMOST hello, Mike Bloomberg.

Essentially those cases say the Congress cannot prohibit and cannot do much to regulate the money that goes into electioneering. This is done on the grounds the Constitution protects free speech - in this case money equals speech - as in the earlier flag burning equals speech - from any Congressional interference. This line of reasoning is completely disconnected from the pernicious effects MONEY has had on campaigns. From the second election under this Constitution in 1792, there have been complaints about the use and misuse of money in elections. And as the FFs could not solve the dilemma, neither have we.

Aside: In one gubernatorial election in KY the winning candidate came from behind without 100s of cases of whiskey or cash to pay for votes by stationing his operatives between the incumbent candidate's workers who were buying votes and the voting place. After the voter had made his deal with the first worker the second worker would offer the voter TWO TIMES the amount - usually $1/$2 (this in 1937) - to vote for their candidate payable AFTER the election! It worked. The voter was able to collect $1 up front then got his $2 bonus after really casting his vote for the second candidate. End.

You may have already read my postings where I count the number of times the words, “elect” “election” “electoral” and “vote” are in the US Con and its amendments. Eleven times. Free Speech on the other hand appears only ONE time and that it the First Amendment. I go on to argue that it is LUDICROUS to insist that 300 million people cannot make all reasonable and necessary rules for the conduct of elections including all the pre-voting day electioneering.

Which all the foregoing commentary comes down to is this. We cannot make any rational, reasonable or desirable rules. That is where the current Supreme Court has put us. Rehnquist followed by Roberts. I know in my AuH2O heart of hearts that if we had the Warren Court that would not be the case.

We are dealing with judicial IDEOLOGUES as evidenced by yesterday’s 5 to 4 decision on the Detention of Terrorists Act (DTA) which denies the right of the Writ of Habeas Corpus to the detainees. But see Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2: “The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.” What is so hard about that?

CSpan ran the oral arguments last night. The Administration’s representative made himself look either disingenuous or stupid by avoiding the question. He could not make an adequate response to the 2 most pertinent questions the 5 majority SC members repeated 2 dozens times or more: “Why the SIX years delay in reviewing the cases? How can you ask for MORE time?”

It is well known that in politics you begin working on the NEXT election the day after the instant election. The 2012 campaign will begin on November 5, 2008. We know that. It has always been that way. We on the outside of politics do not always keep in mind the people on the inside are FULL TIME politicos. Despite Thomas Jefferson’s oft repeated but idyllic dream that the Congress would be made up of part-time legislators just in off the farm to do the nation’s business then hurrying back to the farm in time for harvest, it was never that way even in Jefferson’s own time.

I am under the impression one of the provisions in the McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform Act of 2006 brought this unpleasant condition about. Another case of the law of unintended consequences trumping our laws. McC-F allowed contributions to be made beginning January 1, 2007. The K Street “Big Boys” - the big full time players - have always sent money on an "as-needed" basis. This was a loophole the McC-F bill meant to close. I think they believed that by setting that date - Jan 1 2007 - the law would cover 99% of all the contributed money going into the quadrennial presidential contests.

That may well have been true, but it also meant the candidates had to go public. You had to declare if you wanted money. Any serious aspirant had to set up “exploratory” committees if they did not want to “throw their hat in the ring” at that time. No potential candidate could sit idly by while the opposition was contacting - say dealing with - all the known contributors.

And here we are. A 23 months long campaign for the presidency every 4 years. Because one or the other of the two nominees will return to the Senate to be joined by Sen. Clinton as well as Sens. Joe Biden and Chris Dodd, surely there will be some laws restricting the public duration of campaigning. Hallelujah, Praise the Lord!

[edit on 6/13/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 03:42 PM
link   
I've only got time for one of these points today, so here we go.

I am a public figure. It's been a real education, too. There are issues of character and law that public figures need to get a grip on.

Slander and Libel are well defined in our laws, but they aren't well defined in our culture. It's more accurate to say that these concepts aren't understood by the average person. Much to my surprise, I find that public figures don't understand Libel and Slander, either. At least, they don't usually understand it as it applies to them.

These laws help you protect your good name, or your public image. Your standing in your community can be damaged by lies which are some times told by accident. In other cases, these falsehoods can be deliberately crafted and spread with intent to do harm.

"Opinion" does allow you to say that somebody is ugly. It also allows you to say that "you think" (fill in the blank). An example would be, "I think you're ugly, and your mamma dresses you funny."

A "Charge" happens when you say something like, "documentation proves that your mother does in fact dress you inappropriately." Opinion is not fact. When you make a statement that sounds or is intended to be taken as tactual...things get interesting.

Here on ATS, we engage in a lot of speculation and interpretation. That falls under the heading of "opinion."

Now, here's the rub. Hate speech falls under the heading of Opinion. It's protected speech. First amendment, and all that. Opinions can be just as damaging to a person's standing or reputation as anything else.

Public figures take more flak than other people because they are known to a larger body of people. I am known by tens of thousands. I'm not likely to meet most of these people, but they know who I am.

Imagine that you re a poltician...knwon by millions.

Good manners would dictate that we don't talk smack about each other, and yet...we do. Why? Because we know that our opinions carry weight. I can appeal to your reason, or to your prejudice. You have the power to do the smae thing. You can appeal to me with reason, or with emotion. When one doesn't work, you might be tempted to try the other.

As a voter, you need to be ready to hear all these awful things that politicos and their surrogates will say about each other. They're doing it in an effort to influence you. You don't have to like it. You just have to understand it for what it is.



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 08:21 PM
link   
I've been off awhile but have tried to catch up on this thread.

Is Obama using a panel for his V.P. pick (one down already) to deflect the heat from himself for not naming Clinton? It seems McCain is doing his own interviewing for the slot. Justin is right on that it has now become an ever increasingly shrewd battle of strategy and counter-strategy.

Maybe someone can convince me that this election doesn't now come down to the choice between a pair of empty suits.

[edit on 6/16/2008 by TheAvenger]



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 09:09 PM
link   
reply to post by TheAvenger
 



Is Obama using a panel for his V.P. pick (one down already) to deflect the heat from himself for not naming Clinton? It seems McCain is doing his own interviewing for the slot. Justin is right on that it has now become an ever increasingly shrewd battle of strategy and counter-strategy. Maybe someone can convince me that this election doesn't now come down to the choice between a pair of empty suits.


Yes, in part to deflect pro-Hillary heat. But it is also the best way to do it. The public wants to see some out in the open process. I believe McCain also has advisors. On McCain, assuming the 3 who were at the ranch, I predict if Obama picks a white southerner like Mark Warner, then McCain will choose Charlie Crist. OTOH if Obama picks Bill Richardson then McCain will choose Mitt Rodney.

I’m said it before and I’ll say it again, NO candidate can tell the truth and be elected. The object Is how to look as if you are both smart and telling the truth but avoiding saying the HARD stuff. That’s as much our fault as it is the candidates. No one can say what will come to pass on immigration. Amnesty. Who was the candidate in MI that told the voters “your jobs are not coming back?” Romney promised to sent the the MI votes $20 b. but what would that do? Well, Romney did win the primary.

I don’t think Hillary will get the nod. She’s TOO strong on her own and Obama will not want a rerun of the Bush/Cheney mismatch.



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 02:01 PM
link   
Hey, folks. I've been very busy with a combination of yard work and book promoting. We're having our 'window' of good eather here in Anchroage just now, so I've got to make the msot of it. That, and I've got to be available for book-related publicity.

What did you guys think of the Al Gore endorsement? Seems to me that he waited so long to avoid betting on the clinton's enemy list. Ha!

The following item has been brought to my attention. ron Paul supporters might not be happy with the Libertarians, but at least they do have a third party choice.

I'll be back when I can.



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Justin Oldham
 



What did you guys think of the Al Gore endorsement? Seems to me that he waited so long to avoid betting on the Clinton's enemy list. Ha! The following item has been brought to my attention. Ron Paul supporters might not be happy with the Libertarians, but at least they do have a third party choice. I'll be back when I can.


Barack Obama.
I think Barack has a list of prominent endorsers who can be called out when there is a perceived need. As in John Edwards to tamp down Hillary’s Indiana victory. John Lewis when the new endorsements were coming in very slowly.

Al Gore.
After 2000 he more or less dropped out of national politics. I don’t know for sure but I have not heard of him being on the speakers-for-hire tour. It’s pretty obvious Bill Clinton is making a half million a whack and would do it for free if he had to! Gore could never pull that kind of money but even $50,000 for a couple hours of bull-crapping on a theme he has already memorized is not a bad way to plan for your retirement?

Ron Paul?
Sort of a grandfatherly medical doctor with good humanitarian instincts but very much a single issue and all too predictable doctrinaire type with limited vision. He is sort of best described as being against first the 20th and now the 21st centuries. A man born AFTER his time. Ron would have been happiest in the 1810 to 1845 period. Paul has endorsed a Pensacola mega-church preacher named Chuck Baldwin who has a talk show called "The Chuck Wagon." Cute but not original. The preacher is now the candidate for the dreamy but erstwhile Constitution Party. See baldwin2008.com...


[edit on 6/18/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 05:19 PM
link   
We actually have decent weather here in Anchorage, so I am staying busy with yard word. Gotta work while its not raining.

There are no two ways about it. Gore's endorsement is good for Obama. None of the conservatives who coud cancel the Gore advantage are willing to to be seen with McCain. I'm not happy about it, but that is how I see it.

Back to more sun screen, and more yard work.



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 05:16 PM
link   
Obama is rejecting public finance for the very good reason that the system is broken. McCain is lamely claiming foul but he refuses to discuss the money the RNC can spend on his behalf plus all those John Mellon Scaife 527s we’ll be seeing. To McCain I say, Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire!

Maybe my complaints about the Republicans relying on anti-racial campaigning is misplaced. After all, they are running in America and not in La-La Land.

American politicians ran against Catholics - especially from southern Europe - in the late 19th century - The American Party a/k/a “Know Nothings.” We know Jews were not permitted to play golf at public facilities until after World War 2.

In small town America - say 80% of rural America - neither Jews, Catholics nor Blacks were welcome at the country club. Although those discriminatory rules cannot be legally enforced today, old practices die slowly. In those small town limited entry clubs, all the important issues were decided AT the country club. That meant minorities and women were left out. At the grass roots level. I’m talking real life at least in the 1970s when I traveled over small town America.

Local school boards. Small county government. In many counties in America, the school board is the largest employer. Under the mistaken guise of “local control” there is little or no central buying for anything. Each school board is laid wide open to local corruption. These practices have led me to the conclusion that of all public monies 20% to 33% is misspent or stolen. It is worse at the local level because the LOCAL power structure is doing the stealing. Poor people cannot STEAL on a construction contract. POOR people cannot steal on a school lunch supply contract. In fact, there are very few ways a POOR person can steal money. Shucks, you have to have it before you can steal it!

Even before the Civil War ended - do you know when it was officially declared to be over? - white terrorism was up and running. The Republicans in Congress tried mightily to prevent that and then to stop it, but the American public grew weary of the continued expense, and so, in 1876, the great experiment was ended. From 1876 the white southerners were given a free hand in RE-ENSLAVING the American blacks unfortunate enough to be born south of the Mason-Dixon Line.

Finally, to ad insult to injury, the US Supreme Court gave its approving imprimatur in the infamous case of Plessey v. Ferguson, which joins the equally infamous case from the Supreme Court, the Dred Scott case.

FYI it was not until 1954 when Chief Justice lead an unanimous Supreme Court in overturning Plessey. This done in the equally famous but not as long lasting case of Brown v. Topeka Board of Education. Yes, you see, Kansas had JOINED the Old Confederacy and was legally discriminating against America’s black citizens. Racism is not confined toe the 11 states of the Old Confederacy.

4,500 blacks lynched. 10,000 beaten so badly they never recovered. 25,000 homestead burnouts. NOT ONE CONVICTION. That is the HERITAGE associated with the Stars and Bars. And rightfully so IMO.

[edit on 6/19/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 03:30 AM
link   
In many respects, I think we're seeing "reform" right now. It's important to remember htat a black candidate is being taken seriously. Comedians are having fun at Obama's expense in ways which are not "toxic" in ways that they might have been just 30 years ago. Makes me wonder what richard Pryor might have had to say about this turn of events, if he had lived to see it.

I've got a few relatives in their 70's and 80's who are mystified by Obama's popularity. My own generation doesn't see "color" like my grandparents did. Even if he loses, Barack Obama will have played some role in the aleration of our society. The same thing can be said for Hillary Clinton. We don't have to like their politics to appreciate the social changes that these people have played some part in.



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 08:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Justin Oldham
 




In many respects, I think we're seeing "reform" right now. It's important to remember that a black candidate is being taken seriously. Comedians are having fun at Obama's expense in ways which are not "toxic" in ways that they might have been just 30 years ago. Makes me wonder what Richard Pryor might have had to say about this turn of events, if he had lived to see it.


I agree. I sense that Obama’s “base” is the generation I hear being called the Millennium Generation. These are following on the earlier Yuppies. Not altogether literal but mostly “under 30" as we were once warned NOT to trust anyone OVER 30.

Ah, you mentioned Richard Pryor. His earlier form of humor which included much demigration of blacks, was very entertaining to me, a white southerner. OTOH, he was able to bring to consciousness the misconduct of the dominant white society. As his almost 100% white audiences rollicked with laughter, he gently reminded them of their evil past. He reformed in his later years and stopped using the N word in public.



I've got a few relatives in their 70's and 80's who are mystified by Obama's popularity. My own generation doesn't see "color" like my grandparents did. Even if he loses, Barack Obama will have played some role in the alteration of our society. The same thing can be said for Hillary Clinton. We don't have to like their politics to appreciate the social changes that these people have played some part in.


Bravo! What you say Is positively true. To label it by shorthand I think the Red-Blue divide is really the same one Washington and Jefferson disputed. Strong central government versus strong state governments. In that regard, the adage, “the more things change, the more they stay the same” seems to have application.

Did you plant any strawberries in your garden? And tomatoes? The former may be more trouble than they are worth but the latter is a must for me. Considering the extra sunshine you are getting - today being the first day of summer - is the typical growing period for plants 80-90 days - applicable up there?



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite
Did you plant any strawberries in your garden? And tomatoes? The former may be more trouble than they are worth but the latter is a must for me. Considering the extra sunshine you are getting - today being the first day of summer - is the typical growing period for plants 80-90 days - applicable up there?


Looks like we are in for a wet summer. The outlook for berries and tomatoes is not good. We planeted both, and they're already failing. I don't really mind. I've got to hit the road to promote my latest work. It's not going to hurt my feelings to be without garden grown produce this year. Most of the time, we do good with berries and so-so with tomatoes. It's hard to beat the taste of any fruits or vegetables that you cultivated in your own soil.



posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Justin Oldham
 



It's not going to hurt my feelings to be without garden grown produce this year. Most of the time, we do good with berries and so-so with tomatoes. It's hard to beat the taste of any fruits or vegetables that you cultivated in your own soil.


I tried hydroponic growing of tomatoes down here my first year. I live on the 3rd floor and I had to place my tomatoes at the edge of the property to avoid infractions of the rules of usage of the common ways. I just got weary of the every other day attention such gardening method required. In season fresh veggies are rather cheap down here. SC peaches are just now coming in. An SC peach is 2X as good as a GA peach.

On racism. I was not at all surprised to hear those polls in which 37% of Dem voters said they would not vote for a black on the ticket. There is good reason to believe that number will decline as the campaign goes on. To some extent it may depend on Hillary and how vigorous she campaigns in those race based states. Look, half the people in Ohio are ex-KY residents. From 1945 to 1975, anyone in the Appalachians who could scrounge a Greyhound one-way ticket to Akron, Cleveland or Toledo was "outta here!"

I was not as certain as I am now that gasoline would still be $4 on November 4. I am now assured by those who should "know" that it will stay above $4 through the end of the year. The only question now is will it STAY BELOW $5 a gallon! I am also encouraged after watching McCain in action. He is very slow, prone to mis-statements and uses only slightly better English than his mentor, Bush43. McCain speaks as if he has memorized his talking points and he doesn't always make a response equal to the question. When the public sees the contrast between the two men, I feel confident the 37% will shrink dramatically!

I note with sadness that the KIA in Iraq has now risen to 4,102. 6/23/08. Thank you Mr Surge! That is very sad. Everyone knows silently that it will be equally as hard to justify those as it is the 59,000 KIA in Vietnam. America and the world deserved better than Bush43 who I have constantly said is mentally OFF BALANCE. Any person who can order the execution of 154 men in 6 years - one dead man every 2 weeks on average - is NOT right. He has tunnel vision. My prayer: IF there is a GOD in Heaven, PLEASE GOD if YOU truly LOVE us, don't give us another FAITH BASED president EVER!

[edit on 6/23/2008 by donwhite]



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in

join