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

reply to post by Justin Oldham

---

Hey, it’s daylight! Time to get up! Dream-time is over. Even the religious fanatics love to recite the Pledge, which goes in part something like this: “ . . One nation, indivisible . .” (I edited out the religious credo added in 1954).

Just look at health care. 1,500 insurance companies, regulated by 50 separate state insurance commissioners. Simple mathematics tells us that presents 75,000 different possibilities. We simply cannot afford that luxury anymore.

There are now more than 20 different minimum wage laws around the country. Even some cities have gotten into the lawmaking business. We have shot ourselves in the foot for TOO long. The world is catching up with us FAST. We’ve got to SOBER UP and get going into making this ONE country in fact and not just in Sunday morning theory.

If we must have an ISM, Let’s call it RATIONALISM.

reply to post by Justin Oldham

---

Bear with me here for a second.
Interestedly the first debate between Helen Clark and John Key took place last night . I missed the debate itself due to the side effects of the bug I have caught . Never the less I watched the post debate commentary . One area where Key did was one he was asked to define poverty . He said that it was one someone had to worry about paying the next bill of fixing there car and being rich was when someone didn't have to worry . The language Key used would have connected him more to voters as well . Clark academic background didn't help her in this regard .

McCain and his advisor's need to watch the debate and take notes . Obama could be said to be akin to Clark due to the fact he a more of a academic background then McCain . This is the chance for McCain advisor's to prove that they are worth there pay packet .

reply to post by xpert11

---

I dunno, Mr X11. Up here, we are sharply divided Red v. Blue. Reds like to posture themselves as rugged individualists - except when the going gets tough - and Blues are self-defined as sympathetic collectivists. Anti-union v. pro union. And the union I'm referring to is not the AFL-CIO. This goes back to the 1861-1865 divide. Which is still the HOT topic.

We also have voters who for whatever reasons prefer to label themselves as Independent. Which reminds me of the Book of Revelation, Jesus speaking to St. John regarding the Laodiceans. Chapter 3, 15-16 “I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.” KJV. Or in modern English, “If you stand for nothing, you will fall for anything.”

While great homage is paid to the so-called independent voter, I personally believe they are really either Red or Blue but for their own reasons - perhaps to gain attention? - pose as undecided. As J/O has foretold for the past 2 years, the political tide is moving BLUE this year. But post-Clinton, Blue is “lite” Blue, and not real Blue.

My personal division of the American political scene is more like this: <10% are thoughtful steadfast liberals; >20% are unshakable hard core reactionaries undeservedly called conservatives; and 65% or so are moderates, that is, they will vary their votes according to the times and candidates. Obama’s challenge is NOT to be saddled with the “L” word.

[edit on 10/15/2008 by donwhite]

reply to post by donwhite

---

Going by my memory those who registered as moderate voters helped McCain win Florida when he was still running for his party nomination . So I guess a lot depends on how you define moderates and Independents. Moderates could be viewed as either swing voters who decided elections or that moderates represent the respective arm of there party's . Anyway I don't see why the moderates who voted for McCain in the primary's would vote for Obama unless they had been engaged in tactical voting .

The fact that McCain is going to fail is pretty obvious by now... Obama has the momentum and more importantly the McCain camp is in reaction mode... even his "new" economic plan came after Obama's and his attempt at reintroducing himself made for a one day news cycle and that is it... I don't see any way McCain can take the momentum away from Obama... they just don't have the same passion, the same fire in the belly and it shows.

SO... Assuming that Obama is going to win does anyone have any ideas as to what his cabinet will look like?

My predictions are limited at this time but I would put odds down that he is going to take a page from Lincoln's playbook and put his competition in it so...

McCain for the VA
Hillary as Health and Human Services
Edwards for Labor...
Bill Clinton as Ambassador to the UN

... any other ideas?

reply to post by grover

---

Although running government is certainly no morality play, and other than Washington and Coolidge I believe all America's president s have been accused of fornication, the memory of the family values betrayal is too strong for John Edwards to get a job in W-DC. IMO

I’d consider Robert Reich for that post although he is getting a bit long in the tooth.

Continuing that theme, maybe we ought to limit Cabinet officers to those older than 40 but not older than 55? Get some fresh ideas. Also, let’s have 4-5 women, 2-3 blacks, 2 Hispanics and 1 Asian.


[edit on 10/15/2008 by donwhite]

You may be right about Edwards but somehow I doubt it since unless they are incompetent or extremist people really don't pay much attention to Cabinet picks. As for the age limit... mmmmmmm.... I don't know about that one. I am more interested in qualifications and whether or not they can do the job or not.

[edit on 15-10-2008 by grover]

It looks like Powell is going to endorse Obama sometime after the debate so I predict that a job as Sec. of Defense is in Powell's future.

Well it seems that nothing McCain does seems to help... he attacked and attacked and attacked last night and nothing stuck, Obama just smiled and continued being the gentleman which simply made McCain look old and angry... not good.... for McCain anyway.

I was watching MSN and paying more attention to the undecided voters graph at the bottom of the screen more than the candidates and it showed repeatedly that Obama resonated with the women far more than he did with the men, even when he was connecting with the men as well and this is important since most of the so-called undecided or swing voters are said to be women.

The question now is barring some "October surprise" how its going to play out... is it going to be a landslide victory for Obama and the Democrats or is it going to be a landslide defeat for McCain and the Republicans?

The result is the same, an Obama presidency, but the implications are not.

A landslide victory would mean a mandate for Obama and the Dems whereas a landslide defeat would really mean little more than a wholesale rejection of the bush minor presidency and Republician policies, as much if not more than a rejection of McCain.

AND if the latter is the case then Obama and by extension the Dems are going to have tread very carefully indeed if they don't want a repeat of 94... when the electorate not only rejected the Dems but sent a strong warning to Clinton that they were not happy with the direction things were going.

In many respects, McCain's third debate was his best. It's the presentation he should have made in his first debate. It wouldh ave given him something to build on. Even so, I doubt that he could've done much better in the second and third debates. Not even with that kind of forceful start.

It's not being widely talked about, but the terrible fact is that hours before the third debate started, the stock market closed down by more han seven hundred points. There isn't a Republican or a Democrat would could stand up to that. If rolls were reversed, and Obama was trying to defend a previous Democratic administration...he'd get crushed just like McCain is suffering now.

reply to post by Justin Oldham

---

This is true and it is part of the Republican's number one problem... in the early years of the bush minor administration they were quick to blame any problems they faced as leftovers from the Clinton years but after controlling congress for 12 out of the last 14 years and the white house for the past 8, such claims sound more like excuses and evasions.... and if the situation were reversed and it was the Dems it would still be true. Even with Clinton as president, the majority of the time 6 out of his 8 years he had to play ball with a Republican controlled congress... the same could be said of bush minor except for this one fact, while the Dems have controlled congress for the past 2 years... its been by an extremely small margin and they have been unable to get anything done without Republican support whereas when they had a firm grip on congress they were locking Dems out of committee meetings and so it is hard for them to realistically pass the buck to Dems over any of the nation's current problems... simply put for the majority of time they have been in the majority.

I don't think even another terrorist attack on American soil would save them this time around.... indeed it would probably serve as the final denouncement of their claim that only they know how to keep America safe.

Indeed the only October surprise that might save McCain and the Republicans would be if bush minor came out and endorsed Obama.

It's being a busy weekend, so I will apologize now for not getting back to the other threads sooner. In the mean time, let's look at a few things. How can the Republicans survive as a poliitcal force? How can they avoid the expected Congressional purge in 2010 that will reduce them to a pitiful minority in the House and in the Senate? This is a serious question. What's your best serious answer?

reply to post by Justin Oldham

---

All political party's go thou a period were they spend time in the wildness after a bad election loss . The experience of the Liberal Party in Australia shows that when a selection of fresh leadership is on offer it is a very bad idea to go with the safe option . Even thou a party cant be in government in the Parliamentary sense in the US there is a chance to make gains every two years when the Congressional election is held .

Spending a few years in the political wilderness might do the Republican party some good... over the past couple of decades but especially since newt the gingrich's contract on America the party of Lincoln has been over run by ideological extremists whose ideals whether it be religious or economic have little real support in the population at large... the only reason they have continued to win elections is that they have been so successful in black washing the Democrats and liberals.

A few years in the wilderness might flush out these Kooks and return some sanity to the Grand Old Party.

Hey, look at that. We have more flags and more sarts. Keep 'em coing. I like it I like it.

Grover, I share your hope that the Republicans will learn from theri time in the wilderness. I'm still thinking that the religious right will be hard to make nice with. They're going to be quite bitter and inconsolable after this election cycle.

Conservatives will have to be careful about how they criticize the Obama administration. Rational arguments instead of partisan flak will be very necessary.

[edit on 18-10-2008 by Justin Oldham]

It's being reported that Colin Powell has endorsed Barack Obama. Some wil lcall this a game changer. Others will liken it to another inauspicious October Surprise. Several of you have already speculated in this thread that it was inevitable.

Powell is a moderate. I'm sure that race was a factor in his decsion-making, but let's get beyond that for a moment. He was used by the Bush43 administration to carry water for a failed Iraq war policy. His career as a conservative politician ended on the floor of the United Nations. Since 2004, the Republican party has grown even more orthodox than it had been in the previous ten years.

All of this leads Colin Powell to make this endorsement. Today's GOP leadership is myopic in its world view, and too hide bound to realize that it is in large part responsible for its own demise. I say all of this as a moderate. I am a moderate, and I'm not ashamed of it. I beleive in limited government, and State's rights. I can easily see what motivated Powell to make his choice.

Powell endorsement represents an important mile stone in the battle for swing voters , centralists and so on . Powell was burned badly by the Bush admin and while he wants to remain loyal to the Republican party he wants to driftt away from the last eight years of failed policy's . Powell comments about Palin were interesting . Myself I don't think race was a factor in Powell decision after all some elements of what I presume to be the moderator arm (excluding Justin how he votes is his business ) of the Republican party will do a protest vote for Obama .

reply to post by grover

---

I admit I'm not up to snuff on this issue. But make this my last comment on Edwards. He is "damaged goods." (Hey, I love the ATLA! The LAST defenders of Americans). You don't start a new project of those dimensions - i.e., the presidency - with damaged goods if you can do better. Why not look for a UNION man or woman? Heaven knows the labor movement was been wrecked in the US.

The current Secretary of Labor, Elaine Chao, who is the unexpected wife of Senator Mitch McConnell, Minority Leader of the Senate, has worked to DESTROY the last remnants of the Labor Movement for EIGHT years!

The Republicans hate labor. They fought hard against the Wagner Act (1933) and never gave up. As soon as the GOP won the Congress - 1946 - they began the ruination of the Labor Movement with the infamous Taft Hartley Act - 1947 passed over Truman's veto - and it's been downhill ever since.

Nixon gave the movement pneumonia with his "deal made in hell" with Jimmy Hoffa. Hoffa was to get out of jail if the largest union - the Teamsters - would support him - Nixon - for the presidency. That split the always tenuous AFL-CIO.

Then Reagan gave Labor the coup de grace with the firing of PATCO. Add to that the LOSS of 30,000,000 blue collar jobs that formed the backbone of the aspiring MIDDLE CLASS and you have wrecked the Union movement.

Bush43 is trying oh so hard to kill the last remaining union - the Teachers Unions - with such slight of hand as the “No Child Left Behind Act.” And an A C T it truly is.

So I say NO to Edwards. And YES to a bright woman under 50 to bring NEW life to an old cause. IMO

[edit on 10/20/2008 by donwhite]

Its not the business people with their golden parachutes nor really is it the small business owner that makes America tick... its the workers skilled and unskilled which is why shipping jobs overseas to save money is such a stupid stupid idea... its killing the goose that laid the golden egg as it were since such policies are destroying the middle class.

This past few days has truly been significant. Think about it. Over the past week Barack Obama has (besides winning all three debates) had a rally in Missouri that attracted over 100,000 people.... he announced that he raised more than the last presidential campaign spent in total.... $150 million with 650,000 some new contributers and an average donation of under one $100. He has picked up the endorsement of 2 major newspapers (the Chicago Tribune and the Los Angeles Times) that have never endorsed a Democrat before. Conservative commentator Christopher Buckley, son of arch conservative William F. Buckley, quit the paper his father founded and endorsed Obama and to top it all... Retired general Colin Powell announced he was endorsing Obama.

Just the four endorsements alone... all from conservative and/or Republican voices essentially give the go ahead for other conservatives and Republicans to vote for Obama and the Powell endorsement will carry a huge amount of weight in the military and the veteran community.

Yes McCain has the endorsements from other generals and former Sec. of States but not even Kissinger has the stature that Powell has in the average American's eyes... even after, or even more because of how he was screwed over by the bushies.

AND if I hear one more word about Joe the Plumber I am going to puke.

[edit on 20-10-2008 by grover]

reply to post by Justin Oldham

---

Powell has proudly declared himself to be a product of Affirmative Action! Condo OTOH has “admitted” that only obliquely. In 33 years of honorable service, Powell rose from 2LT to O10 - 4 stars - and the No. 1 job in the US Military Establishment, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Aside: Making O4 - major - and O7 - brigadier general - are the two most important cut-off points in the military career of any0ne. Non-military types are quietly ushered out at the O4 promotion. The not-so-smart and not-so-good at team playing are denied the O7 entry-level into the upper levels. End.

I agree with J/O’s self described analysis of himself as a moderate. Once upon a time, those were labeled “Eastern Establishment” Republicans. Such as Nelson Rockefeller or John Chafee and his son, Lincoln. Or Maine’s Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins and of course, William Cohen. And let us not overlook Edward Brooke III, the ONLY African American elected to the US Senate in the 20th century. All good Republicans. Bush43 never wanted a real Secretary of State. Most Republicans actually hate the United Nations. They deny the one-world concept.

Eisenhower was the LAST Eastern Establishment Republican to be elected president. (Gerald Ford was appointed). Nixon began it all, Goldwater cemented it - WEST control of the GOP not the presidency. Reagan was the FIRST manifestation of the Western Republicans gaining control of the GOP. The triumph of Neo Cons later joined by the Evangelicals and Southern Democrats with racist views no longer welcome in the Democratic Party.

Note: East and West descriptives are not absolute. Earl Warren was from the WEST but behaved as if he was from the EAST. Wayne Morse of Oregon comes to mind. Beginning as a Republican, he ended as a Democrat. Another WEST who acted EAST. I should mention Henry “Scoop” Jackson, a Washington state Democrat who was Republican in every aspect but party designation. A war-mongering red baiting ant-communist! Very un-Democratic. But he was our burden to carry. End.


reply to post by xpert11

---

Speaking for the Dems, we’ll take any votes from whatever source! The biggest problem facing Obama is COMPLACENCY. Lest his supporters get the idea they can skip voting on the expectation he - Obama - is a shew-in.

It is 99.9% unlikely that any significant favorable news on the economic front will happen in the next 15 days. It is more likely that additional unfavorable news will occur in the next 2 weeks. And, once people have made up their mind who to vote for, I do not see many of them changing choices at the last minute. So, acknowledging Yogi Berra’s admonition: “It ain’t over till it’s over” I look forward on November 4 to a Democratic SWEEP but not to a LANDSLIDE.